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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed Nov. 7, 2025 has been entered. Claims 4, 6 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mikio et al. (JP 2017222142, English translation provided).
Regarding claim 4, Mikio discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, 4, a processing method for a composite material in which fibers and a thermoplastic resin are compounded (pages 1, 2, [0008]), the processing method comprising:
heating the composite material to a temperature higher than or equal to a melting point of the resin contained in the composite material (pages 1, 2, [0008]); and
pressing, by using a mold, the composite material heated by the heating at a constant pressure (see label of constant 2nd pressure in attached annotated Figure II; it is noticed that, when the upper mold 14 fixed (e.g., as shown in Fig. 2), the pressure inside the mold will be maintained without changing),
wherein the pressing starts after a temperature of the mold reaches a predetermined temperature at which a predetermined time required for solidification of the resin contained in the composite material matches a desired time (as shown in Fig. 4 (also see labels in attached annotated Figure II)),
wherein, during the pressing, while the mold presses the composite material at the constant pressure, the pressing maintains a temperature of the mold at a predetermined temperature (as shown in Fig. 4 (also see attached annotated Figure II); it is noticed that, during the second maintaining/constant pressure inside mold (i.e., due to the fixed position of the upper mold), there is an overlapping of constant temperature inside the mold) at which a time required for solidification of the resin contained in the composite material matches a desired time by using a temperature adjustment unit (for example, heat medium supply device 46 through the flow path 45 (page 4, lines 204-206)) configured to adjust the temperature of the mold,
in which the composite material is pressed at a constant pressure (for example, as illustrated in Fig. 4 in the teachings of Mikio (also see labels of period of constant temperature and constant pressure in attached annotated Figure II), during the second period of maintaining pressure the inside mold, at least a large portion of the pressure is constant), includes:
a step in which the composite material, which has been heated to a temperature equal to or higher than the melting point of the resin (e.g., as illustrated in Fig. 4, prior to the upper half mold is moving down, the mold temperature is heated above the melting point of the resin), is cooled to the predetermined temperature (e.g., as illustrated in Fig. 4, when the upper half mold is starting to move down, the composite material inside the mold is starting to cool down),
a step in which, after the composite material has been cooled to the predetermined temperature, the temperature adjustment unit maintains the mold at a constant predetermined temperature while the mold is pressing the composite material with a constant pressure (e.g., as illustrated in attached annotated Figure II, the label of ‘period for both constant temperature and constant pressure’ in the second period of increasing/maintaining pressure inside the mold is showing how the pressure and temperature are established inside the mold),
wherein due to the heating of the composite material, the fibers are insufficiently impregnated with the resin, so that a void occurs in the composite material when solidified (page 1, lines 40-45 or page 2, [0013], lines 93-103), and due to the pressing of the composite material, the fibers are impregnated with the resin before solidifying (page 2, [0013], lines 93-103),
the desired time is a time required for the fibers to be sufficiently re-impregnated with the resin to be sufficiently re-impregnated with the resin (page 6, [0034], lines 345-353; page 8, [0041], lines 428-443), and
wherein the fibers sufficiently impregnated with the resin generate no void in the composite material when solidified, whereas the fibers insufficiently impregnated with the resin generate a void in the composite material when solidified will produce the proper physical properties of the molded article without voids (page 6, [0033], lines 332-343 (e.g., applying the vibration imparting device to the mold)), and
wherein the predetermined temperature is determined based on viscoelasticity of the resin (it is noticed that, basically, viscoelasticity is related to properties of the resin or the viscoelasticity of the resin is significantly affected by temperature (i.e., including the predetermined temperature)).
PNG
media_image1.png
490
741
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure II (based on Fig. 4 in the teachings of Mikio)
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsunaga et al. (US 11,014,275) in view of Mikio et al. (JP 2017222142, English translation provided), further in view of Yoshida et al. (US 9,999,995).
Regarding claim 4, Mitsunaga discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 2,4, a processing method for a composite material in which fibers and a thermoplastic resin are compounded (ABSTRACT), the processing method comprising:
heating the composite material to a temperature higher than or equal to a melting point of the resin contained in the composite material (col. 3, lines 13-22); and
pressing, by using a mold, the composite material heated by the heating (col. 3, lines 33-46 (e.g., melting)) at a constant pressure (see label of pressure(s) (constant or flat w/time) in attached annotated Figure I; col. 26, lines 63-67),
wherein while the mold presses the composite material at the constant pressure (col. 27, lines 13-15 (i.e., a pressure change with time 12 with two constant pressure ranges (see label of pressure(s) (constant or flat w/time) in attached annotated Figure I))), the pressing maintains a temperature of the mold constant at a predetermined temperature (col. 13, lines 17-34 (temperature control method for mold); it is also noticed that, as illustrated in Fig. 1 (also see label of temperature in mold in attached annotated Figure I), the temperature represented by graph 9 is measured by the thermocouple 34 (as shown in Fig. 3) for the mold. In the certain period of time (i.e., the elapse of time)), the temperature in the mold is flat or constant (col. 26, lines 43-52)) at which a time required for solidification of the resin contained in the composite material matches a desired time (col. 3, lines 46-67 (the moldable time)) by using a temperature adjustment unit (for example, heater (col. 14, lines 18-51)) configured to adjust the temperature of the mold (col. 13, lines 17-67 (temperature control method for mold); col. 14, lines 1-16 (for example, a target temperature increase rate and a target cooling rate)),
wherein due to the heating of the composite material, the fibers are insufficiently impregnated with the resin, so that a void occurs in the composite material when solidified (col. 9, lines 5-13 (i.e., the flow of the resin material in the first half of the pressurization time is insufficient, the large numbers of voids remain inside the molded article)), and due to the pressing of the composite material, the fibers are impregnated with the resin before solidifying (col. 12, lines 25-43 (for example, when the specified pressing pressure is less than 10 MPa, since the moldability is insufficient, voids are generated inside the molded article (lines 30-32)); More preferably pressing pressure is about 15 to 25 MPa (lines 40-41); In other words, the insufficient moldability of the composite material may include less impregnating),
the desired time is a time required for the fibers to be sufficiently re-impregnated with the resin, so that no void occurs in the composite material when solidified (col. 9, lines 17-35 (i.e., for example, the pressurization time is more preferably 0.3 to 1.0 second (for producing a fiber-reinforced resin molded articles excellent in moldability, light weight and appearance (col. 18, lines 17-19) (i.e., at least without any void inside the molded article)))), and
wherein the fibers sufficiently impregnated with the resin generate no void in the composite material when solidified, whereas the fibers insufficiently impregnated with the resin generate a void in the composite material when solidified (col. 9, lines 5-35; for example, more preferably pressurization time of about 0.3 to 1.0 seconds (lines 34-35) will produce the proper physical properties of the molded article without voids (lines 9-16); col. 12, lines 25-43 (i.e., more preferably pressing pressure 15-25 MPa may improve the moldability to reduce voids inside the molded article)).
However, Mitsunaga only discloses the constant pressure and the constant temperature in the mold during the initial period of time. After the dotted line 14 (as shown in Fig. 1), especially during the second constant pressure, the temperature inside the mold is not disclosed (i.e., Mitsunaga identified that this temperature Tf is a flow stop temperature (col. 27, lines 61-67 and col. 28, lines 1-3)).
In the same field of endeavor, compression molding, Mikio discloses that, as shown in Fig. 4 (also see attached annotated Figure II), during the second maintaining/constant pressure inside mold (i.e., due to the fixed position of the upper mold), there is an overlapping between the second constant/maintaining pressure and the constant temperature inside the mold.
As illustrated in Fig. 4 (also see labels in attached annotated Figure II) in the teachings of Mikio, the pressing starts after a temperature of the mold reaches a predetermined temperature at which a predetermined time required for solidification of the resin contained in the composite material matches a desired time.
in which the composite material is pressed at a constant pressure (for example, as illustrated in Fig. 4 in the teachings of Mikio (also see labels of period of constant temperature and constant pressure in attached annotated Figure II), during the second period of maintaining pressure the inside mold, at least a large portion of the pressure is constant), includes:
a step in which the composite material, which has been heated to a temperature equal to or higher than the melting point of the resin (e.g., as illustrated in Fig. 4, prior to the upper half mold is moving down, the mold temperature is heated above the melting point of the resin), is cooled to the predetermined temperature (e.g., as illustrated in Fig. 4, when the upper half mold is starting to move down, the composite material inside the mold is starting to cool down),
a step in which, after the composite material has been cooled to the predetermined temperature, the temperature adjustment unit maintains the mold at a constant predetermined temperature while the mold is pressing the composite material with a constant pressure (e.g., as illustrated in attached annotated Figure II, the label of ‘period for both constant temperature and constant pressure’ in the second period of increasing/maintaining pressure inside the mold is showing how the pressure and temperature are established inside the mold),
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mitsunaga to incorporate the teachings of Mikio to provide the constant pressure and the constant temperature in the mold during the second period of time. Doing so would be possible have a good release of the molded product from the mold, as recognized by Mikio (page 8, [0041]).
PNG
media_image2.png
469
509
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure I (based on Fig. 1 in the teachings of Mitsunaga)
Mitsunaga discloses that, the flow stop temperature (i.e., one of predetermined temperature for the starting of solidification) is a parameter affected by: the melt viscosity of the thermoplastic resin contained in the composite material (col. 10, lines 1-3). However, Mitsunaga does not explicitly disclose that the predetermined temperature is determined based on viscoelasticity of the resin. In the same field of endeavor, composite article, Yoshida discloses that, the predetermined temperature is determined based on viscoelasticity of the resin (ABSTRACT (i.e., the relationship between the elapsed time and the loss angle δ (measured in a dynamic viscoelasticity) is evaluated to calculate the range of the elapsed time (temperature))).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Mitsunaga or Mikio to form a composite article as Yoshida teaches that it is known to have that the predetermined temperature is determined based on viscoelasticity of the resin. It has been held that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsunaga et al. (US 11,014,275), Mikio et al. (JP 2017222142), and Yoshida et al. (US 9,999,995) as applied to claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 6, Mitsunaga discloses that, the predetermined temperature is higher than or equal to a temperature lower by 40 °C than a melting point of the resin contained in the composite material and is lower than or equal to a temperature lower by 20 °C than the melting point of the resin (col. 3, lines 37-45 (overlapping (i.e., a temperature range of 25 C (lower than the melting point of the resin) to 30 C (higher than the melting point of the resin)))).
Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of Nitsunaga’s temperature ranges that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/7/2025 have been fully considered. They are not persuasive.
Regarding arguments (as amended) in claim 4 that Mikio states that there is a time zone in which the pressure is constant but the mold temperature is not constant. In other words, Mikio does not disclose the “pressing” of the amended claim 4 of the present application. These are found unpersuasive.
As illustrated in Fig. 4 in the teachings of Mikio (also see attached annotated Figure II), there are several steps/stages for applying pressures and temperatures to the mold during the manufacturing process of the molding.
Prior to applying pressure to the mold, at least the upper half mold is in a fixed position and the inside pressure of the mold is maintained constant. At the same time, the mold temperature is increased to the level of melting the composite material inside the mold.
The next is the first period of increasing the inside pressure of the mold via moving down the upper half mold (for pressing). At the same time, the mold is cooled down via a temperature adjustment unit.
During the second period of increasing the inside pressure of the mold, there are two sub-steps or stages. The first sub-step is continuing to move down the upper half mold (for pressing) and at the same time, the mold is continuing to be cooled. The second sub-step is to keep the upper half mold in a fixed position and maintain the inside pressure of the mold constant and at the same time, the mold temperature is kept to be constant.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shibin Liang whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached on (571)270 7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights