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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3 and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozaki (JPH06220323 A, hereinafter referring to the attached ESPACENET translation) in view of Huang (US Patent No. 5,426,171), Kondo (JP 2020105365, hereinafter referring to US 2021/0395521 A1 as the English language equivalent), and Ohmura (EP 0553439 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nozaki teaches an electrically conductive resin composition ([0001]) comprising a thermoplastic polyphenylene sulfide resin, a modified polyphenylene ether resin, a conductive carbon, which may be carbon fibers ([0027], [0059]), and an organosilane coupling agent compound ([0008], [0029]).
Nozaki teaches that the ranges of thermoplastic polyphenylene sulfide and modified polyphenylene ether are 20 – 70% by weight and 70 – 30% by weight, respectively ([0008]), and teaches that these ranges are suitable because the resulting products are flowable and do not warp ([0026]), but does not teach away from the modification of these ratios. Nozaki further explains that the polyphenylene sulfide in the inventive composition is suitable/useful because it is highly compatible with the modified polyphenylene ether resin ([0008]).
In the same field of endeavor, Kondo teaches a polystyrene resin (Abstract), including a modified polyphenylene ether resin which is explicitly described as compatible with syndiotactic polystyrene ([0038]). It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known in the art as suitable for the same purpose (See MPEP 2144.06). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute syndiotactic polystyrene (SPS) in place of the polyphenylene sulfide within the formulation of Nozaki, as Kondo recognizes SPS as compatible with polyphenylene ethers in the formation of thermoplastic compositions.
Also, in the same field of endeavor, Huang teaches a resin composition comprising a thermoplastic resin and a solid reinforcing agent, which includes carbon fiber (col. 2, lines 4-10). The thermoplastic resin may be syndiotactic polystyrene (col. 4, claim 1). The reinforcing agent has a surface coating of a polar-group functionalized polyarylene ether (Abstract), such as polyphenylene ether modified with maleic anhydride (col. 3, lines 22-23). Huang teaches that the solid reinforcing agent (which may be comprised of carbon fiber and a surface coating of a polar group-functionalized polyarylene ether) comprises 1 to 75 parts by weight of the composition, and the thermoplastic resin comprises 25 to 99 parts by weight of the composition (Abstract). Huang further teaches that the surface coating comprises from 0.001 to 10 wt% of the uncoated reinforcing agent weight (col. 3, lines 1-5). The composition of Huang may therefore comprise about 25 wt% to about 99 wt% of the thermoplastic resin (which may be SPS, which would be prima facie obvious to substitute into the formulation of Nozaki as described above), and about 0 wt% to about 7.5 wt% of the polar group-functionalized polyarylene ether. In each case, these amounts encompass/overlap the respectively claimed compositional ranges, establishing prima facie cases of obviousness.
It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known in the art as suitable for the same purpose. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the compositional amounts of the thermoplastic resin and modified polyarylene oxide of Nozaki as taught by the combination of Kondo and Huang, as Huang recognizes them as suitable compositional amounts for the formation of reinforced thermoplastic resin compositions.
Importantly, Huang contemplates a different process for composition formation than Nozaki. Namely, Huang teaches the combination of fiber reinforcement, which has been pre-coated with the polyarylene ether, with the remaining components of the composition (col. 2, lines 54-57). Meanwhile, Nozaki contemplates the simple blending of all components concurrently ([0037]). However, Huang specifies that at least a portion of the inventive concept behind its inventive composition is the improved interfacial shear strength obtained when the carbon fibers are intimately contacted with the polyarylene ether prior to blending with the remaining components (c.f. Cols. 3-4, Table 1, and Example 1 of Huang). Furthermore, both references contemplate the use of a coupling agent in their respective compositions (c.f. col. 4, Claim 1 of Huang and [0029] of Nozaki), and are directed towards tough and moldable carbon fiber compositions (c.f. [0008] of Nozaki and col. 4, lines 13-20 of Huang). Further, Nozaki contemplates the addition of reinforcing agents ([0038]), suggesting a preference for reinforced compositions. It is therefore found that the difference in production methods would not render the invention of Nozaki as inoperable – to the contrary, the production method of Huang appears to be at least generally aligned with the goals of Nozaki, and would likely contribute to the inventive goals thereof (i.e., a strong and reinforced thermoplastic composition of carbon fiber).
Nozaki finally differs from claim 1 because it is silent with regard to the incorporation of a sizing agent which contains an epoxy group and wherein a portion of said sizing agent is attached to the carbon fibers of the composition.
In the same field of endeavor, Ohmura teaches a thermoplastic composition comprising polyphenylene sulfide, a polyphenylene ether, a coupling agent (Abstract), and a filler (p. 8, lines 16-18). Ohmura teaches the incorporation of a number of fillers including glass fiber, talc, and silica, (p. 8, lines 16-18), and further teaches that carbon fibers have also been utilized as successful fillers in similar compositions (p. 2, lines 16-17). It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known in the art as suitable for the same purpose (See MPEP 2144.06). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include carbon fibers as fillers within the formulation of Ohmura. Ohmura further teaches the incorporation of a coupling agent which is used to surface-treat fillers/fibers within the composition (p. 7, lines 52-54). Ohmura further prefers that the coupling agent is one which contains an epoxy group (p. 8, lines 4-5). The epoxy-containing coupling agents of Ohmura read on the claimed “sizing agent” and “epoxy group,” and further read on the limitation requiring that the sizing agent is attached to the carbon fibers because Ohmura indicates that they are a coupling agent (indicating their reactivity), and indicates that they are used as a surface treatment. Finally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its art-recognized suitability for its intended purpose. See MPEP 2144.07. It therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the epoxy-containing surface treating agents of Ohmura into the formulation of Nozaki, as Ohmura teaches them as suitable coupling agents useful for carbon fibers within polyphenylene ether/polyphenylene sulfide compositions. In so doing, the formulation of Nozaki as modified would meet all of the claimed limitations within claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, as described above, Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute syndiotactic polystyrene (SPS) in place of the polyphenylene sulfide within the formulation of Nozaki, as Kondo recognizes SPS as compatible with polyphenylene ethers in the formation of thermoplastic compositions.
Doing so would form a composition meeting all of the limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Nozaki teaches that the coupling agent is a silane coupling agent ([0029]).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Nozaki teaches that the polyphenylene ether may be specifically modified with α,β-unsaturated dicarboxylic acids such as maleic acid and fumaric acid ([0024]), which reads on the claimed “dicarboxylic acid-modified polyarylene ether.”
Regarding claim 9, Nozaki teaches injection or extrusion molded products formed of the inventive composition ([0037]), which reads on the claimed “formed body.”
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Nozaki is silent with regard to the claimed strength retention characteristics. However, as described above, Nozaki does teach a formed boy crafted from a composition which reads on the claimed composition, which contains all of the same components. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. The claimed strength retention characteristics will therefore necessarily be present in Nozaki as applied above.
Regarding claims 12-13, as described above, Ohmura teaches an epoxy compound which reads on the claimed “sizing agent” and which is in contact with at least a portion of the carbon fibers.
Regarding claims 14-15, as described above, Ohmura teaches an epoxy compound which reads on the claimed “sizing agent,” and teaches that the fillers (including carbon fiber, as described above) are surface treated with the same. Further, Ohmura does not limit the amount or proportion of said surface(s) which are coated with the surface-treating compound. It therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to treat the entire surface of the carbon fibers with said treating compound, whereby meeting the claimed limitation.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozaki (JPH06220323 A, hereinafter referring to the attached ESPACENET translation) in view of Huang (US Patent No. 5,426,171) Kondo (JP 2020105365, hereinafter referring to US 2021/0395521 A1 as the English language equivalent) and Ohmura (EP 0553439 A1), and further in view of Shimizu (US Patent No. 10,508,194 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Nozaki as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Nozaki differs from claim 4 because it is silent with regard to the silane coupling agent comprising an isocyanate-based silane.
In the same field of endeavor, Shimizu teaches a thermoplastic composition (Abstract) which includes reinforcing materials such as carbon fiber (col. 11, line 45), and which may include thermoplastic polymers such as polystyrene and polyphenylene ether (col. 14, lines 26 and 26). Shimizu further teaches that inorganic fillers such as carbon fibers may be surface modified with a coupling agent such as a silane based coupling agent ([0029]) to improve wettability or bondability with polyolefin resins (col. 4, lines 7-9). Shimizu further specifies that isocyanate-functional silane coupling agents, such as 3-isocyanatopropyltriethoxysilane are suitable surface modifying agents (col. 6, lines 8-9). Nozaki teaches the additional incorporation of thermoplastic elastomers which overlap with the polyolefins of Shimizu (c.f. [0031] of Nozaki and col. 2, line 47 of Shimizu, both of which teach the incorporation of ethylene-propylene copolymers). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the isocyanate-functional silane of Shimizu within the formulation of Nozaki for the purpose of surface-modifying the carbon fibers to improve the wettability or bondability of the carbon fibers with the polyolefin component(s) within the formulation of Nozaki.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed December 24, 2025, with respect to the objection of claim 3 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3 and 5-11 under 35 USC 103 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 Nozaki, Huang, Kondo, and Ohmura, as described above.
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 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 JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE whose telephone number is (703)756-5376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. EST.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at 571-270-7733. 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.
/JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762