DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on March 13, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are pending in the application.
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.
Claim 13 is 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 further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 13 sets forth the limitation “wherein the proportion of fiber material to the flat material is approximately 40 vol % or more based on a total volume of the flat material,” which is also recited in independent claim 1, upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10, 12-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solenicki et al (US 2019/0291393 A1) in view of Tagami et al (JP 2013/189634 A, using the machine translation for the citations below).
Regarding Claims 1-2, 4, and 12-16: Solenicki teaches a flat material/ply containing a thermoplastic matrix and a fiber (para. 0010), wherein the thermoplastic material is polypropylene (para. 0014), the fibers are parallel/unidirectional (para. 0055), the weight content of the fibers may be substantially equal to 80wt% (para. 0045), and the volume content of the fibers may be equal to 60, 658, 70, 75, 80, 85, or 90vol% of the ply (para. 0052).
Solenicki does not teach a thermoplastic material having a melt flow index of 700 g/10min or higher.
Tagami teaches a fiber-reinforced thermoplastic composite material, wherein the thermoplastic matrix contains a high melt-flow polymer and a low melt-flow polymer (para. 0041-42), wherein the high melt-flow polymer may be a polypropylene with a melt flow rate of 500-3000 g/10min, or 768-1537 g/10min, measured at 230°C at a load of 21.18N (2.16kg), and the lower melt-flow polymer may also be a polypropylene (para. 0048). The use of a high melt-flow thermoplastic allows for easy penetration of the fiber material and good adhesion (para. 0042); when paired with a lower melt-flow material, the high MFR resin promotes efficient penetration of the low MFR resin into the fibrous material, resulting in a higher-strength material (para. 0043). Tagami and Solenicki are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, namely thermoplastics reinforced with continuous reinforcing fibers.
Although the MFR of the polypropylene taught by Tagami is measured at a higher temperature and lower load than that of the present application, one could envision that resins at the higher end of the MFR range of Tagami would still exceed 700, or 1200g/10min when measured at 190°C and 5kg.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a polypropylene resin with a MFR of 500-3000g/10min to the flat material taught by Solenicki to allow the polypropylene matrix of Solenicki to easily penetrate the fibrous material and improve the strength of the composite.
Regarding Claim 5: Solenicki teaches glass fibers (para. 0014).
Regarding Claim 6: Solenicki teaches a continuous fiber material (para. 0015).
Regarding Claims 7 and 20: Solenicki teaches a pre-impregnated material (para. 0049).
Regarding Claim 8: Solenicki teaches a sandwich material comprising the plies as set forth above on either side of a different intermediate material (para. 0010).
Regarding Claim 10: Solenicki teaches a method of making the flat material as set forth comprising impregnating the fiber material with the thermoplastic matrix (para. 0049).
Regarding Claim 18: Solenicki teaches that the mass content of the glass fibers may be greater than or substantially equal to 80wt% (para. 0045).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solenicki et al (US 2019/0291393 A1) in view of Tagami et al (JP 2013/189634 A, using the machine translation for the citations below), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Pilpel et al (US 2014/0360344 A1).
Solenicki and Tagami teach the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above. However, Solenicki is silent to the flat material being used in an electrochemical storage unit.
Pilpel teaches a sandwich material containing layers of a flat material comprising a thermoplastic matrix and reinforcing fibers (para. 0029) and an electrochemical storage unit such as a battery case/battery box comprising said sandwich material (para. 0091). Pilpel and Solenicki are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, namely sandwich material containing layers of fiber-reinforced thermoplastic flat materials.
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.07. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make an electrochemical storage unit such as a battery case from the material of Solenicki due to its art-recognized suitability for that purpose.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solenicki et al (US 2019/0291393 A1) in view of Tagami et al (JP 2013/189634 A, using the machine translation for the citations below), as evidenced by Prins et al (WO 2016/142786 A1).
Solenicki and Tagami teach the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above. Solenicki does not explicitly teach that the flat material is a tape material. However, Solenicki teaches that the plies are produced in the same manner as that taught by Prins (para. 0049). Because Prins is directed toward the production of fiber-reinforced tapes (para. 0004-0005). Therefore, one could easily envision making a tape material from the flat material of Solenicki.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on March 13, 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Solenicki and Tagami, as set forth above.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN N ILLING whose telephone number is (571)270-1940. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at (571)272-1197. 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.
/C.N.I./Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights