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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 21, 2026, has been entered.
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over JP 2018-016016 to Nagase, as evidenced by the machine translation, in view of IT 202000004405 to Masini, with USPN 12,654,427 cited as the English equivalent, JP 2010-253937 to Tsuchiya, and US Pub. No. 2017/0335494 to Kim.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 6, 8, and 9, Nagase teaches a fiber-reinforced resin composite material having excellent heat distortion resistance, is lightweight, and has excellent impact resistance, comprising a fiber-reinforced thermosetting laminate layer and a fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin laminate layer (Nagase, Abstract). Nagase teaches that the fiber reinforced composite material contains high strength fibers, including aromatic polyamide, wholly aromatic polyester, polyacrylonitrile, and carbon fibers, having a specific gravity of 2.0 or less, such as 1.5 or less (Id., paragraphs 0024, 0032). Nagase teaches that the fineness of these high strength fibers is more preferably 200 to 3500 dtex (Id., paragraphs 0025, 0033). Nagase teaches that the fibers can be used to prepare a fabric, such as a plain weave, twill weave, and satin weave fabric (Id., paragraphs 0026, 0034). Note that a plain weave, twill weave, and satin weave fabric inherently comprises a warp and a weft. Nagase teaches that the resin may be a urea resin, polyurethane resin, or epoxy resin (Id., paragraph 028). Nagase teaches forming the prepreg by passing the fabric through a bath (Id., paragraph 0029).
Nagase teaches the claimed woven fabric and resin, comprising a fineness substantially overlapping with the claimed ranges. Alternatively, in the event it is shown that Nagase does not disclose the claimed invention with sufficient specificity, the invention is obvious because Nagase discloses the claimed constituents and ranges, and discloses that they may be used alternatively. Additionally, regarding the claimed fineness, note that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicants to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the composite of Nagase, and adjusting and varying the finenesses of the fibers, such as within the claimed ranges, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional composite fabric comprising suitable fiber finenesses based on the totality of the teachings of Nagase.
Nagase teaches that the fiber reinforced composite material contains high strength fibers, including aromatic polyamide, wholly aromatic polyester, polyacrylonitrile, and carbon fibers. Nagase does not appear to teach the claimed synthetic fibers. However, Masini teaches a similar carbon fiber mixed fabric including carbon fiber yarns and polymer fibers yarns woven to form an interlacement and a protective layer applied on the interlacement (Masini, Abstract). Masini teaches the interlacement comprises a weft of carbon fibre yarns and a warp of polymer fibre yarns, or alternatively, a weft of polymer fiber yarns and a warp of carbon fibre yarns (Id., column 2 lines 15-33). Masini teaches that the yarns are woven wherein the interlacement is a twill interlacement (Id., column 2 lines 54-62). Masini teaches that the polymer fibre yarns are polyester yarns, polypropylene yarns, or aramid fibre yarns (Id., column 2 lines 48-53). Masini teaches that the polymer fibre yarns woven with the carbon fibre yarns give the fabric an elastic elongation capability at least along the predominant direction of extension of the polymer fibre yarns (Id., column 2 lines 34-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the composite of Nagase, and substituting the aromatic polyamide with polypropylene, wherein the warp and weft are aligned as claimed, as taught by Masini, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional composite fabric comprising similar fibers known in the art as being functionally equivalent and predictably suitable for use in similar woven fabrics, where added elongation capability is desirable.
Regarding the claimed specific gravity, the prior art combination teaches a fiber-reinforced composite as claimed. Additionally, the prior art combination teaches a plain, twill, or satin weave fabric comprising similar warp and weft fibers and a resin as claimed. Additionally, Applicants’ remarks of April 15, 2025, recite that when synthetic fibers are used, the specific gravities are less than 1.5. Although Applicants do not provide evidence or an explanation supporting the aforementioned conclusion, for purposes of examination, Examiner is reliant on the explanation. Additionally, Applicants recited that the specific gravity varies depending on the material of the warp and weft, the fineness of the fibers, and the weaving method.
Additionally, Tsuchiya teaches a similar molded product comprising a planar molded body including reinforced fibers and a resin (Tsuchiya, Abstract). Tsuchiya teaches reinforcing fibers such as carbon fibers (Id., paragraph 0016) and a resin including epoxy resins and urea-melamine resins (Id., paragraphs 0021-0022). Tsuchiya teaches that from the viewpoint of improving the lightness of the molded product, the specific gravity of the planar molded body is preferably 0.5 to 1.5 (Id., paragraph 0048).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the composite of the prior art combination, wherein the fiber-reinforced resin composite comprises a specific gravity, such as within the claimed range, as taught by Tsuchiya, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional fiber-reinforced resin composite comprising a specific gravity known in the art as being predictably suitable for similarly constructed composites having improved lightness suitable for the intended application.
The prior art combination does not appear to teach the claimed weaving density. However, Kim teaches a similar composite including a stiffener fabric weaved with two or more kinds of fiber yarn (i.e a warp and a weft) including carbon fiber and synthetic fiber (Kim, Abstract), wherein the weaving density of the fabric is preferably in the range of 20-35 count/inch and the weaving form is a satin or twill weave (Id., paragraph 0045). Kim teaches that optimal strength and physical properties are achieved by changing the weave density (Id.). Kim teaches adhering a urethane adhering sheet to the stiffener fabric through a heating roller, such that the adhering sheet and stiffener fabric are integrally molded (Id., paragraphs 0017-0022).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the composite of the prior art combination, wherein the fabric has a weaving density, such as within the claimed range, as taught by Kim, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional composite fabric comprising a weaving density known in the art as being predictably suitable for similarly constructed composites, where strength and physical properties are desired.
Regarding claim 8, Examiner notes that cross-sectional shapes of fibers are commonly known in the art as being circular. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the material of the prior art combination, wherein the fibers comprise a cross-section such as circular, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional woven fabric comprising a desired cross-section for the fibers, such as a shape ordinarily known in the art.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is interpreted as when the fibers have a flat shape, then the aspect ratio is as claimed. Since a flat shape is not necessarily required by the claim, the limitation appears met by the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed July 21, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that Kim merely discloses a preferred weaving density of 20-35 count/inch, but that Kim neither teaches nor suggests employing weaving densities below 20 count/inch or about 35 count/inch. Additionally, Applicants argue that the claimed range of 4-40 count/inch is a critical range and not an arbitrary choice, as the claimed material can achieve the aesthetic effect not only in the range of 20 to 35 counts/inch but in a lower range, and Kim is entirely silent as to the criticality of the claimed weaving density range.
Regarding Applicants’ arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees. If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim. UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Alternatively, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Applicants do not dispute that Kim teaches a weaving density in the range of 20-35 count/inch. Examiner notes that the weaving density is “preferably” in the range of 20-35 count/inch and is not limited to only that disclosure. The entirety of the range disclosed in Kim is wholly within the claimed range. Therefore, Kim anticipates and/or renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding Applicants’ criticality argument, Applicants must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Since Kim teaches a range entirely within the claimed range, it follows that any criticality of the claimed range is similarly applicable to the range in Kim.
Additionally, note that paragraph 0028 is directed to the desirability or undesirability of aesthetics. Since it naturally follows that a lower weaving density makes a larger visible pattern whereas a higher weaving density makes a finer and less distinguishable pattern, it is unclear if Applicants’ specification establishes criticality of the range as argued.
Applicants’ remaining arguments are moot based on the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights