Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honma et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0110599 in view of JP 2007283758A and KR101378144B1 (machine translation attached).
Honma discloses a layered product comprising a plurality of continuous reinforcing filaments having a thermoset resin on side and a thermoplastic resin on the other side, wherein the filaments are in contact with both the thermoset resin and the thermoplastic resin. The thermoplastic resin forms one surface of the structure. See paragraph 0015 and figures. The fibers can be in the form of a plurality of layers of continuous filaments. See paragraph 0075. Looking at figure 2, the fibers appeared to be uniformly spaced throughout the structure, thus meeting the limitation that the fibers are distributed in a region of 80% or more or 90% or more of the thickness of each of the thermoset and thermoplastic layers and to be present in a volume content of 10% or more. Since the fibers appear to be uniformly distributed, it is reasonable to expect that the fibers have a coefficient of variation Q for fiber variation of 40% or less, or, in the alternative, it would have been obvious to have distributed the fibers as uniformly as possible, in order to provide a structure having uniform strength and other properties. The fibers can be carbon fibers. See paragraph 0022. Since the same fibers are used in Honma as in the present invention, it is reasonable to expect that the carbon fibers in the thermoplastic resin would have the properties of surface free energy as claimed in claim 6. Since the same structure is present as the claimed structure, it is reasonable to expect that the composite prepreg would display a curve as claimed at the interface with a roughness as claimed, since the same fibers and same thermoset and thermoplastic resins are employed to form the same structure, and because Honma teaches that the interface of the thermoplastic and thermosetting resin formed ruggedness at their interface. The structure can form a fiber reinforced plastic molded body.
Honma teaches a prepreg obtained by impregnating the groups of reinforcing fibers 13 with a thermosetting resin not yet set and impregnating a thermoplastic rein into the base material which can occur during preheating before the setting reaction, (see paragraph 0070), which is equated with the claimed prepreg impregnated with the uncured thermosetting resin and the thermoplastic resin. Further, paragraph 0139 discusses setting, (equated with curing), the thermosetting resin after the thermoplastic resin is provided at a temperature higher than the melting point of the thermoplastic resin.
Additionally, with regard to the claims as amended 2/12/26, Honma teaches in claim 14 of Honma that the structure is formed by disposing a base material for thermal bonding on a surface or a prepreg obtained by impregnating groups of reinforcing fibers consisting of numerous continuous filaments with a thermosetting resin not yet set, and impregnating said groups of reinforcing fibers with the thermoplastic resin of said base material for thermal bonding, during the setting reaction of said thermosetting resin or during preheating before the setting reaction. Therefore, Honma teaches a composite prepreg which includes the thermoplastic layer and an uncured thermosetting resin layer as claimed.
With regard to the claims as amended 7/30/26, Honma teaches employing polyamide resin as the thermoplastic. See claim 13.
Honma does not disclose the claimed adhesion strength in the claimed N/mm.
However, Honma teaches the same structure made from the same materials in the same way as the claimed structure. Honma teaches that the structure has a bonding strength of 30MPa or lower. See paragraph 0099.
Additionally, KR ‘144 teaches selecting the solubility parameters of a thermoplastic resin and an uncured thermoset resin which are to be bonded together in order to form the strongest bond. See entire document, especially page 6 and page 9.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have optimized the bonding of the two components, (thermoplastic material and thermoset material), by selecting the particular resins employed in order to provide the desired bond strength as taught by KR ‘144.
Honma differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose that the fibers in the thermoset resin are different than the fibers in the thermoplastic resin.
However, JP ‘758 teaches a structure comprising a fiber reinforced thermoset resin bonded to a fiber reinforced thermoplastic resin. JP ‘758 teaches using high strength fibers such as aramid fibers in the thermoplastic resin rather than carbon fibers as are used in the thermoset resin provides improved impact resistance. See page 2, lines 7-11.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed aramid fibers in the thermoplastic portion of the structure taught by Honma in order to provide improved impact resistance as taught by JP ‘758.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honma et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0110599 in view of JP 2007283758A and KR101378144B1 with evidence from "Surface Energy Data for Aramid).
Honma in view of JP ‘758 teach employing aramid fibers in the thermoplastic portion but do not disclose the surface energy of the fibers. However, as shown by “Surface Energy Data for Aramid”, aramid fibers have a surface energy within the claimed range.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the process of Honma is substantially the same as the process of comparative example 1-2. However, in Honma a nylon film is placed against an epoxy carbon fiber prepreg which is preheated at 225 C and then pressed at 150 C for 30 minutes to join the two such that molten thermoplastic penetrates the fibers of the thermoset prepreg, while in comparative example 1-2 a fully impregnated carbon/PA prepreg is heated rolled at 235C to join two separately impregnated prepregs. Therefore, pointing to Comparative example 1-2 is not sufficient to show that the process of Honma would not produce the claimed adhesion strength. Additionally, with regard to the rejection, the rejection is not that the adhesion strength is inherently present but that there is a reasonable expectation to expect that it may be present but Honma does not measure the peel strength in the way claimed. However, Honma uses same/similar materials and a similar process and teaches a strongly bonded interface which includes fibers as claimed. Therefore, there is a reasonable basis for expecting that either the adhesion strength is necessarily present but the Office is unable to make the material of Honma and then test it using the same test as in the instant application. Additionally, if the adhesion strength is not necessarily present, KR ‘144 teaches selecting the solubility parameters of a thermoplastic resin and an uncured thermoset resin in order to optimize bond strength, and that therefore, it would have been obvious to have optimized bonding by selecting particular resins in order to provide the desired bond strength.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kobayashi et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0217127 discloses bonding an uncured fiber containing thermoset resin and a polyamide thermoplastic resin but the thermoplastic does not contain fibers.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights