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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonoda et al. (US 2018/0134857) in view of Mutsuda (US 2012/0100365).
Regarding claims 1-12 and 18, Sonoda discloses a multilayer body comprising a core material, i.e. first layer, and a skin layer, i.e. second layer, (0041, 0077) wherein the second layer comprising reinforcing fiber with average fiber length, i.e. a number average fiber length, of 5 to 80 mm (abstract, 0053). Sonoda discloses resin in core material but does not specifically disclose polyetheretherketone with its properties.
Mutsuda discloses molded product (0076) comprising thermoplastic resin composition comprising polyetheretherketone in an amount of 1 to 99, i.e. as a main component, (0019, 0021) wherein the resin has a molecular weight distribution for example of 1.5 to 5 and a number average molecular weight of 20,000 to 50,000 (0034). Mutsuda discloses mechanical properties are very depending on the molecular weight (0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the specific polyetheretherketone of Mutsuda in the core material of Sonoda to obtain desired mechanical strength. Given that Mutsuda discloses mechanical properties are very depending on the molecular weight, one of ordinary skill in the art would choose any molecular weight distribution including that presently claimed to modify desired mechanical strength to meet end users requirements. Therefore, when the molecular weight distribution of Sonoda in view of Mutsuda is 5.1 and number average molecular weight is 20,000, it meets the presently claimed limitation of mass average molecular weight of 102,000. Given that the resin of Sonoda in view of Mutsuda discloses the same molecular wight distribution and mass average molecular weight as claimed in present claim, it is clear that the body and the resin of Sonoda in view of Mutsuda would intrinsically possess the same properties as claimed in present claims.
Regarding claim 13, Sonoda in view of Mutsuda discloses multilayer body of claim 1, wherein given that claim recites thickness accuracy 7% or less, it is considered to be 0.
Regarding claims 14-17, Sonoda in view of Mutsuda discloses multilayer body of claim 1 but fails to disclose the first layer has an arithmetic mean height and a maximum height.
Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific arithmetic mean height and maximum height of the first layer is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the smoothness is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the specific arithmetic mean height and maximum height of the first layer, the precise specific arithmetic mean height and maximum height would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed specific arithmetic mean height and maximum height cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the specific arithmetic mean height and maximum height of the first layer in the multilayer body to obtain the desired smoothness of the first layer (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 19, Sonoda in view of Mutsuda discloses multilayer body of claim 1, wherein the first layer is a film (0041).
Regarding claim 20, Sonoda in view of Mutsuda discloses composite material is obtained by molding the multilayer body of claim 1 (0019).
Regarding claim 21, Sonoda in view of Mutsuda discloses multilayer body of claim 1, wherein the composite material is prepreg (0043).
Regarding claim 22, Sonoda in view of Mutsuda discloses multilayer body of claim 20, wherein the body is motor vehicles (0020).
Regarding claims 23-25, Sonoda discloses a multilayer body comprising a core material, i.e. first layer, and a skin layer, i.e. second layer, (0041, 0077) wherein the second layer comprising reinforcing fiber with average fiber length, i.e. a number average fiber length, of 5 to 80 mm (abstract, 0053), wherein the first layer is a film (0041). Sonoda discloses resin in core material but does not specifically disclose polyetheretherketone with its properties.
Mutsuda discloses molded product (0076) comprising thermoplastic resin composition comprising polyetheretherketone in an amount of 1 to 99, i.e. as a main component, (0019, 0021) wherein the resin has a molecular weight distribution for example of 1.5 to 5 and a number average molecular weight of 20,000 to 50,000 (0034). Mutsuda discloses mechanical properties are very depending on the molecular weight (0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the specific polyetheretherketone of Mutsuda in the core material of Sonoda to obtain desired mechanical strength. Given that Mutsuda discloses mechanical properties are very depending on the molecular weight, one of ordinary skill in the art would choose any molecular weight distribution including that presently claimed to modify desired mechanical strength to meet end users requirements. Therefore, when the molecular weight distribution of Sonoda in view of Mutsuda is 5.1 and number average molecular weight is 20,000, it meets the presently claimed limitation of mass average molecular weight of 102,000. Given that the resin of Sonoda in view of Mutsuda discloses the same molecular wight distribution and mass average molecular weight as claimed in present claim, it is clear that the body and the resin of Sonoda in view of Mutsuda would intrinsically possess the same properties as claimed in present claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In light of the claim amendment, the double patenting rejection of record is overcome.
Applicant argues that Mutsuda merely discloses the molecular weight distribution that does not overlap with the claimed range and fails to teach the claimed range. Examiner agreed that Mutsuda does not specifically teach claimed molecular weight distribution range. However, Mutsuda does disclose a motivation to modify the molecular weight distribution as explained above.
Applicant argues that there is no rational for altering Mutsuda’s molecular weight distribution to exceed 5. However, it is noted that the paragraph 0034 only discloses molecular weight distribution values as an example. There is nothing in the paragraph that teaches against using any value lower or higher than values disclosed in the reference. Rather, Musuda gives a reason as to why one would change the molecular weight distribution to obtain desired mechanical properties.
Applicant points to examples and declaration filed 02/06/2026 and argues regarding unexpected results. However, it is noted that the data is not persuasive given that the examples are not commensurate in scope of the present claims given that the examples discloses specific composition with specific thickness while present claim recites any PAEK with any thickness. As set forth in MPEP 716.02(d), whether unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support”. In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occurred over the entire claimed range, In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). Applicants have not provided data to show that the unexpected results do in fact occur over the entire claimed range.
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 SAMIR SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-1143. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/SAMIR SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights