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 .
Amendments to claim 1-4, 6, and 10 and the cancellation of claim 9, in the response filed January 9, 2026, have been entered.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are currently pending in the above identified application.
Claim 8 has been withdrawn from consideration as being directed towards a non-elected invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 10 are 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 1 recites the limitation “wherein: the reinforcing fiber bundles A are bundles of discontinuous fiber having a fiber length of 5 mm or more; the reinforcing fiber bundles A comprises reinforcing fiber bundles A1 having a bundle width of less than 0.3 mm; and reinforcing fiber bundles A2 having a bundle width of 0.3 mm or more and 3.0 mm or less, when the bindle width of 0.3 mm or more and 3.0 mm or less is divided into following 9 predetermine bundle width zones of:
PNG
media_image1.png
332
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
the reinforcing fiber bundles A2 are present in at least the minimum bundle width zone (i=1) and the maximum bundle width zone (i=9, and when the volume fraction of the reinforcing fiber bundles A2 in each bundle width zone (i=1,…,9) is VfiA2”. The use of “when” makes the claim scope unclear as to if the subsequent feature is present in the claimed composite material or merely capable of being achieve, including with additional processing. No fiber volumes are positively recited for the reinforcing fibers. It appears that fibers of the plurality of reinforcing fibers are intended to be present in zone 1 and 9.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein a temperature of the preheating is equal to or higher than: a melting point of the matrix resin when the matrix resin is crystalline; or a glass transition temperature of the matrix resin when the matrix resin is amorphous.” It is unclear what preheating temperature is required when the matrix is semi-crystalline, having both crystalline and amorphous.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency on rejected claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 103
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over WO 2019/107248 to Onoue.
NOTE: EP 3719079 is being used as an English equivalent for prior art mapping.
Regarding claims 1-7 and 10, Onoue teaches a composite material comprising a thermoplastic matrix resin (claim 5) and carbon fibers (reinforcing fibers A, claim 4) including carbon fiber bundles A1 having a fiber length of 5-100 mm and Li(NixDi2) is 67 or more and 3300 or less, where Li Is fiber length of the carbon bundle, Di is the diameter of single fibers constituting fiber bundle, and Ni are number of single fiber contained in carbon fiber bundle (Onoue, abstract, para 0012-0013), reading on the reinforcing fibers being discontinuous fibers having a fiber length of 5 mm or more. Onoue teaches the average width of the carbon fiber bundles being 0.1 mm or more and 2.00 mm or less, more preferably 0.3 mm or more (fiber bundle width greater than 0.3 mm and 2.00 mm or less), with an average thickness of 20 micron or more and 95 microns or less (Id., para 0013, 0043-0046). Onoue teaches the average fiber diameter ranging from 3 micron to 50 micron, preferably 5 micron to 8 micron (Id., para 0022), reading on the fiber width being less than 0.3 mm. Onoue teaches Li(NixDi2) represent an aspect ratio of the carbon fiber bundles and, in general, the larger the aspect ratio, the higher the strength (Id., para 0027-0029). However, if the aspect ratio is too large, the fluidity during press molding may decrease (Id., para 0029). Onoue teaches the lower limit of the average width of fiber bundles A1 more preferably being 0.3 mm or more to obtain an appropriate reaction force without excessively densifying the carbon fiber aggregate (Id., para 0046). Onoue teaches the invention being directed towards reducing strength non-uniformity (Id., para 0014, 0065-0067).
Onoue teaches a coefficient of variation of reaction force being even more preferably 10% or less to allow uniform pressing of the thermoplastic resins when the carbon fiber is impregnated into the thermoplastic resin and avoid nonuniformities in the areal weight of the composite material the carbon fiber volume fraction, and fiber orientation (Onoue, para 0065-0067), indicating a of uniformity. Onoue teaches embodiment wherein the coefficient of variation of the tensile strength is 4% to 5% (Id., para 0109, 0111-0131). Onoue teaches an embodiment comprising carbon fiber having an average fiber diameter of 7 microns formed into bundles having an average fiber length of 20 mm and width of 0.9 mm (Id., para 0111-0117). As shown in the Declaration filed January 9, 2026, the reinforcing fiber bundles A comprise reinforcing fiber bundles A1 having a bundle width of less than 0.3 mm and reinforcing fiber bundles A2 having a bundle width of 0.3 mm or more and 3.0 mm or less, including bundles width between 0.3 and 0.6 mm and 2.7 mm and 3.0 mm., reading on reinforcing fiber bundles A2 being present in at least the minimum bundle width zone (i=1) and the maximum bundle width zone (i=9).
Regarding the limitations “when the bundle width of 0.3 mm or more and 3.0 mm or less is divided into following 9 predetermined bundle width zones of:
PNG
media_image1.png
332
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the reinforcing fiber bundles A2 are present in at least the minimum bundle width zone (i=1) and the maximum bundle width zone (i=9, and when the volume fraction of the reinforcing fiber bundles A2 in each bundle width zone (i=1,…,9) is VfiA2, , coefficient of variation CViA2 of VfiA2 is 35% or less in the minimum bundle width zone (i=1), and in the maximum bundle width zone (i=9)” and “wherein the coefficients of variation CViA2 in all bundle width zones are 35% or less” (claim 2) appear to be referring to the composite material being capable of achieving the claimed distribution. The coefficient of variation is a necessarily present feature. While Onoue does not explicitly teach a coefficient of variation as claimed, Onoue establishes a coefficient of variation of reaction force less than 10% and establishes the desirability for uniform properties, including strength, which would read on a low coefficient of variation of the volume fraction of the carbon fiber bundles. Absent evidence to the contrary, the coefficient of variation as claimed for the carbon fiber bundle width zones (claims 1-2) would be met in order to achieve the taught coefficient of variation of reaction force. Based on the data provided in the Declaration filed January 2026, p. 19-20 Table 1 and 2, the CV1A2 is within the claimed range. CV9A2 is measured with three samples and is 37.2%, close to the claimed 35% or less. If 6 additional sample were taken and at the same values, the CV9A2 is 32.2%. Therefore, it appears that the composite material of Onoue is capable of being within the claimed range, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 6 and the claimed springback property, in general, a limitation is inherent if it is the “natural result flowing from” the explicit disclosure of the prior art. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Therefore, although the prior art does not explicitly disclose this feature, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since Onoue teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Onoue teaches a composite material comprising reinforcing carbon fibers and carbon fiber bundles having the claimed dimensions with low variation in tensile strength and reaction force. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claim 7, Onoue teaches carbon fiber B having a fiber length of less than 5 mm (Onoue, para 0050-0054).
Regarding claim 10, Onoue is silent with regards to the VfiA2 as claimed. Based on the Declaration filed January 9, 2026, a composite material according to Example 1 of Onoue has the fiber bundle width shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
100
466
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
468
578
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
While the axis is missing in the image, the zone would be the same as other Examples and included above. The distribution support the composite meeting the claimed correlation of the Vf1A2 is less than 10% greater than 0 with two additional zones greater than 0 and greater than the VF1A2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/107248 to Onoue, as applied to claims 1-7 and 9 above, optionally in view of US Pub. No. 2018/0001577 to Onoue (Onoue ‘577 herewithin).
NOTE: EP 3719079 is being used as an English equivalent for prior art mapping.
Regarding claim 1-7 and 10, alternatively, if the coefficient of variation of the carbon fiber bundle width zone is not necessarily within the claimed range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the composite material of Onoue, wherein the carbon fiber bundles are distributed uniformly, so as to have a coefficient of variation within the claimed range, motivated by the desire of forming a composite material having a low coefficient variation of reaction force and low coefficient of variation of tensile strength, taught as desirable of Onoue, and influenced with the distribution of carbon fiber bundles within the composite material.
Additionally, Onoue ‘577 teaches a carbon-fiber-reinforced composite material comprising carbon fibers including carbon fiber bundles and a thermoplastic resin in which a coefficient of variation of the total areal weight of the carbon-fiber-reinforced resin composite material is 10% or lower, a coefficient of variation of a carbon fiber volume fraction in the carbon-fiber-reinforced resin composite material which is defined by Expression (a) is 15% or lower and a weight average fiber length of the carbon fiber is 1 to 10 mm (Onoue ‘577, abstract). Onoue ‘577 teaches that when the coefficient of variation of carbon fiber volume is 15% or lower, the unevenness in shape and mechanical properties during molding can be reduced (Id., para 0080). Onoue ‘577 teaches the coefficient of volume fraction of carbon fiber bundle is 10% or lower, impregnation unevenness can be suppressed, the unevenness in shape and mechanical properties during molding can be reduced, and excellent moldability and mechanical properties can be exhibited (Id., para 0082-0085). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the composite material of Onoue, wherein the carbon fiber and carbon fiber bundles distribution coefficient of variation is minimizes, such as within the claimed range, as taught by Onoue ‘577, motivated by the desire to form conventionally known carbon fiber reinforced materials and the desire to minimize unevenness in shape and mechanical properties and ensure excellent moldability.
Onoue teaches Li(NixDi2) represent an aspect ratio of the carbon fiber bundles and, in general, the larger the aspect ratio, the higher the strength (Onoue, para 0027-0029). However, if the aspect ratio is too large, the fluidity during press molding may decrease (Id., para 0029). Onoue teaches the lower limit of the average width of fiber bundles A1 more preferably being 0.3 mm or more to obtain an appropriate reaction force without excessively densifying the carbon fiber aggregate (Id., para 0046). Onoue teaches carbon fiber A2 being present more than 0 vol% and less than 20 vol% of the carbon fiber A that have an aspect ratio more than 3300 (Id., para 0036-0038). Onoue teaches the material containing 80 vol% or more of carbon fiber bundles A1 having a value of Li(NixDi2) 67 or more and 3300 or less, where Li Is fiber length of the carbon bundle, Di is the diameter of single fibers constituting fiber bundle, and Ni are number of single fiber contained in carbon fiber bundle (Onoue, para 0033-0035). Onoue teaches the composite containing more than 0 vol% and less than 20 vol % of carbon fibers A2 having a value of Li(NixDi2) more than 3300 (Id., para 0036-0038). Onoue teaches that carbon fibers A2 increases denseness of the aggregate and the reaction force of the aggregate can increase to promote thermoplastic matrix impregnation (Id., para 0036-0037). Onoue teaches there being 5 vol% or less of carbon fibers A3 in which a value of Li(NixDi2) is less than 67 (Id., para 0039-0042). Onoue teaches that a higher aspect ratio results in high strength (Id., para 0045). Onoue teaches if the reaction below 1.00 MPa, excessive flow of the thermoplastic resin in the in-plane direction can be reduced when the carbon fiber penetrates into the thermoplastic resin and can be controlled by sizes including width of the carbon fiber bundles (Id., para 0058-0060). Therefore, the invention of Onoue encompasses the use of fiber bundles having varied bundle widths, such as within the claim zones. Onoue teaches that the width is a result effective variable with regards to strength and impregnation features. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the composite of Onoue, wherein the carbon fiber bundle is varied, such as within the claimed zone, based upon the desired properties to predictably achieve the desired strength and impregnation properties, as taught as influenced by size of the carbon fiber bundles, including width, absent evidence of unexpected results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and Declaration filed January 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It should be noted that the Declarant is a co-inventor of the currently examined Application, and therefore, Declarant’s interest in the matter is a factor which can legitimately be taken into consideration. However, Declarant does not refer to any prior art documents to support his conclusions. Nothing in the Patent Office jurisprudence requires an examiner to credit unsupported assertions of an expert witness. Cf Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In the Declaration filed January 9, 2026, the data collected and contained in Declaration calculate the CV9A2 among 3 samples. The instant disclosure collects 10 samples. Standard deviation is influenced by the number of data points in addition to the values. The instant disclosure states “the coefficient of variation is defined by coefficient of variations obtained by dividing the planar body into 10 samples and measuring at 10 locations. When measuring a composite material, it is preferable to measure at a pitch of 100 mm×100 mm, but the size of the composite material or molded article may be small, and only one sample may be collected from one composite material or molded article even sampling is attempted at a pitch of 100 mm×100 mm. In this case, 10 composite materials or molded articles may be prepared, one sample is taken from each of these 10 molded articles, and the coefficient of variation of 10 samples (10 pieces) is calculated” (see para 0109 of the published application). The Declaration state “the coefficient of variation CV1A2 and CV9A2 were calculated from the average and standard deviation amount the 3 samples” (see p. 19 of Declaration filed January 9, 2026. As the same technique is not used to analyze the samples and the number of data points has a direct impact on standard deviation, it is not clear that the CV9A2 would be outside the claimed range and the Declaration is inconclusive. For example, assuming 6 additional samples were analyzed yielding the same 3 results, the average would be the same, the volume spread would be the same, but the standard deviation decreases to 0.71 and the CV9A2 is 32.2 vs the reported 0.82 and 37.2, respectively, for the three samples analyzed. This would result in a CV9A2 within the claimed range.
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Declaration is inconclusive if the composite laminate of Onoue would not be capable of achieving the claimed properties. Based on the proximity to the claimed 35% with the lower sample set, it even seems probable that the CV9A2 would be capable of being within the claimed range.
Applicant’s remarks state that the width of the reinforcing fiber bundles A2 is controlled by the fixing agent adhered to the carbon fiber and the prior art is silent with regards to the bundles width being controlled by a fixing. However, a fixing agent is not a claimed feature and the fiber are only limited to carbon fibers in dependent claim 4. If the fixing agent is critical to achieving the claimed bundle width zones, then the claim should be amended to positively recite this limitation. Therefore, Examiner maintains the rejections detailed above.
Examiner would also like to note that scope of the claim requires a composite material comprising a matrix resin and reinforcing fiber bundles A of discontinuous fibers having a fiber length of 5 mm or more with reinforcing fiber bundles A1 having a bundle width of less 0.3 mm and reinforcing fiber bundles A2 having a bundle width of 0.3 mm or more and 3.0 mm or less. While the claim recites 9 bundle width zones having a low coefficient of variation of the volume fraction, the amount or weight percentage of each zone is not claimed. The claim language is open and allows for additional reinforcing fiber bundle, even within the claimed zones and outside. The matrix resin has not been defined. The type of reinforcing fibers has not been defined. Only a bundles in the bundles width zone of 0.3-0.6 mm and bundle in zone width 2.7-3.0 mm is required. Para 0083 of the published application provides support for limiting the total reinforcing fiber volume to being 10-60 vol% and para 0147 of the published application provide support for the fiber volume of the fiber bundles A2. Incorporating such limitation would more closely align the scope of the claim with Applicant’s examples.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub. No. 2018/0257265 to Mizutori teaches a fiber reinforced resin material comprising reinforcing fiber in chopped fiber bundle having a coefficient of variation in the fiber content of the reinforcing fiber per unit zone of 0.1 mm square being preferably 35% or less.
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 JENNIFER ANN GILLETT whose telephone number is (571)270-0556. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM- 4:30 PM EST M-H.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNIFER A GILLETT/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights