DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 4, 2026 has been entered.
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on October 14, 2025 have been entered into the file. Currently claim 1 is amended, claims 18-24 and 27 are withdrawn, and claims 3, 11-12, and 25 are cancelled, resulting in claims 1-2, 4-10, 13-17, 26, and 28 pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to reference a claim previously set forth.
In the instant case, claims 4-9 depend from claim 3 which has been cancelled.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 9-10, 13, 15, 26 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace (US 5188778)1 in view of Hosoda (US 2018/0282500)1 and Yoshioka (US 4339490).
With respect to claims 1, 26, and 28, Wallace teaches a permeable sheet of glass fiber reinforced thermoplastic material (first zone or second zone comprising a first reinforcing material) for moulding into a shaped product (polymeric composite composition) including a surface layer of particulate material (first zone or second zone comprising a second reinforcing material that is different from first reinforcing material) (col. 2, lines 11-18). Wallace further teaches the glass mat-reinforced thermoplastic sheet material (first zone or second zone comprising a first reinforcing material) comprises chopped glass fibers (col. 3, lines10-12).
Wallace is silent as to the reinforcing thermoplastic material comprising a fluor-containing polymer.
Hosoda teaches a prepreg and a fiber-reinforced product using the prepreg (paragraph [0001]). The matrix resin of the prepreg comprises a melt-moldable fluororesin (paragraph [0013]). By having fluorine atoms, the chemical resistance of the fiber-reinforced molded article will be excellent (paragraph [0039]).
Since both Wallace and Hosoda teach fiber-reinforced matrix products, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thermoplastic material of Wallace to include a fluororesin in order to increase the chemical resistance of the shaped product.
Wallace in view of Hosoda is silent as to the chopped fibers representing between 5-60 wt% of the zone.
Yoshioka teaches a fiber reinforced plastic sheet molding compound which is obtained by laminating a resin sheet (II) of the same type as a matrix resin with less than 30% by weight of a filler on at least one surface of a sheet-like material (I) consisting of 30 to 90% by weight of a reinforcing cut fiber which is oriented in the same direction along the plane of the sheet and 70 to 10% by weight of the matrix resin (col. 2, lines 36-43 and col. 3, lines 1-9). The reinforcing fibers may be glass fibers (col. 3, lines 34-40) and may have a length of 1-100 mm (col. 3, lines 41-47). The content of the reinforcing fiber which constitutes the sheet (I) must lie within a range of from 30-90% by weight (col. 4, lines 30-39). When the content of the reinforcing fiber is smaller than 30% by weight, the fiber-reinforced sheet molding compound makes it difficult to obtain fiber-reinforced plastic molded products having increased strength (col. 4, lines 30-39). When the content of the reinforcing fiber is greater than 90% by weight the fiber-reinforced sheet molding compound loses the moldability to a striking degree (col. 4, lines 30-39).
Since both Wallace in view of Hosoda and Yoshioka teach chopped glass fiber reinforced resin for molding, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of chopped fiber in the chopped fiber layer to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide a reinforced resin sheet that provides the desired strength while maintaining the moldability of the composite sheet. It has been held that, wherein the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
With respect to claim 2, Wallace in view of Hosoda and Yoshioka teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. As can be seen in Fig. 4, the base structure 10 comprising the glass fiber mats (first zone or second zone comprising a first reinforcing material) is in direct contact with the surface layer 11 formed from the particulate layer (first zone or second zone comprising a second reinforcing material that is different from first reinforcing material) (Fig. 4; col. 5, lines 35-41).
With respect to claim 4, Wallace in view of Hosoda teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Wallace in view of Hosoda is silent as to the chopped glass fibers having a length between 3 mm and 100 mm.
Yoshioka further teaches the reinforcing fibers are within a range of 1-100 mm so that the molding sheet compound will exhibit good moldability and the molded products composed of the sheet molding compound will exhibit improved mechanical properties (col. 3, lines 41-47).
Since both Wallace in view of Hosoda and Yoshioka teach chopped glass fiber reinforced resin for molding, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the chopped fibers of Wallace to have a length between 1-100 mm in order to provide a molding sheet which exhibits good moldability and a resulting molded product which exhibits improved mechanical properties.
With respect to claim 9, Wallace in view of Hosoda and Yoshioka teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above. Wallace further teaches the particulate material (second reinforcing material) may be a mineral filler such as clay, carbon black, titanium dioxide, or calcium carbonate (col. 2, lines 19-21).
With respect to claims 10 and 13, Wallace in view of Hosoda and Yoshioka teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Wallace further teaches the base structure comprising the glass fiber mats (first zone or second zone comprising a first reinforcing material) comprises a thermoplastic polymer (col. 5, lines 35-41), and the particulate layer (first zone or second zone comprising a second reinforcing material that is different from first reinforcing material) comprises thermoplastic material (col. 5, lines 42-58).
With respect to claim 15, Wallace in view of Hosoda and Yoshioka teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Wallace further teaches the particulate layer is a continuous surface layer (Fig. 4; col. 5, lines 35-41), therefore it is reasonable to presume the particulate layer (first zone or second zone) is about the same size as the base structure comprising the glass fiber mats (first zone or second zone).
It is noted that paragraph [061] of the instant specification states that by about the same size it is meant that the zone (Z1) has a surface that is at most 10% different than the surface zone (Z2). The ordinary artisan would recognize that a continuous coating would have about the same surface as the layer it is coated on, see for example Fig. 4 of Wallace.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7, 10, 13-14, 16-17, 26, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 2013/0334734)2,3 in view of Hosoda (US 2018/0282500)2 and Yoshioka (US 4339490).
With respect to claims 1, 5, and 28, Takahashi teaches a fiber-reinforced resin member (paragraph [0001]). The fiber-reinforced resin member W comprises a continuous fiber-reinforced member W1 (first zone or second zone comprising a first reinforcing material that is different from second reinforcing material) buried in a portion of a fiber-reinforced resin member (paragraph [0059]). As can be seen in Fig. 6, the fiber-reinforced resin member is identified as W2 and comprises a matrix resin Wc and discontinuous fiber (short fiber, long fiber) Wd (first zone or second zone comprising a first reinforcing material) (Fig. 6; paragraphs [0059], [0085]-[0088]).
Takahashi is silent as to the matrix resin comprising a fluor-containing polymer.
Hosoda teaches a prepreg and a fiber-reinforced product using the prepreg (paragraph [0001]). The matrix resin of the prepreg comprises a melt-moldable fluororesin (paragraph [0013]). By having fluorine atoms, the chemical resistance of the fiber-reinforced molded article will be excellent (paragraph [0039]).
Since both Takahashi and Hosoda teach fiber-reinforced matrix products, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thermoplastic material of Takahashi to include a fluororesin in order to increase the chemical resistance of the shaped product.
Takahashi in view of Hosoda is silent as to the chopped fibers representing between 5-60 wt% of the zone.
Yoshioka teaches a fiber reinforced plastic sheet molding compound which is obtained by laminating a resin sheet (II) of the same type as a matrix resin with less than 30% by weight of a filler on at least one surface of a sheet-like material (I) consisting of 30 to 90% by weight of a reinforcing cut fiber which is oriented in the same direction along the plane of the sheet and 70 to 10% by weight of the matrix resin (col. 2, lines 36-43 and col. 3, lines 1-9). The reinforcing fibers may be glass fibers (col. 3, lines 34-40) and may have a length of 1-100 mm (col. 3, lines 41-47). The content of the reinforcing fiber which constitutes the sheet (I) must lie within a range of from 30-90% by weight (col. 4, lines 30-39). When the content of the reinforcing fiber is smaller than 30% by weight, the fiber-reinforced sheet molding compound makes it difficult to obtain fiber-reinforced plastic molded products having increased strength (col. 4, lines 30-39). When the content of the reinforcing fiber is greater than 90% by weight the fiber-reinforced sheet molding compound loses the moldability to a striking degree (col. 4, lines 30-39).
Since both Takahashi in view of Hosoda and Yoshioka teach chopped glass fiber reinforced resin for molding, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of chopped fiber in the chopped fiber layer to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide a reinforced resin sheet that provides the desired strength while maintaining the moldability of the composite sheet. It has been held that, wherein the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
With respect to claim 2, Takahashi in view of Hosoda and Yoshioka teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. As can be seen in Fig. 6 the continuous fiber-reinforced member W1 (first zone or second zone) is in direct contact with the resin member W2 (first zone or second zone) (Fig. 6; paragraphs [0081]-[0088]).
With respect to claim 4, Takahashi in view of Hosoda teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Takahashi in view of Hosoda is silent as to the chopped glass fibers having a length between 3 mm and 100 mm.
Yoshioka further teaches the reinforcing fibers are within a range of 1-100 mm so that the molding sheet compound will exhibit good moldability and the molded products composed of the sheet molding compound will exhibit improved mechanical properties (col. 3, lines 41-47).
Since both Takahashi in view of Hosoda and Yoshioka teach chopped glass fiber reinforced resin for molding, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the chopped fibers of Takahashi to have a length between 1-100 mm in order to provide a molding sheet which exhibits good moldability and a resulting molded product which exhibits improved mechanical properties.
With respect to claim 7, Takahashi in view of Hosoda and Yoshioka teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above. Takahashi further teaches the continuous fiber-reinforced members (second reinforcing material) may be unidirectional members or quasi-isotropic members such as multi-axial laminated members and fabrics comprising warp threads and weft threads (paragraph [0023]).
It is noted that paragraph [039] of the instant specification defines “fibrous substrate” as referring to several fibers, unidirectional rovings or continuous filament mats, fabrics, felts or nonwovens that may be in the form of strips, laps, braids, locks or pieces.
With respect to claims 10 and 13, Takahashi in view of Hosoda and Yoshioka teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Takahashi further teaches continuous fiber-reinforced member W1 (first zone or second zone) may comprise the same thermoplastic resin as the thermoplastic resin W2 to be charged into the cavity containing the continuous fiber-reinforced member W1 (paragraphs [0047]-[0050], specifically [0048]).
With respect to claim 14, Takahashi in view of Hosoda and Yoshioka teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. When the resin member W2 is defined as the first zone and the continuous fiber-reinforced resin member W1 is defined as the second zone , Takahashi further teaches the resin member W2 (first zone) is larger than the continuous fiber-reinforced resin member W1 (second zone) (Fig. 6).
It is noted that paragraph [060] of the instant specification states that by larger is meant that the whole surface of zone (Z1) is larger than the surface zone (Z2). As can be seen in Fig. 6, the members W1 and W2 fulfill this definition.
With respect to claim 16, Takahashi in view of Hosoda and Yoshioka teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. When the resin member W2 is defined as the second zone and the continuous fiber-reinforced resin member W1 is defined as the first zone, Takahashi further teaches the continuous fiber-reinforced resin member W1 (first zone) is smaller than the resin member W2 (second zone) (Fig. 6).
It is noted that paragraph [062] of the instant specification states that by larger is meant that the whole surface of zone (Z1) is smaller than the surface zone (Z2). As can be seen in Fig. 6, the members W1 and W2 fulfill this definition.
With respect to claim 17, Takahashi in view of Hosoda and Yoshioka teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. When the resin member W2 is defined as the first zone and the continuous fiber-reinforced resin member W1 is defined as the second zone, Takahashi further teaches the resin member W2 (first zone) is larger than the continuous fiber-reinforced resin member W1 (second zone), and the continuous fiber-reinforced resin member W1 (second zone) is completely included in the resin member W2 except for one surface (Fig. 6).
With respect to claim 26, Takahashi in view of Hosoda and Yoshioka teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Takahashi further teaches fiber-reinforced resin members are known to be employed as structural members of vehicles, e.g., pillars, rockers, underfloor floors, etc., and as non-structural members that required design, e.g., door outer panels, hoods, etc. (paragraph [0003]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 2013/0334734)4,5 in view of Hosoda (US 2018/0282500)2 and Yoshioka (US 4339490) as applied to claim 1 above. Supporting evidence provided by Celanese (The Complete Textile Glossary).
With respect to claim 6, Takahashi in view of Hosoda teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above. The ordinary artisan would recognize that the continuous fiber (second reinforcing material) has an indefinite or extreme length (Celanese; “Continuous filament” and Filament”), and therefore would necessarily have an aspect ratio of at least 10000.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace (US 5188778)2 in view of Hosoda (US 2018/0282500)2 in view of Yoshioka (US 4339490) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Glotin (US 2015/0352818)2.
With respect to claim 8, Wallace in view of Hosoda teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above.
Wallace in view of Hosoda is silent as to the reinforced thermoplastic fiber material comprising a zone with no reinforcing material.
Glotin teaches a multilayer composition comprising a thermoplastic polymer A and a substrate layer comprising a polymeric composite material based thermoplastic (meth)acrylic matrix and a fibrous material as reinforcement (paragraph [0001]). The surface layer comprising a thermoplastic polymer A provides a satisfying surface aspect by hiding the fibrous aspect of the layer consisting of thermoplastic composite material (paragraphs [0008]-[0009], [0015]).
Since both Wallace in view of Hosoda and Glotin teach polymeric composite materials comprising fibrous material as reinforcement, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reinforced thermoplastic fiber material of Wallace to include a polymer surface layer on either the surface comprising the particle coating layer and/or the surface comprising the glass fiber mat layer in order to provide a satisfying surface aspect by hiding the fiber and/or particle reinforcing aspects of the underlying layers.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 2013/0334734)6,7 in view of Hosoda (US 2018/0282500)2 and Yoshioka (US 4339490) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Glotin (US 2015/0352818)2.
With respect to claim 8, Takahashi in view of Hosoda teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above.
Takahashi in view of Hosoda is silent as to the fiber-reinforced resin member comprising a zone with no reinforcing material.
Glotin teaches a multilayer composition comprising a thermoplastic polymer A and a substrate layer comprising a polymeric composite material based thermoplastic (meth)acrylic matrix and a fibrous material as reinforcement (paragraph [0001]). The surface layer comprising a thermoplastic polymer A provides a satisfying surface aspect by hiding the fibrous aspect of the layer consisting of thermoplastic composite material (paragraphs [0008]-[0009], [0015]).
Since both Takahashi in view of Hosoda and Glotin teach polymeric composite materials comprising fibrous material as reinforcement, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fiber-reinforced resin member of Takahashi to include a polymer surface layer in order to provide a satisfying surface aspect by hiding the fiber reinforcing aspects of the underlying layers.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. Applicant's arguments are all with respect to Wallace and Takahashi not teaching the new claim amendments, specifically the newly added structural feature wherein one zone of said first zone and said second zone comprises chopped fibers as reinforcing material such that the chopped fibers represent between 5-60 wt% of the zone. The newly added reference Yoshioka (US 4339490) is used in combination with Wallace and Takahashi to address the newly added limitations. The Applicant's arguments are therefore moot as they do not address the combination of references used in the rejections of the amended claims presented above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Segal (US 4044188) discloses reinforced thermoplastic polymer composite sheets formable into smooth, shaped objects in a rapid stamping process in a cool mold when pre-heated outside of the mold (abstract). The characterizing constituents of the composite sheet are: (1) thermoplastic resin, (2) relatively short reinforcing fibers, (3) relatively long or continuous glass fiber, and (4) a particulate loading agent (abstract). This four-component system, laminated together, produces sheets having excellent formability, mechanical properties, uniformity and in particular surface smoothness not heretofore obtainable, and are simple to fabricate continuously (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm EST.
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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
1 Previously presented
2 Cited in IDS
3 Previously presented
4 Cited in IDS
5 Previously presented
6 Cited in IDS
7 Previously presented
Prosecution Insights