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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the “number average fiber length L” in line 12, and further apply this L value into the equation: (C/L)(1/2)xH, wherein, the term “number average fiber length L” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite as this term is not defined by the claim, and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, it cannot be clearly ascertained the value of the number average fiber length L is based on which length unit.
Furthermore, it is noted that original specification appears to suggest that “number average fiber length L (μm)” refers to number average fiber length to be applied in to the equation below [Instant App. US20230131534; P11; Tables 1-3], therefore, the claim 1 has been interpreted, for further examination, as being limited to “number average fiber length L (μm)” according to the instant application specification.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imaizumi (US20100009158, herein Imaizumi).
Regarding claims 1-5, Imaizumi teaches resin plate [0121] comprising: glass fiber as reinforcing fiber [0083] to the crystalline thermoplastic resins include, polyamide resins [0034], wherein, the thermoplastic resin (A) for use in the invention may be any of crystalline thermoplastic resins and amorphous thermoplastic resins [0033], indicates polycarbonate is not required and can be excluded from not selecting the polycarbonate resin.
Imaizumi teaches reinforcing fibers having a flattened cross-sectional profile [0015], with major diameter (a) 28 μm and a minor diameter (b)=7 μm [0125], lies in the claimed range.
Imaizumi teaches Degree of flatness=major diameter of reinforcing fiber (a)/minor diameter of reinforcing fiber (b) and the degree of flatness of the reinforcing fibers (B) is from 2.3 to 5 [0018-19], which overlaps the claimed range. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the range of the major diameter of reinforcing fiber (a)/minor diameter of reinforcing fiber (b), and utilize the range of 2.3 to 5 [0018-19], as taught by Imaizumi, and apply the specific glass fiber with particular dimension into the glass fiber-crystalline polyamide based molded resin plate formation. Doing so would further lead to the regulation of the resin flow, which can influence the fiber orientation, and further improving the dimensional accuracy, the warpage resistance and the surface appearance [0086] and even further affect the heat resistance [0087], as taught by Imaizumi.
Imaizumi teaches 30 to 65% by weight of reinforcing fibers [0016], overlaps the claimed range. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the range of glass fiber content, and apply the range of 30 to 65% by weight of reinforcing fibers [0016], as taught by Imaizumi, and apply into the glass fiber-crystalline polyamide based molded resin plate formation. Doing so would further lead to the fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin molded article excellent not only in mechanical strength but also in heat resistance, dimensional accuracy and surface appearance [0031], as taught by Imaizumi.
Imaizumi teaches the molded resin plates having a thickness of 2 mm [0121], lies in the claimed range.
Imaizumi teaches the number-average fiber length 1.65-2 mm [P11-13; Table 1-3], which is 1650 and 2000 μm.
The HxC range according to the thickness and glass fiber content ranges above, is 30x2=60 to 65x2=130, overlaps in the claimed range.
The (C/L)(1/2)xH range according to the thickness, fiber length and glass fiber content range above, is (C/L)(1/2)xH=(30/2000) (1/2)x2=0.16 to (65/1650) (1/2)x2=0.40, overlaps the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the ranges of glass fiber content, thickness and the number-average fiber length, with the as-calculated HxC range 60 to 130; (C/L)(1/2)xH range 0.16 to 0.40, and apply these specific glass fiber with particular dimension and concentration ranges into the glass fiber-crystalline polyamide resin based molded resin plate formation. Doing so would further lead to the fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin molded article excellent not only in mechanical strength but also in heat resistance, dimensional accuracy and surface appearance [0031], as taught by Imaizumi.
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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/29/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Imaizumi (US20100009158, herein Imaizumi) as set forth above.
In this case, Imaizumi teaches the composition as set forth above in the new rejection, whereas the applicant’s arguments are directed toward the amendment to independent claim 1, which has been addressed by the new rejection set forth above.
Additionally, regard to the applicant’s argument that “unexpected results”, in fact, when Examples 1-6; Ref. Examples 1-10 and Comp. Examples 1-4 are considered as a whole, they establish results associated with the ranges, respect to the claimed ranges provided for comparison. Claim 1 is open to a ratio of the major axis to the minor axis (major axis/minor axis) R in a range of 4.5 to 10.0. However, Examples 1-6 and Comp. Examples 1-4, all only have the single value of the major axis/minor axis R as 0.6. [Instant App. US20230131534; P13; Table 1-3]; Ref. Examples 1-10 all only have the single value of the major axis/minor axis R as 0.4. [Instant App. US20230131534; P13; Table 1-3]; Hence, these example groups each with the single concentration value are not reasonably commensurate in scope with the claimed range. Examples 1-6; Ref. Examples 1-10 and Comp. Examples 1-4 are therefore insufficient to establish non-obviousness.
Whether unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support. In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. See MPEP 716.02(d).
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 mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zhen Liu whose telephone number is (703)756-4782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached on (571)272-1197. 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.
/Z.L./
Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights