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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 21, 2026 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Applicant's amendment filed on January 21, 2026was received. No claim was amended. No claim was added. Claim 3-4 was canceled. Claims 6-7 were withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35. U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action Issued November 7, 2025.
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 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (US20210237368) in view of Belcher (US20200391496), Vichniakov (US20220134675), Yamamura (US20170282469) and Scheltjens (US20230066187).
Regarding claim 1, Endo teaches a method of pretreating an object, such as carbon fiber reinforced thermoplastics (CFRP) (abstract, paragraphs 0005, 0054 and 0061). Endo teaches to active the surface of the CFRP before joining it with another object (preforming activation treatment on a coating target surface of the fiber reinforced thermoplastic member before coating) (paragraphs 0005 and 0054). Endo to activate with plasma irritation the surface, and after the activation a water contact angle of surface decrease (paragraphs 0057 and 0071). Endo teaches to heat the joining surfaces to an appropriate temperature so improve the joining strength and joining speed (paragraph 0117) (activation by heating the coating target surface).
Endo does not explicitly teach the surface free energy of the target after the activation. However, Belcher teaches to plasma treated a thermoplastic surface for bonding (paragraphs 0002, 0003). Belcher teaches the plasma treatment results in a reduced water contact angle (same as Endo) correlates with higher surface energy, and the higher surface energy represents greater propensity for adhesion and bonding of the treated surface (paragraph 0033). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the surface free energy in the process to yield the desired adhesion and bonding of the plasma treated surface. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Endo teaches the CFRP comprises carbon fiber and preform as polyether ether ketone (PEEK), polyamide (PA), polyetherimide (PEI) or polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) (pargraph 0061). Thus, Endo in view of Belcher does not explicitly teach the low melting point polyaryl ether ketone (LMPAEK) as the preform of the CFRP, or heating the target surface. However, Vichniakov teaches a method for welding two thermoplastic workpieces that are reinforced by carbon fibers (CFRP) (abstract and 0010). Vichniakov teaches LMPAEK, PEEK, PEI, PPS and PA are functionally equivalent preform of the CFRP (paragraph 0010). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute LMPAEK for PEEK, PEI, PPS or PA as the preform in the CFRP in the method as disclosed by Endo in view of Belcher. Vichniakov further teaches the joining zone (target surface) is heated to greater than 100ºC (paragraph 0015) to soften the joining zone to create material bond without melting of the thermoplastic (paragraph 0041), which overlaps with the claimed range of 90 to 125 ºC. The elastic modulus of the coating target surface is considered to be lower at such heating temperature as the thermoplastic on the surface is soften. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05. In addition, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the surface temperature in the process to yield the desired level of softening of thermoplastic to facilitate the bonding of the material, without melting the thermoplastic (paragraph 0041). Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to heat the thermoplastic at the temperature as suggested by Vichniakov in the method of Endo in view of Belcher because Vichniakov teaches such heating facilitate the material bonding of the target surface.
Endo in view of Belcher and Vichniakov does not explicitly teach the measuring the temperature and adjusting the temperature. However, Yamamura teaches to plasma treat organic molded article to improve surface strength and enable bonding without the use of an adhesive (activation) (paragraphs 0017 and 0041). Yamamura further teaches the plasmas parameters and also a heating means are being controlled/adjusted for the desired heating temperature of the substrate during the plasma activation (paragraphs 0058 and 0059). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control and adjust the plasma and heating parameters plasma activation as suggested by Yamamura in the method of Endo in view of Belcher and Vichniakov because Yamaura teaches the controlling and adjustment ensure desired heating temperature of the substrate during the plasma activation (paragraph 0033).
Endo in view of Belcher, Vichniakov and Yamamura does not explicitly teach the temperature on the coating surface is measured during the activation treatment. However, Scheltjens teaches a method of plasma activating a surface for improved adhesion (paragraphs 0035-0039). Scheltjens teaches the plasma temperature is controlled by checking if the predetermined desired temperature relates to the measured temperature (both the plasma and substate temperature are measured) and adjust the condition by a controlled system (paragraph 0072). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure the temperature of the substrate and adjust the condition of the plasma (and also the heating device of Yamamura) as suggested by Scheltjens in the method of Endo in view of Belcher, Vichniakov and Yamamura because Scheltjens teaches the control system ensure the plasma temperature and the substrate temperature are controlled within the desired temperature during the plasma activation (paragraph 0072).
Regarding claim 2, Vichniakov teaches the joining zone (target surface) is heated to greater than 100ºC (paragraph 0015) to soften the joining zone to create material bond without melting of the thermoplastic (paragraph 0041), which overlaps with the claimed range of 90 to 125 ºC. (temperature to achieve lower elastic modules at reduction range of 5% or larger). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05. Thus, the Vichniakov teaches the temperature is a temperature at which a reduction range of elastic modulus due to heating is 5% or larger, compared to the elastic modulus of the coating target surface at the normal temperature.
Regarding claim 5, Yamamura teaches the temperature of the substrate can be measured by temperature measurement seal (contact type) or a radiation thermometer (contactless type) (paragraph 0060). And Scheltjens teaches to change the condition for activating and heating based on the measured temperature. However, Yamamura does not explicitly teach to measure with both contact and contactless measuring device. However, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the two measurement methods, contact and contactless, in the activation method. It is prima facie obvious to combine two techniques, each of which is taught be the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to forma third technique which is to be used for the very same purpose. In re Kerkhoven, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072. Thus, it would have been obvious to measure the substrate temperature with both contact and contactless method to decide the measured temperature (determine the correlation data to determine the corrected temperature), and use such measured temperature for changing the conditions of plasma and heating in the light of teachings of Endo in view of Belcher, Vichniakov, Yamamura and Scheltjens. Such measurement and determining the correlation data would be reasonably expected to be performed for the whole plasma treatment, even during the initial phase, which is considered as before the activation treatment as the activation has not been formed and/or finalized yet.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on January 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
Scheltjens teaches control be cooling, which is different from the claimed invention.
Yamamura teaches heating the temperature well above the upper limits of the claimed range.
No explanation to combine the cited reference.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
As discusses above, Scheltjens teaches the temperature on the coating surface is measured during the activation treatment. The controlling of temperature is disclosed by Yamamura. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Yamamura is relied upon to show that the plasmas parameters and also a heating means are being controlled/adjusted for the desired heating temperature of the substrate during the plasma activation while Vichniakov teaches the heating temperature. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, each of the references provided the teaching, suggestion and motivation as detailed in the rejections above. In response to applicant's argument that the reference are not nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, all the references are directed to activation of a surface comprising plastic material, which is the same as the claimed invention. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGA LEUNG V LAW whose telephone number is (571)270-1115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on 5712721295. 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.
/NGA LEUNG V LAW/Examiner, Art Unit 1717