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 § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koshi (WO2020040121A1). Koshi is read from its English equivalent US2021/0253813A1.
With regards to claim 1, Koshi discloses a unidirectional fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin sheet including a thermoplastic resin and a reinforcement fiber, the reinforcement fiber being aligned in a longitudinal direction, the unidirectional fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin sheet comprising: a fiber-reinforced layer having a fiber volume fraction of the reinforcement fiber of 100% (i.e., within the claimed range of 40% or more, and the fiber volume fraction is 100%, as the fiber-reinforced layer consists of the reinforcement fibers themselves within the sheet) ,a surface resin layer 5 having a fiber volume fraction of the reinforcement fiber of 0% (i.e., within the claimed range of 0% or more and less than 5%) as evidenced by the Figure (i.e., the Figure depicts a section, or layer, having no fibers, and therefore, it has a fiber volume fraction of 0%), wherein the surface resin layer has a thickness of, for example, 15 microns (i.e., within the claimed range of 10 microns or more and 40 microns or less), wherein the fiber-reinforced layer and the surface resin layer 5 are integrally formed as a result of a single impregnation step (Koshi: abstract; para. [0008], [0020], and [0047]; Table 1). Koshi further depicts the resin layer as forming a first surface of the unidirectional fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin sheet, the unidirectional fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin sheet including a second surface on an opposite side thereof, which is exposed (i.e., the additional section of pure resin material can still be thought of as forming a part of the unidirectional fiber reinforced layer) (Koshi: FIGURE). With regards to the claimed phrase “wherein, during the manufacturing process… impregnates the reinforcement fiber from the second surface,” it is noted that this language is in product-by-process form. Such language does not require the material performance of the recited steps but rather, only the structure implied, per MPEP 2113. In the present case, the present claims require an impregnated reinforcement fiber material, and the Koshi discloses such a product.
With regards to claim 2, the Figure in Koshi shows the resin layer 5 forming a surface of the resin sheet 1 (Koshi).
With regards to claim 3, Table 1 of Koshi discloses various surface resin layer thicknesses and overall thicknesses of the fiber-reinforced layer (Koshi: Table 1). 15 microns is representative of the surface resin layer 5 thickness and 60 microns is representative of the overall thickness of the impregnated portion of the sheet (Koshi: Table 1). Subtracting 15 microns from 60 microns yields 45 microns, which is the thickness of the fiber-reinforced layer without the surface resin layer. The gives a ratio (t2/tl) of 0.375 which falls within the instantly claimed range.
With regards to claim 5. Table 1 of Koshi shows a fiber-reinforced layer thickness of 66 microns, which falls within the instantly claimed range (Koshi: Table 1).
With regards to claim 6, Koshi discloses carbon fiber for its reinforcement fiber (Koshi: [0021]).
With regards to claim 7, Koshi discloses its resin (inclusive of the thermoplastic resin in the fiber-reinforced layer) as formed of, for example, polyethylene (i.e., a polyolefin) (Koshi: [0029]).
With regards to claim 8, Koshi discloses its resin (inclusive of the thermoplastic resin in the resin layer) as formed of, for example, polyethylene (i.e., a polyolefin) (Koshi: [0029]).
With regards to claim 9, Koshi discloses an overall volume content (i.e., fiber volume fraction for the entire unidirectional fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin sheet) of, for example 60% (Koshi: Table 1)
With regards to claim 10, Koshi discloses that the fiber-reinforced layer and the resin in the surface layer as the same resins (i.e., and therefore, such resins are compatible with one another) (Koshi: para. [0008]).
With regards to claim 11, Koshi discloses that the fiber-reinforced layer and the resin in the surface layer as the same resins Koshi: para. [0008]).
With regards to claim 13, Koshi discloses its composite as laminated together using two or more layers of the continuous fiber base material (i.e., results in a stacked panel comprising a plurality of the unidirectional fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin sheets according to the present claims (Koshi: [0009]).
With regards to claim 14, Koshi’s product, as best understood, is a structure material (see above discussion). It is noted that the phrase “structure material” is rather broad, and the present specification does not provide any limiting definition for “structure material.” As best understood, the product of Koshi is a “structure material” in that it has a structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and they are found persuasive. Applicant has deleted the language which prompted the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and therefore, these grounds of rejection have been withdrawn.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive.
On pages 6-7, Applicant summarizes claim 1, and then argues that, as conceded by the Examiner, Koshi teaches that the reinforcing fiber bundle is impregnated with melted matrix resin in an impregnation die, and that one of ordinary skill would have known that such a structure does not form a surface of the resulting fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin sheet. Applicant argues that Koshi does not disclose a fiber-reinforced layer forming a second surface of the claimed sheet. Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive as Applicant appears to be arguing product-by-process language. That Koshi teaches a reinforcing fiber bundle impregnated with a melted matrix resin in an impregnation die, does not mean that Koshi does not meet the structural features implied by the present claim, or the claimed process features. In addition, it is noted that, technically, the “other” or “second” surface resin layer of Koshi can still be viewed as grouped with its fibrous reinforcement to form an overall fiber-reinforced layer which meets the present claims.
On pages 7-8, Applicant argues that Koshi fails to disclose the formation of a surface layer on only one side of the reinforcing fibers, and not on two opposite sides. Applicant points to the method of Koshi. These arguments are not found persuasive as they are not commensurate in scope with the claims. Koshi need not disclose Applicant’s method of forming the claimed invention, and further, the “other” or “second” surface resin layer of Koshi can still be viewed as grouped with its fibrous reinforcement to form an overall fiber-reinforced layer which meets the present claims.
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 ETHAN WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Maria V. Ewald can be reached on (571) 272-8519. 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.
/E.W./
Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights