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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 26, 2025 has been entered.
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 13, 14, 16, 20, 21, 23-25, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuyuki (JP 07-100943) in view of Oosedo et al. (US Pat. 5,543,212). Note: The machine translation provided by the applicant is being used for citation purposes.
Considering Claims 13, 16, and 20: Kazuyuki teaches fiber reinforced plastic comprising a reinforcing fiber group comprising reinforcing fibers (¶0007); a thermosetting resin layer comprising a first thermosetting resin (¶0006; Fig. 2); and thermoplastic resin layer (¶0008; Fig. 2). Kazuyuki teaches that the thermoplastic resin layer is disposed on the surface of the thermosetting resin layer, the interface is present in the reinforcing fibers (¶0014), and the thermoplastic layer comprises portions of the thermosetting layer as a sea-island formation/dispersed in the thermoplastic layer (¶0015).
Kazuyuki teaches incorporating the thermosetting resin into the thermoplastic layer at a temperature below the curing temperature of the thermosetting resin (¶0018), and thus the resin would uncured in the laminate prior to the curing step.
Kazuyuki does not teach an isolated prepreg, but rather an intermediate during the curing process. However, Oosedo et al. teaches forming a prepreg laminate of a fiber reinforced thermosetting layer and a thermoplastic layer, where the thermosetting layer impregnates into the thermoplastic layer (2:53-58; 3:43-4:18; 5:23-35). Kazuyuki and Oosedo et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely reinforced thermoset-thermoplastic laminates. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have isolated the intermediate of Kazuyuki, where the thermoplastic layer is impregnated with a portion of the thermosetting resin, as in Oosedo et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Oosedo et al. suggests, to provide a commercial product that can be shaped into the desired shape by the user (1:20-35).
Considering Claim 14: Kazuyuki teaches the domains as being microphasic/greater than 1 micron (¶0015).
Considering Claim 21: Kazuyuki teaches the domains as being microphasic/greater than 1 micron (¶0015).
Considering Claim 23: Kazuyuki teaches the thermoplastic resin as being a polyamide, polyether ketone, polyether ether ketone, or polyphenylene sulfide (¶0008).
Considering Claim 24: Kazuyuki teaches the thermosetting resin as being an epoxy (¶0006).
Considering Claim 25: Kazuyuki teaches the fibers as being carbon fibers (¶0007).
Considering Claim 28: Kazuyuki is silent towards the thickness of the thermosetting layer and the entire prepreg. However, changes in size have been found to be obvious. See MPEP § 2144.04. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the desired thickness for the thermosetting layer and entire prepreg, and the motivation to do so would have been, to produce a pipe capable of holding the required amount of fluid.
Considering Claim 29: Kazuyuki teaches the laminate as being in the form of a composite sheet (¶0012).
Claims 15 and 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuyuki (JP 07-100943) in view of Oosedo et al. (US Pat. 5,543,212) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Tsuchiya et al. (US 2009/0208721).
Considering Claims 15 and 27: Kazuyuki teaches the product of claim 13 as shown above.
Kazuyuki is silent towards the amount of reinforcing fiber in the thermoplastic layer. However, Tsuchiya et al. teaches a welded thermoplastic and thermosetting layer, where the reinforcing fibers in the thermoplastic layer are 5 to 60% by weight (¶0089). Kazuyuki and Tsuchiya et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely thermoplastic and thermosetting resin layers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the reinforcing fiber in the amount of Tsuchiya et al., in the thermoplastic layer of Kazuyuki, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Tsuchiya et al. suggests, to improve the strength of the composite (¶0089).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuyuki (JP 07-100943) in view of Oosedo et al. (US Pat. 5,543,212) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Arai et al. (US 2015/0210813).
Considering Claim 19: Kazuyuki teaches the product of claim 13 as shown above.
Kazuyuki is silent towards the surface free energy of the reinforcing fibers. However, Arai et al. teaches a reinforcing fiber with a surface free energy of 8 to 50 mJ/m2 (¶0182). Kazuyuki and Arai et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, reinforced thermosetting layers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the reinforcing fibers of Arai et al. in the thermosetting layer of Kazuyuki, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Arai et al. suggests, to increase the impregnation of the matrix resin into the reinforcing fibers.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuyuki (JP 07-100943) in view of Oosedo et al. (US Pat. 5,543,212) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Wadahara et al. (JP 2002-088259). Note: The machine translation provided by the applicant is being used for citation purposes.
Considering Claim 22: Kazuyuki teaches the product of claim 13 as shown above.
Kazuyuki is silent on the amount of second thermoset dispersed within the thermoplastic layer. However, Wadahara et al. teaches a thermoplatstic layer comprising reinforcing fibers and a thermosetting resin dispersed within the thermoplastic in a sea island structure (¶0008; 0041-43; 0098). Wadahara et al. teaches the amount of thermosetting resin as being 0.5 to 50 weight percent of the thermoplastic resin layer (¶0038). Kazuyuki and Wadahara et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely reinforced resin layers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the thermosetting resin in the amount of Wadahara et al. in the layer of Kazuyuki, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Wadahara et al. suggests, to improve the impact strength and rigidity (¶0001).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuyuki (JP 07-100943) in view of Oosedo et al. (US Pat. 5,543,212) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Tsuchiya et al. (US 2011/0143110). Note: The machine translation provided by the applicant is being used for citation purposes.
Considering Claim 26: Kazuyuki teaches the product of claim 13 as shown above.
Kazuyuki is silent towards the impregnation ratio of the resins into the reinforcing layer. However, Tsuchiya et al. teaches a reinforced fiber resin having an impregnation ratio of 50 to 100% (¶0077). Kazuyuki and Tsuchiya et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely reinforced resin layers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the impregnation ratio of Tsuchiya et al. in the layers of Kazuyuki, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Tsuchiya et al. suggests, to maintain the form of the fibers and provide moldability to the prepreg (¶0077; 0211).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because:
A) The applicant’s argument that Kazuyuki does not teach an isolated product that is a prepreg, but rather an intermediate during the processing is persuasive. Oosedo et al. has been added to the rejection to address this deficiency.
B) The applicant’s argument that the references do not teach the content of the fibers and the second thermosetting resin in a region of 50 microns from the interface between the thermoplastic layer and the thermosetting resin towards a surface of the thermoplastic resin layer is not persuasive. As the area in question is away from the interface and towards the outer surface of the resin, the amount of the fiber and the thermosetting resin in Kazuyuki in this area would be analogous to the fibers in the region. This is because the thermosetting resin in Kazuyuki is only present in the interface, which is excluded from the measurement.
Tsuchiya et al. teaches a welded thermoplastic and thermosetting layer, where the reinforcing fibers in the thermoplastic layer are 5 to 60% by weight (¶0089). Kazuyuki and Tsuchiya et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely thermoplastic and thermosetting resin layers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the reinforcing fiber in the amount of Tsuchiya et al., in the thermoplastic layer of Kazuyuki, and the motivation to do so would have been, as Tsuchiya et al. suggests, to improve the strength of the composite (¶0089).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the absence of fibers in the thermoplastic resin) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
C) The applicant’s argument that Kazuyuki does not teach the thickness ratio of the thermoplastic resin layer to the whole thickness is a result effective variable is not persuasive. Kazuyuki is silent towards the thickness of the thermosetting layer and the entire prepreg. However, changes in size have been found to be obvious. See MPEP § 2144.04. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the desired thickness for the thermosetting layer and entire prepreg, and the motivation to do so would have been, to produce a pipe capable of holding the required amount of fluid. The size of each component would be considered to be obvious, and thus the ratio would implicitly be considered to be obvious.
D) The applicant’s argument Tsuchiya et al. does not teach the claimed means of measuring the impregnation ratio is not persuasive. Tsuchiya et al. teaches the same property, the filling of voids between the fibers with resin, and thus would read on the instant claims, regardless of the means of measuring the property.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM J HEINCER whose telephone number is (571)270-3297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 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.
/LIAM J HEINCER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767