DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment dated 4 December 2025 is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1 and 3-15 as amended are pending, with claims 10 and 11 withdrawn. All outstanding objections and rejections made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
New grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 4 December 2025. For this reason, the present action is properly made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites a condition that a loss angle delta curve “does not have a point representing the local maximum value.” It is unclear how any function would not have a point representing a local maximum value over its range of measurement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8, 9, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2018/135594 A1 (“Kobayashi”).
The citations are to US National Stage publication US 2019/0330433.
As to claims 1 and 12, Kobayashi teaches a prepreg formed from epoxy resin and thermoplastic particles (paras. 0197-0198, teaching preparation of epoxy resin with and without thermoplastic particles). Kobayashi teaches forming prepreg by impregnating a carbon fiber with a resin film 1 (not having thermoplastic particles), thus impregnating the fibers with the epoxy resin (para. 0200). The same method further presses with epoxy resin 2 (having thermoplastic particles), such that thermoplastic particles would be in the face of the prepreg as required by claim 1, and also within the fibers as required by claim 2. Because of this, fibers of Kobayashi exist in a face between resin portions of thermosetting resin and resin portions containing and thus composed of thermoplastic resin as required by claims 1 and 12. Kobayashi teaches measuring the epoxy resin glass transition temperature (paras. 0201-0202). Comparative example 2, for example, which uses the thermoplastic particles, displays a Tg of approximately 40 degrees C (table 10, table 23). While Kobayashi does not state a tan delta peak in the recited range, the thermosetting composition of these examples has a glass transition in the recited temperature range, and it is therefore reasonable to expect that a tan delta peak exists in this range when measured by DMA.
As to claim 3, the same example shows a drapability of 5 degrees (table 23).
As to claims 4 and 14, Kobayashi does not explicitly state the properties of the DMA curve. However, it is reasonable to presume that the epoxy resin composition, being the same as that claimed, would have the recited loss angle delta curve property when measured at some temperature.
As to claims 5 and 15, Kobayashi does not explicitly state the properties of the DMA curve. However, it is reasonable to presume that the epoxy resin composition, being the same as that claimed, would have the recited loss angle delta curve property when measured at some temperature.
As to claim 6, Kobayashi does not discuss the recited thickness. However, since Kobayashi teaches the same type of carbon fiber (para. 0200) and epoxy resin, it is presumed to have a thickness in the recited range. Kobayashi does not discuss the thickness of the resin region containing thermoplastic resin; however, given that the procedure requires two inner layers of resin not containing the thermoplastic particles, and two outer layers of the thermoplastic particles, it is reasonable to presume that the region containing the thermoplastic particles is approximately 50 %.
As to claim 8, Kobayashi teaches parallel, thus unidirectional carbon fibers (para. 0200).
As to claim 9, Kobayashi does not state the tensile strength as recited. However, it is presumed to meet the recited limitation, given that it teaches the same carbon fibers and thermosetting resin as recited.
As to claim 13, the cited example does not show the prepreg tan delta curve peak in the recited range. However, since the same material is heat cured to a glass transition temperature above the recited range, it is reasonable to conclude that the recited prepreg had the recited Tg at some point during cure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection of claim 5 under 35 USC 112(b), changing “maximum” to “local maximum” does not provide adequate clarity. A function must have local maximums over any range.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 does not distinguish over Kobayashi. Given that the thermoplastic resin is applied as a layer impregnating both faces of the reinforcing fibers, after previously impregnating with a composition containing only thermosetting resin, makes it clear that the fibers exist in a boundary between a resin composition having thermosetting resin and no thermoplastic, and one having thermoplastic. If applicant wishes to distinguish Kobayashi as requiring a thermoplastic resin layer that is devoid of thermosetting resin, which appears to be the thrust of applicant’s arguments, p. 7, that recitation would need to be made explicitly. Otherwise, applicant appears to be arguing a special technical feature that has not been claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KREGG T BROOKS whose telephone number is (313)446-4888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9 am to 5:30 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, Arrie Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764