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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed October 15, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-22 remain pending in the application. Claims 11-21 are withdrawn from further consideration, as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Claim 22 is newly added and support is found in claims as originally filed. Claim 1 was amended and support for amendments are found in the claims and specification as originally filed. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the objection to claim 1 as previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed May 15, 2025.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konagai et al., (WO 2013/115337; cited in the IDS submitted on 09/06/2022; English translation incorporated herewith; hereafter as “Konagai”) in view of Naoaki et al. (JP 2018/167588; cited in the IDS submitted on 09/06/2022; English translation incorporated herewith; hereafter as “Naoaki”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 22, Konagai teaches a mat comprising carbon fibers and a matrix resin [Claims 1, 4], corresponding to the claimed carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) structural body comprising a carbon fiber mat impregnated with a resin composition, wherein:
A fiber-reinforced composite material is obtained by molding said random mat [Claim 7], corresponding to wherein the CFRP structural body is molded from a carbon fiber prepreg;
Said carbon fiber content is 60 vol. % or more [Paragraph 0033], corresponding to a carbon fiber content of the CFRP is 60% by mass or more of Claim 1, and is 70% by mass or more of Claim 22; and
the carbon fiber bundles have a thickness of 100 μm (0.1 mm) or more [Paragraph 0038], which overlaps with a thickness of greater than 4 mm.
However, Konagai is silent to the exact same range of the carbon fiber bundle thickness of Claim 1.
Nevertheless, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the ranges taught by Konagai for the carbon fiber bundle thickness (>0.1 mm) overlap the instantly claimed range of >4mm CFRP thickness and are therefore considered to establish a prima facie cases of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
However, Konagai is silent to filament counts of 3K or less of Claim 1.
Nevertheless, Naoaki teaches a reinforced fiber mat comprising reinforcing carbon fibers [Claims 1, 4, 5], wherein the critical number of reinforcing fiber was 1,120 [Example 1; Paragraph 0067], corresponding to the filament count of 3K or less of Claim 1. Naoki further teaches that by incorporating such an amount of fibers, the bundles can be more densely contained resulting in excellent tensile strength [Paragraph 0010].
Konagai and Naoaki are considered to be analogous art as the claimed invention, as all are in the same field of carbon fiber reinforced mats.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the filament count of Naoaki with the carbon fiber mat of Konagai, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 2 and 4, the preferred embodiments of Konagai do not disclose a halogen, phosphorous or antimony, therefore the structural body is interpreted as not comprising these components, corresponding to wherein the CFRP structural body does not comprise a halogen, phosphorus, and antimony of Claim 2 and wherein the CFRP structural body does not comprise a halogen of Claim 4.
Regarding Claims 3 and 5, Konagai further teaches:
Flame retardants [Paragraph 0047], corresponding to the flame retardant of Claim 3; and
Thermosetting resin [Paragraph 0004], corresponding to wherein the resin composition is a thermosetting resin composition of Claim 5.
Claims 6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konagai et al., (WO 2013/115337; cited in the IDS submitted on 09/06/2022; English translation incorporated herewith; hereafter as “Konagai”) in view of Naoaki et al. (JP 2018/167588; cited in the IDS submitted on 09/06/2022; English translation incorporated herewith; hereafter as “Naoaki”) as applied to Claims 1-5 and in further view of Driggett et al. (US 5902755 A; hereafter as “Driggett”).
Konagai and Naoaki teach the structural body, carbon fibers and resin of Claims 1 and 5 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
However, Konagai and Naoaki are silent to wherein the thermosetting resin composition comprises a vinyl ester resin of Claim 6, an epoxy resin of Claim 8, a resin having a bromine group of Claim 9 and a bromine group of Claim 10.
Nevertheless, Driggett teaches a composite material comprising resins embedded with carbon fibers [Column 1, Lines 11-24; Claim 1]. Driggett further teaches said resin:
May be a vinyl ester resin [Column 6, Line 44], corresponding to the vinyl ester resin of Claim 6;
Wherein said thermosetting resin may be an epoxy resin [Column 6, Line 43], corresponding to the epoxy resin of Claim 8;
Wherein flame retardant versions of bisphenol-A/epichlorohydrin resins acquire their fire-retardant characteristics through bromine substitution on the phenyl rings of the bisphenol-A [Column 4, Lines 50-53], corresponding to the bromine group of Claim 9 and thermosetting resin having a bromine group of Claim 10; and
Said composite material formulation results in stability to acids, toxic wastes [Abstract].
Konagai, Naoaki and Driggett are considered to be analogous art as the claimed invention, as all are in the same field of carbon fiber reinforced mats.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the thermosetting resins of Driggett with the carbon fiber embedded mat of Konagai and Naoaki, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konagai et al., (WO 2013/115337; cited in the IDS submitted on 09/06/2022; English translation incorporated herewith; hereafter as “Konagai”) in view of Naoaki et al. (JP 2018/167588; cited in the IDS submitted on 09/06/2022; English translation incorporated herewith; hereafter as “Naoaki”) ”) as applied to Claims 1-5 and in further view of Germon et al. (WO 2013/110139 A1; hereafter as “Germon”).
Konagai and Naoaki teach the structural body, carbon fibers and resin of Claim 5 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
However, Konagai and Naoaki are silent to wherein the thermosetting resin composition comprises an unsaturated polyester resin of Claim 7.
Nevertheless, Germon teaches molded articles comprised of resin and carbon fiber mats [Paragraphs 0065-0066 and 0072]. Germon further teaches curing of thermoset resin molecules, such as unsaturated polyester in said polymer composite materials [Paragraph 0066] and curing said unsaturated polyester may be accelerated by the presence of metal compounds [Paragraph 0066].
Konagai, Naoaki and Germon are considered to be analogous art as the claimed invention, as all are in the same field of carbon fiber reinforced mats.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the unsaturated polyester resin of Germon with the carbon fiber embedded mat of Konagai and Naoaki, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 15, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (1) the claims are not rendered obvious because of the criticality of the claimed range for the thickness of the carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) structural body. However, the unexpected results have been considered but are not found to be convincing. The data presented in Table 2, Page 6 of the Remarks show the flame retardancy of test specimen at varying thicknesses of 2, 3, or 4 mm. Applicants state that said data demonstrate that “if the thickness is 4mm or more, the thermal diffusion is suppressed,” yet, the data lack specimen with a thickness greater than 4mm. Therefore, the unexpected results do not correlate to the claimed structural body thickness range. As such, it is suggested that data be presented to show flame retardancy in specimen with varying body thicknesses greater than 4 mm also confer unexpected results. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues (2) Konagai fails to recognize or suggest a relationship between the thickness of the CFRP structural body and the flame retardancy, the data demonstrated in the specification are surprising and unexpected. However, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DORIS LING whose telephone number is (571)270-3961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-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, ARRIE LANEE REUTHER can be reached on (571)270-7026. 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.
/DORIS LING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/ARRIE L REUTHER/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764