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 .
Claims 1-19 are pending.
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(s) 1-3, 6-15, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR reference (KR 10-2014-0015462 A, see IDS, see also machine translation NPL document) in view of TAKAHASHI (US 3946097 A).
Re: 1, the KR reference teaches of a method for producing a continuous fiber reinforced thermoplastic resin composite material, the method comprising the steps of:
(a) continuously introducing a plurality of yarns or tape- type (see ribbons 12) intermediate materials into a heating unit (see claim 17, of the ribbon);
(b) heating the intermediate materials to a temperature equal to or higher than the melting point of a thermoplastic resin contained in the intermediate materials to melt at least a portion of the thermoplastic resin on the surface of the intermediate material (see teaching of the ribbons being heated up, see oven 45, and temperatures above melting, see page 8 of NPL, with temp not high enough to destroy the integrity); and
(c) passing at least two of the molten intermediate materials through a nozzle (see forming die 50 and calibration die 60) to be combined together to form a rod shape (see manufacturing rod and continuous fiber, see Claim 17, see also preform being rod shape, see page 10 of NPL, wherein, roller convert to preform to final shape, see also teaching integrated ribbons 2-10 rovings, and of one or more ribbons forms into desired rod form, see page 8 of NPL).
The KR reference does not specifically state the claimed element of nozzle.
One skilled in the art would recognize the die taught by the reference as being equivalent to the claimed nozzle, and as seen in the fiber forming arts, the TAKAHASHI reference teaches of utilizing a plurality of glass fiber rovings 1 that are drawn into a bundle, and with the fiber bundle 5 that are shaped, see also extrusion die 8 that includes an annular nozzle plate 17 of Fig. 1.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the die of the KR reference with the additional teaching of nozzle as taught by TAKAHASHI as this is a known combination in forming of the rovings into a fiber, this is seen under KSR, see MPEP 2143, as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Re: 2 (upon 1), wherein the intermediate material has a continuous fiber content of 30-60 wt% and a thermoplastic resin content of 40-70 wt%. (see overlapping ranges from claim 17 of the KR reference, see also page 2 of the NPL document.)
Although the reference does not explicitly state the claimed range, there is an overlapping ranges taught in the reference and the claimed range. Here, regarding the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Re: 3 (upon 1), wherein the heating in step (b) is performed at a temperature higher than the melting point of the thermoplastic resin by 20- 40 C (see teaching of operating at a higher temperature than melting point of thermoplastic polymer, of 200-450 C, which one skilled in the art would recognize as accommodating a wide variety of different types of polymers, see page 6 of NPL document of the KR reference).
Wherein, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the process of the KR reference with the operation above the melting point of the resin in the desired amount for operation.
Re: 6 (upon 1), wherein the nozzle has an outlet and wherein the nozzle is formed in multiple stages and has a reduced diameter toward the outlet.
(see KR reference of the die 50 and calibration die 60) (see also TAKAHASHI, series of shaping dies 6a-6d, Fig. 1 and shaping dies 32, see Fig. 5.)
Re: 7 (upon 1), wherein the nozzle has an inlet end and an outlet end and wherein the nozzle has a diameter ratio of the inlet end to the diameter of the outlet end of 1.5-5 and a length ratio of the outlet end to the diameter of the outlet end of 2-10.
(see KR reference thickness of rod being 0.1-40 mm, page 12 of the core, in NPL document of the KR reference, and further of the ratio of 1.5:1 to 6:1 in regard to the cross sectional ratio between the inlet and outlet of the dies, see page 9 of the NPL document of the KR reference.)
Although the reference does not explicitly state the claimed range, there is an overlapping ranges taught in the reference and the claimed range. Here, regarding the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Re: 8 (upon 1), wherein the yarn has a diameter of 1-3 mm and the tape has a thickness of 0.1-1.0 mm and a width of 3-30 mm.
(See ribbon thickness of 0.18 mm, see page 13 of NPL document, and rod formed having a diameter of 0.1-50mm, see page 2 of NPL document, wherein, the dimensions are not all fully stated, one skilled in the art would recognize the utilization of ribbons similar to the claimed tape in forming the desired rod dimensions that can vary with the thicknesses and width used.)
Re: 9 (upon 1), wherein the nozzle has an inlet end and an outlet end and wherein the nozzle has a Diameter ratio of the inlet end to the Diameter of the outlet end of 1.5-5 and a length ratio of the outlet end to the Diameter of the outlet end of 2-10.
(See thickness of rod teaching of 0.1-40 mm, see also teaching of aspect ratio of rod of 1.0-1.5, see page 15 of the NPL document, see also calibration dies, see Fig. 9 and 10.)
Re: 10 (upon 1), wherein the composite material has a porosity of 1-10 vol %.
(see page 2 of the NPL document of the KR reference)
Re: 11 (upon 1), wherein the composite material satisfies Expression 1 below on the basis of the cross-section of the composite material:
[Expression 1] 0.2 mm-l<P/A<5mm-1 wherein, in Expression 1, P and A are a cross-sectional circumference length and a cross-sectional area of the composite material, respectively.
(Wherein, the cross-section and mathematical formula of the formed composite material is noted, however, the teachings of the ranges of the dimensions of the formed fiber/composite rod in the KR reference would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as encompassing the claimed features.)
Re: 12 (upon 1), comprising (a) continuously introducing the plurality of yarn intermediate materials having a diameter of 1-3 mm into the heating unit.
(See heating the roller 90 and heating plate of capping die 72, see page 11 of NPL, and also ribbon 12 can be heated in oven 45 before going to integrated die, see page 8 of NPL of KR reference.)
Re: 13, the claim is a combination of the features of claims 1 and 9-11 above.
(see teachings by the references above, see combination of the KR reference in view of TAKAHASHI.)
Re: 14 (upon 13), the feature corresponds to the limitation of claim 2 above.
(see teaching of claim 2 above)
Re: 15 (upon 13), the feature corresponds to the limitation of claim 3 above.
(see teaching of claim 3 above)
Re: 18 (upon 13), the feature corresponds to the limitation of claim 6 above.
(See teaching of claim 6 above)
Re: 19 (upon 13), comprising (a) continuously introducing the plurality of yarn intermediate materials having a diameter of 1-3 mm into the heating unit.
(The ribbon of the KR reference teaches of thickness of .05-1 mm, see page 6 of NPL document of the KR reference, wherein, there is an overlap of the diameter.)
Although the reference does not explicitly state the claimed range, there is an overlapping ranges taught in the reference and the claimed range. Here, regarding the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the KR reference in view of TAKAHASHI as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of MATSUNO (US 4814133 A).
Re: 4 (upon 1), wherein the nozzle has a cross-sectional shape in which a bend is not formed, or one or more recess and protrusion are formed.
The KR reference does not teach of the particular cross-sectional shape.
However, this is seen as a change in shape of the nozzle design for forming the desired product shape. In which this case, the MATSUNO teaches of the formation of the recesses and protrusions formed in the product, see Figs. 2-5, also see teaching of rotary nozzle 22 of the crosshead die 20 that allows for forming the spiral design. The MATSUNO reference being relevant to the KR design in forming the
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modify the nozzle of the modified KR reference with the shaping as taught by MATSUNO whereby allowing forming the desired shapes of the elongated product from the forming die/nozzle.
Re: 5 (upon 1), wherein the rod Discharged through the nozzle is rotated to form a spiral shape. (see in MATSUNO of the spirals, Figs. 2-5, also see teaching of rotary nozzle 22 of the crosshead die 20 that allows for forming the spiral design.)
Re: 16 (upon 13), the feature corresponds to the limitation of claim 4 above.
(see teaching of claim 4 above)
Re: 17 (upon 13), the feature corresponds to the limitation of claim 5 above.
(see teaching of claim 5 above)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 form, of particular note:
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL S LUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 to 5.
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, Xiao S Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EMMANUEL S LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744