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
The amendment of November 11, 2025 filed with the RCE submission has been received and entered. With the entry of the amendment, claims 16-20 are canceled, and claims 1-15 and 21-25 are pending for examination.
Election/Restrictions
It is noted that non-elected claims 16-20 have been canceled by the amendment of August 29, 2024.
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 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 5, line 2, as worded it is vague and indefinite what is meant by “cylinder” as it is not clarified what the cylinder would be.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on November 11, 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of (1) any patent granted on Application number 18/231,701 and (2) US Patent No. 12,319,017 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 13, 15 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nakao et al (US 2023/0021189).
Claim 1: Nakao provides a method of manufacturing a sheet molding compound (SMC), comprising chopping a continuous carbon fiber bundle with a rotary cutter to form chopped carbon fiber bundles, conducting a fragmentation of the chopped carbon fiber bundles using a fragmentation processing apparatus, depositing the chopped carbon fiber bundles after the fragmentation on a carrier film travelling below the rotary cutter to form a carbon fiber mat, and impregnating the carbon fiber mat with a thermosetting resin composition (note 0017-0022). The fragmentation processing apparatus comprises a first pin roller comprising first pins attached to a surface of the first pin roller and a second pin roller comprising second pins attached to a surface of the second pin roller (note figure 4, 0113, 0121), where the rotation axes of the first and second pin rollers are parallel to a rotation axis direction of the rotary cutter, and the first pin roller rotates such that its pins move downward from above on its side facing the second pin roller, and the second pin roller rotates such that its pins move downwards from above on its side facing the first pin roller (note 0129, figure 1, claim 2), and the first pins and/or the second pins are a columnar shape (note figure 4, 0113, 0121) and the fragmentation of the of the chopped carbon fiber bundles, which go through between the first pin roller and the second pin roller, is not for defibration or not to loosen the chopped carbon fiber bundles (note figure 1, 0178).
For the features of present claim 2, note claim 3 of Nakao. For the features of present claim 3, note claim 4 of Nakao. For the features of present claim 4, note claim 5 of Nakao. For the features of present claim 6, claims 17, 20 of Nakao are understood to meet this requirement. For the features of present claim 7, note claim 11 of Nakao. For the features of present claim 8, note claim 12 of Nakao. For the features of present claim 9, note claims 1, 8 of Nakao. For the features of present claim 13, this is understood from 0178-0180. For the features of present claim 15, this is provided by 0176. For the features of present claim 21, this is shown in figure 1. For the features of present claim 22, this is provided by 0116. For the features of present claim 23, this is provided by 0117. For the features of present claim 24, this is provided by figures 4-5, 0121. For the features of present claim 25, this is provided by 0125-0126.
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 13-15 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oda et al (US 2023/0390967).
Claim 1: Oda provides a method of manufacturing a sheet molding compound (SMC), comprising chopping a continuous carbon fiber bundle with a rotary cutter to form chopped carbon fiber bundles, conducting a fragmentation of the chopped carbon fiber bundles using a fragmentation processing apparatus, depositing the chopped carbon fiber bundles after the fragmentation on a carrier film travelling below the rotary cutter to form a carbon fiber mat, and impregnating the carbon fiber mat with a thermosetting resin composition (note figure 3, 0013). The fragmentation processing apparatus comprises a first pin roller comprising first pins attached to a surface of the first pin roller and a second pin roller comprising second pins attached to a surface of the second pin roller (note figures 3, 5, 6, 0013, 0186), where the rotation axes of the first and second pin rollers are parallel to a rotation axis direction of the rotary cutter, and the first pin roller rotates such that its pins move downward from above on its side facing the second pin roller, and the second pin roller rotates such that its pins move downwards from above on its side facing the first pin roller (note figure 5), and the first pins and/or the second pins are a columnar shape (note figure 6) and the fragmentation of the of the chopped carbon fiber bundles, which go through between the first pin roller and the second pin roller, is not for defibration or not to loosen the chopped carbon fiber bundles (note figures 3, 5, 0280).
For the features of present claim 2, note figure 5. For the features of present claim 3, note figure 5. For the features of present claim 5, note 0194. For the features of present claim 6, note 0091. For the features of present claim 7, note figure 3. For the features of present claim 8, note 0093. For the features of present claim 9, note 0092. For the features of present claim 13, note 0092. For the features of present claim 14, note 0323. For the features of present claim 15, this is provided by 0279. For the features of present claim 21, this is shown in figure 3. For the features of present claim 22, this is provided by 0190. For the features of present claim 23, this is provided by 0191. For the features of present claim 24, this is provided by figure 7.
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Nakao et al (US 2023/0021189}.
Nakao provides the features of claims 1, etc. as discussed in the 35 USC 102 rejection using Nakao above.
Furthermore, as to claim 5, as to the specific radius of a cylinder, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakao to optimize the size of the cylinder, giving a value in the claimed range, since Nakao indicates the radius of cylinders in the pin rolls are controllable and adjustable to provide desired dimension (note 0125).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Claims 10-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakao as applied to claims 1-4, 6-9, 13, 15 and 21-25 above, and further in view of Okamoto et al (US 2023/0103035).
As to claims 10-12 as to the package features, Nakao describes providing the partially split carbon fiber bundle, winding on a take up bobbin to form a package, and then using the package in the SMC manufacturing method (note figures 7, 1, 0171).
Oda further describes a method of making SMC including providing fiber bundles, chopping the bundles, further fragmenting, depositing the fragmented and chopped bundles on a carrier and impregnating with thermosetting resin (note figure 6, 0131-0143), and indicates partially split fiber bundles for use in the process, where the bundles are provided in a package form (when for use bundles drawn out of the package) (note 0132, 0012-0013), wound such that there is no gap between the sub-bundles, and also where the bundle is wound so that adjacent sub-bundles overlap each other and the package width is less than a total sum width of the sub-bundles (note 0029-0030, 0032, 0044, 0048).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakao to use the package features described above for Okamoto, giving the features of claims 10-12, with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since Nakao indicates providing an SMC manufacturing process using a package of wound carbon fiber, and Okamoto indicates a package for similar such SMC manufacturing can be provided as partially split fiber bundles for use in the process, where the bundles are provided in a package form (when for use bundles drawn out of the package), wound such that there is no gap between the sub-bundles, and also where the bundle is wound so that adjacent sub-bundles overlap each other and the package width is less than a total sum width of the sub-bundles.
Furthermore, as to claim 14, the number of filaments in the sub-bundle, when providing the process of Nakao in view of Okamoto as discussed above, the number of filaments in the subbundle of 0.5 to 5K would be suggested by Okamoto, which suggests that the number of filaments of the overall bundle/divided by number of sub-bundles (so giving the number of filaments in a sub-bundle) can be 0.5 or more (that is o.5 K or more) (note 0034-0037), and it would have been obvious to optimize from this range, giving a value in the claimed range.
The applied references (both Nakao and Okamoto) have a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Claim 4 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Oda et al (US 2023/0390967}.
Oda provides the features of claims 1, etc. as discussed in the 35 USC 102 rejection using Oda above.
Furthermore, as to claims 4 and 25, as to the difference between sum of maximum radius and distance (claims 4, 25) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oda to optimize the difference between the sum of maximum radium and distance as claimed, giving values in the claimed ranges, since Oda indicates that the difference between the sum of maximum radius and distance are such that sum of the radius is smaller than the distance and would be controllable (note 0202-0203).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda as applied to claims 1-3, 5-9, 13-15 and 21-24 above, and further in view of Okamoto et al (US 2023/0103035).
As to claims 10-12 as to the package features, Oda describes providing the partially split carbon fiber bundle (in advance) (note 0155-0156), and providing a wound roll of the fiber bundle material, and then using the package in the SMC manufacturing method (note figure 3, 0155-0157).
Oda further describes a method of making SMC including providing fiber bundles, chopping the bundles, further fragmenting, depositing the fragmented and chopped bundles on a carrier and impregnating with thermosetting resin (note figure 6, 0131-0143), and indicates partially split fiber bundles for use in the process, where the bundles are provided in a package form (when for use bundles drawn out of the package) (note 0132, 0012-0013), wound such that there is no gap between the sub-bundles, and also where the bundle is wound so that adjacent sub-bundles overlap each other and the package width is less than a total sum width of the sub-bundles (note 0029-0030, 0032, 0044, 0048).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oda to use the package features described above for Okamoto, giving the features of claims 10-12, with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since Oda indicates providing an SMC manufacturing process suing a package of wound carbon fiber, and Okamoto indicates a package for similar such SMC manufacturing can be provided as partially split fiber bundles for use in the process, where the bundles are provided in a package form (when for use bundles drawn out of the package), wound such that there is no gap between the sub-bundles, and also where the bundle is wound so that adjacent sub-bundles overlap each other and the package width is less than a total sum width of the sub-bundles.
The applied references (both Oda and Okamoto) have a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Double Patenting
The rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-13 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 17/865,288 (reference application) has been withdrawn due to the amendments to the present claims and that of ‘288 removing overlapping features.
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5-9 and 21-24 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,319,017 (hereinafter ‘017, which issued from Application No. 17/946,395) is withdrawn due to the acceptable Terminal Disclaimer filed November 11, 2025.
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7-8 and 21-24 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of copending Application No. 18/231,701 (hereinafter ‘701)(reference application) ) is withdrawn due to the acceptable Terminal Disclaimer filed November 11, 2025.
The US PG Publication of 17/865,288 is US 2022/0347890. The US PG Publication of 17/946,395 is US 2023/0021189. The US PG Publication of 18/231,701 is US 2023/0390967.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 11, 2025 have been fully considered.
The Examiner notes that the previous rejections have been withdrawn, but on review there is an additional 35 USC 112 rejection and 35 USC 103 rejections based on intervening date documents.
Applicant’s foreign priority document has not been provided with a certified English translation, and thus Nakao, Oda and Okamoto, with intervening priority dates between the claimed foreign priority date and the PCT application date of the present application have been used. As noted in the rejections above, there are a number of possible ways to overcome these references.
Note that Nakao and Oda were cited on the PTO-892 of May 31, 2024.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 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, GORDON BALDWIN can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718