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
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2003-225914 A with a machine translation (submitted on 3 February 2025) being used as the English language equivalent translation (hereinafter “Ohama”), in view of JP S58-71151 A with a machine translation (submitted on 3 February 2025) being used as the English language equivalent translation (hereinafter “Kouji”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0068365 (hereinafter “Obermeyer”), and further in view of an article titled “Textile Reinforced Structural Composites for Advanced Applications” by Karaduman, N., et al. (submitted on 3 September 2024) (hereinafter “Karaduman”).Regarding claims 1 and 3 Ohama teaches a fiber reinforced resin molding (FRP reinforcing member) high in mechanical strength with a hole 2 formed therein for securing a bolt fastener. The fiber reinforced resin molding (FRP reinforcing member) comprising a second member 4 containing reinforcing fibers and a resin to be reinforced, and a first member (cloth-like fiber layer) 3 including a reinforcing fabric 31 of a reinforcing fibers and a resin to be reinforced (abstract, Figure 5, and paragraph [0015] and [0016]), which corresponds to a plurality of laminated fiber layers being integrated with a resin. Ohama illustrates an embodiment where two first member layers (plurality of fiber layers have two or more cloth-like fiber layers) 3 sandwich the second member 4 (Figure 5). Ohama teaches the reinforcing fabric of the first member 3 includes various modifications including braids, woven, and nonwoven fabrics constructions (paragraph [0030]). Ohama does not explicitly teach the plurality of fiber layers include a spiral fiber layer formed by arranging fibers in a spiral shape in such a manner that traces of the fibers spirally extend from inside to outside. Kouji teaches a joint structure of a composite product (page 2, lines 1-2 in paragraph [0001]). Kouji teaches the joint structure includes a composite material product 1, a joint 2 at the end of the composite material product 1, a gusset (spiral fiber layer) 3 adhered to the joint 2 of the composite product 1 for connecting to another joint 8 and applying a bolt 9, 9a through a hole 4 formed therethrough (page 3, lines 14-28, page 4, lines 10-25), and Figures 1-3). Kouji teaches the gusset (spiral fiber layer) 3 is formed of a composite material having a fiber structure in which reinforcing fibers are arranged in a spiral shape (page 3 lines 28-30). Kouji illustrates the fibers in the gusset (spiral fiber layer) 3 are formed by arranging fiber in a spiral shape in such a manner that traces of the fibers spirally extend from inside to outside (Figures 1-2(b)). Kouji also illustrates gussets (spiral fiber layers) 3 are disposed between layers 1, 8 that would otherwise have interfacial contact therebetween in an area adjacent to the bolt fastener hole 4 (Figure 3). Kouji teaches the reinforcing fiber in the composite material product 1 and gusset (spiral fiber layer) 3 effectively work for load transmission and have an effect of improving the joint strength (page 4, lines 18-31). Therefore, it would have obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the interfaces between the first members 3 and the second member 4 adjacent to the bolt fastener holes 2 of Ohama with the gusset (spiral fiber layer) 3 of Kouji to improve the joint strength of the fiber reinforced resin molding (FRP reinforcing member) in a vicinity of the bolt holes. Ohama does not explicitly teach the reinforcing fabric of the first member (cloth-like fiber layer) 3 includes fibers which are knitted in a lattice pattern. Obermeyer teaches a high strength joining system for fiber reinforced composites (FRP reinforcing member) (titled and paragraph [0012]). Obermeyer teaches the integrity of the combined structure is thus enhanced by continuity of fiber across the adhesive-to-cured-resin interfaces and thus does not rely on the strength of the adhesive-to-cured-resin bonds and also does not rely on the strength of un-reinforced adhesive. Loads may be reliably transferred from fiber to resin to fiber without the requirement for tensile load transfer across adhesive bond lines. Stresses within the adhesive itself are also reduced in accordance with the degree of fiber overlap achieved within the adhesive. Fiber overlap may be tailored to load requirements. For example, opposing electro-statically flocked bonding strips might be used in order to maximize the proportion of Z-axis fiber alignment within the joint. Connections with predominately shear loads might be adequately provided with partial exposure of woven reinforcing fabrics. Knitted fabrics would be expected to provide joint properties intermediate to those provided by flocked bonding strips and square woven fabric (paragraph [0012]). Obermeyer teaches the benefit of z-axis fibers with composite articles are known, such as improved inter-laminar strength (paragraph [0010]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the reinforcing fabric of the first member 3 of Ohama with the knitted fabric of Obermeyer to provide a joint exhibiting a balance between improved inter-laminar strength, and shear load attenuation. Obermeyer is silent with regards to specific structures for a knitted fabric; therefore, it would have been necessary and thus obvious to look to the prior art for conventional structures. Karaduman provides this conventional teaching showing that it is known in the art that a knitted fabric configuration contains a lattice structure (Figure 3 and under the “2.3.1.2. 2D knitted fabric” bridging pages 9 and 10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the knitted fabric from Obermeyer having the lattice structure taught by Karaduman motivated by the expectation of successfully practicing the invention of a conventional knitted fabric configuration. The limitation “configured to be used by being attached to an FRP molded body” has been considered. However, this limitation merely states the intended use of the claimed product and does not provide any additional structure to the claimed product itself. See MPEP §2111.02(II). The combination of Ohama and Kouji, as detailed above, yields a structure where at least two layers of the first members (cloth-like layers) 3 from Ohama are laminated so as to sandwich the gusset (spiral fiber layer) 3 from Kouji.Regarding claim 2 In addition, Kouji illustrates the use of at least two gussets (spiral fiber layers formed by arranging fibers in a spiral shape) 3 (Figure 3). Furthermore, the combination of Ohama and Kouji, as detailed above, also yields a structure where at least two gussets (spiral fiber layers formed by arranging fibers in a spiral shape) 3 are used.Regarding claim 6 In addition, Ohama teaches fibers for the fibers layers 3, 4 include glass, carbon, or aramid fibers (paragraph [0018]).Regarding claims 11 and 13 In addition, Ohama illustrates the fiber reinforced resin molding includes a bolt hole 2 (paragraph [0016] and Figure 5). Kouji also illustrates a bolt hole 4 wherein the spiral shape of the fibers in the gusset 3 has a radius larger than a diameter of the bolt hole (Figure 1).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohama, Kouji, Obermeyer, and Karaduman as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2014/0271200 (hereinafter “Sutton”).Regarding claim 5 The limitations of claim 3 have been set forth above. In addition, the combination of Ohama and Obermeyer teaches an upper knitted first member (cloth-like fiber layer) 3 and a lower knitted first member (cloth-like fiber layer) 3 (Ohama – Figure 5). The combination of Ohama and Obermeyer does not explicitly teach when viewed from a laminating direction of the cloth-like fiber layers 3, an extending direction of fibers of a predetermined upper cloth-like fiber layer and an extending direction of fibers of a predetermined lower cloth-like fiber layer are laminated so as to intersect at an angle of 45 degrees. Sutton teaches a joint attaching composite materials, including a yoke (abstract and paragraphs [0021] – [0026], etc.). Sutton teaches the yoke 103 may comprise numerous plies 126 comprising various fiber orientations that intersect bolt holes 129 at various angles. For example, some fibers run tangentially to the circumference of the bolt holes (an upper cloth-like fiber layer having fibers extending in a predetermined direction) 129 while other fibers meet the circumference of the bolt holes 129 at an approximately 45° angle (a lower cloth-like fiber layer laminated so as to intersect at an angle of 45° with the fibers of the upper cloth-like fiber layer). As a result, a lug 128 is configured to react to shear forces applied from every direction (paragraph [0059]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to vary the fiber orientations of the upper knitted first member (cloth-like fiber layer) 3 and a lower knitted first member (cloth-like fiber layer) 3 to intersect at an angle of 45° to configure the fiber reinforced resin molding to react to shear forces applied from multiple directions in an area of the hole 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is initially noted the applicant states, several times in the remarks, amendments have been provided to the claims. However, the claims submitted on 10 December 2025 are identical to the previous set of claims, submitted on 3 April 2025. There have been no amendments provided in the most recent set of claims. The applicant argued the claimed FRP reinforcing member is configured to be used by being attached to an FRP molded body. However, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is the position of the examiner that the fiber reinforced resin molding (FRP reinforcing member) from the prior art references, as detailed in the rejection of record, is most certainly capable of being attached to an FRP molded body. The applicant has provided an overview of the properties/functions of only the spiral reinforcement or only the lattice-pattern fiber layer and the instant application, and referenced attached papers (i) and (ii). The applicant concluded by arguing that for the first time, the effect of suppressing crack initiation and propagation can be achieved by sandwiching the spiral fiber layer and the cloth-like (lattice-pattern) fiber layers. However, the examiner respectfully submits that it has been held that the discovery of a previously unappreciated property or function, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer. See MPEP §§2112 and 2145(II). In other words, there is no requirement that the prior art must recognize the effect of suppressing crack initiation and propagation can be achieved by sandwiching the spiral fiber layer and the cloth-like (lattice-pattern) fiber layers. Moreover, due to the fact that the structure of the fiber reinforced resin molding (FRP reinforcing member), as taught by the combination of Ohama, Kouji, Obermeyer, and Karaduman, is the same as the structure of the claimed FRP reinforcing member, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the effect highlighted by the applicant would necessarily be present. The applicant argued each cited document fails to teach or suggest the structure that “at least two cloth-like fiber layers (lattice-pattern layer) are laminated so as to sandwich the spiral fiber layer, in order to provide evidence for preventing crack initiation and propagation.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The first portion highlighted by the applicant (at least two cloth-like fiber layers (lattice-pattern layer) are laminated so as to sandwich the spiral fiber layer) has been found to be obvious over the prior art references currently of record. The second portion highlighted by the applicant (in order to provide evidence for preventing crack initiation and propagation) is not commensurate in scope with the claims because the claims do not require such a feature. However, even if such a feature was required by the claim, the previous discussion with regards to the properties/functions necessarily being present in a structure where a sandwiching of the spiral fiber layer with the cloth-like (lattice-pattern) fiber layers is present would also apply. To emphasize, the discovery of a previously unappreciated property or function does not render the old product patentably new to the discoverer.
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 BRIAN HANDVILLE whose telephone number is (571)272-5074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, from 9 am to 4 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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (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.
/BRIAN HANDVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783