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
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.
Claims 12-16 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 6,096,669 to Colegrove in view of USPN 5,006,294 to Bice and “Thermo-mechanical behavior of stretch-broken carbon fiber and thermoplastic resin composites during manufacturing” to Wang.
Regarding claims 12-16 and 21-23, Colegrove teaches a preform comprising one or more layers of a non-woven random mat and one or more layers of a series of tows of unidirectional fibers held together by a polymeric curable resin grid (Colegrove, Abstract). Colegrove teaches a plurality of unidirectional fibers 10 sandwiched between two layers of resin film grid 8, wherein the fibers may be carbon fibers (Id., Fig. 2, column 3 line 62 to column 4 line 28). Colegrove teaches that the fibers and resin film grid on both sides are passed over a heated platen 15 or a pressure sled 24 and platen 23 (Id., column 4 lines 10-51).
Colegrove does not appear to teach the claimed stretch breaking apparatus. However, Bice teaches a similar composite of a resin matrix reinforced with fibers, wherein the composite is formed by feeding a thermoplastic resin matrix tow reinforced with continuous filament fibers into a tensioning zone, and tensioning the tow sufficiently to break all of the fibers in a random manner (Bice, Abstract, column 1 lines 47-55). Bice teaches that the fibers may be carbon fibers (Id., column 1 line 56 to column 2 line 5). Bice teaches feeding the tow 14 into a stretch breaking machine 16 including breaker units 22 and 24 which operate at different speeds (Id., column 2 line 55 to column 3 line 34, Drawing).
Additionally, Wang teaches stretch-broken fiber reinforcements and thermoplastic resin commingled prepregs for manufacturing composite parts (Wang, Abstract). Wang teaches that it is possible to produce composite parts with complex geometries and high curvatures, while providing mechanical properties similar to those of the composite with continuous fibers, mainly because of the lower tensile stiffness (Id., Abstract, pages 700-703). Wang teaches that wrinkles can be avoided with stretch broken carbon prepregs while the wrinkles develop during continuous fibers prepreg forming (Id.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the system of Colegrove, and additionally including a stretch breaking apparatus to break the fibers in the composite, as taught by Bice, motivated by the desire of forming a composite predictably having advantageous properties such that the composites with complex geometries and high curvatures can be formed while avoiding wrinkles, as taught by Wang.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art combination teaches that the breaker units operate at different speeds.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art combination teaches a platen and a pressure sled.
Note that the recitation of “configured to” only requires the capability of performing as claimed. Additionally, the claims are not directed to a method of making a stretch broken fiber material, but the apparatus for making a stretch broken fiber material.
Regarding claims 21-23, the claims are not directed to a method of making a stretch broken fiber material, but the apparatus for making a stretch broken fiber material. Therefore, Applicants’ limitations directed to the continuous carrier film remaining continuous, or the fiber material coated with a sizing material, or the stiffening film, are directed to materials to be used with the apparatus. Since the prior art combination renders obvious the claimed system, including first and second feed apparatus’s, the apparatus of the prior art appears capable of use with the claimed continuous film, the fiber material coated with a sizing material, and a stiffening film.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bice in view of Colegrove and USPN 4,759,985 to Armiger.
Regarding claim 17, Bice teaches a composite comprising a resin matrix reinforced with fibers, wherein the composite is formed by feeding a thermoplastic resin matrix tow reinforced with continuous filament fibers into a tensioning zone, and tensioning the tow sufficiently to break all of the fibers in a random manner (Bice, Abstract, column 1 lines 47-55). Bice teaches that the fibers may be carbon fibers (Id., column 1 line 56 to column 2 line 5). Bice teaches feeding the tow 14 into a stretch breaking machine 16 including breaker units 22 and 24 which operate at different speeds (Id., column 2 line 55 to column 3 line 34, Drawing).
Bice teaches a preformed fiber reinforced resin tow which is stretch broken in an apparatus. Bice suggests additional layers which are stacked and pressed (Bice, Example I). Bice does not appear to teach the composite formed with a first feed apparatus and a second feed apparatus configured to feed a second continuous carrier film and contact the second side of fiber material after the filaments are broken. However, Colegrove teaches a preform comprising one or more layers of a non-woven random mat and one or more layers of a series of tows of unidirectional fibers held together by a polymeric curable resin grid (Colegrove, Abstract). Colegrove teaches providing a resin film grid and applying a layer of the resin film grid on at least one side of a plurality of unidirectional fibers, wherein the fibers may be carbon fibers (Id., Fig. 2, column 1 line 51 to column 2 line 8, column 3 line 62 to column 4 line 28). As shown in at least Fig. 2, the resin film grid 8 is fed to the cover one side of the unidirectional fibers (Id., column 3 line 62 to column 4 line 23). Colegrove teaches that the process can apply resin film grids on both sides (Id.).
Additionally, Armiger teaches composites of stretch broken aligned fibers of carbon, wherein the composites exhibit high strength, tensile stiffness, and good formability (Armiger, Abstract). Armiger teaches stretch broken slivers covered with a film of thermoplastic resin to form a warp (Id., column 3 lines 13-25). Armiger teaches that a preform is obtained when another film of thermoplastic resin is placed over the warp to form a sandwich, wherein the preforms may be stacked and heated to form a composite structure (Id.).
Bice teaches forming a resin matrix reinforced with fibers as a tow, wherein the tow is then stretch broken. Such a structure entails that the tow is formed by a suitable apparatus known in the art. Colegrove provides this teaching, showing that it was known in the art to feed a resin film and apply to a layer of unidirectional carbon fibers to predictably form the tow structure of Bice. Additionally, Armiger establishes that it was known to form stretch-broken carbon fiber composites by providing a thermoplastic film layer after the carbon fibers are stretch broken and bonded to a film layer, to predictably result in a preform.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the composite of Bice, wherein the apparatus used to form the thermoplastic resin matrix tow comprises a first feed apparatus to feed a resin film to the first surface of unidirectional carbon fibers, and another feed apparatus to feed a thermoplastic film to the second surface of stretch-broken fibers, as taught and suggested by Colegrave and Armiger, motivated by the desire of forming a stretch-broken carbon fiber composite by means of an apparatus known in the art to predictably form such a structure.
Note that the recitation of “configured to” only requires the capability of performing as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed December 9, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that Colegrove does not disclose or remotely suggest stretch breaking of unidirectional fibers. Examiner disagrees, in that Colegrove is not relied on to teach stretch breaking of unidirectional fibers. Therefore, Applicants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope with the current rejection.
Applicants argue that if one were to modify Colegrove’s system by incorporating stretch breaking, this would be contrary to the entire principle of operation, as stretch breaking the fibers would inherently disrupt the grid pattern. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to a system for producing stretch broken fiber material. Colegrove teaches an apparatus for forming a preform by feeding layers of resin film grid to a plurality of unidirectional carbon fibers. Additionally, Bice establishes that feeding a thermoplastic resin matrix tow and tensioning the tow to break the carbon fibers was known in the art. Additionally, Applicants’ conclusions are unsupported by evidence that providing breaker bars to the apparatus of Colegrave would necessarily be contrary to Colegrave’s principle of operation.
Applicants argue that the feed apparatus feeds a continuous carrier sheet that is separate from the fiber material, rather than being part of the fiber-resin composite itself, and that neither Colegrave nor Bice teaches or suggests this feature of a separate continuous carrier sheet that contacts fibers during stretching. Additionally, Applicants argue that the commingled resin-fiber structure in Bice is fundamentally incompatible with Colegrave’s resin grid structure, as the resin structures serve entirely different purposes and are not compatible with one another.
Regarding Applicants’ arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are not directed to a method of making a stretch broken fiber material, but the apparatus for making a stretch broken fiber material. As set forth above, the prior art combination teaches and suggests forming a tow by feeding a resin film to apply to a surface of unidirectional carbon fibers, which are stretch-broken. Such an apparatus would appear capable of providing a carrier film as claimed.
Applicants argue that the Office Action does not provide adequate reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Colegrave’s preform-making process, which does not involve stretch breaking, to include a stretch breaking apparatus as taught by Bice. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Colegrave and Bice are directed to composites comprising carbon fibers and resins. Wang establishes the benefits of stretch-breaking fibers to produce composite parts as desired. Applicants have not provided evidence to the contrary.
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 PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786