DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 6/18/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-3 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner would first like to note that previously the Examiner was interpreting “in which the continuous molding machine includes” as the transitional phrase; however, from viewing the claims again there is already a clear transitional phrase, “comprises” in line 8, and will be interpreting claim 1 in regards to the correct transitional phrase in line 8.
The Applicant argues that LABERGE and BOISSONNAT do not teach the fiber-reinforced composite material is manufactured by using, as a material, a sheet-like reinforcing fiber base material, overlapping the reinforcing fiber base materials in a thickness direction, and the performing molding. The Applicant argues that the continuous molding machine presupposed by the present invention, and the LABERGE device and BOISSONNAT device are devices of complete different types as continuous molding machines in so as they use different types of material. Accordingly, LABERGE and BOISSONNAT clearly do not teach or suggest, inter alia, “a continuous molding machine for manufacturing a fiber-reinforced composite material by molding a sheet-like reinforcing fiber base material formed by impregnating thermoplastic resin into a reinforcing fiber material, in which the continuous molding machine includes a molding device configured to perform a molding operation of pressurizing and molding a plurality of the overlapped reinforcing fiber base materials supplied from a supply device with an upper and lower mold by a pressure by a drive device,” as recited by amended claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim(s) 1. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation ““a continuous molding machine for manufacturing a fiber-reinforced composite material by molding a sheet-like reinforcing fiber base material formed by impregnating thermoplastic resin into a reinforcing fiber material, in which the continuous molding machine includes a molding device configured to perform a molding operation of pressurizing and molding a plurality of the overlapped reinforcing fiber base materials supplied from a supply device with an upper and lower mold by a pressure by a drive device,” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
In regards to the Applicant’s arguments that pertain that the continuous molding devices of LABERGE or BOISSONNAT do not teach the material used in the molding devices, the “sheet-like reinforcing fiber mase material formed by impregnating thermoplastic resin into a reinforcing fiber material” which is to be molded, is with respect to an article worked upon. Includes of the material or article worked upon by a structure (molding device) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP §2115. Furthermore, a recitation with respect to manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claimed. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647; Ex parte Thibault,164 U.S.P .Q. 666 (Bd. Pat. App. 1969) (It is well settled that the intended uses of and the particular material used in a coating apparatus have no significance in determining patentability of apparatus claims.).
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner will take into consideration the preamble; however, the claims as written currently, only require the heating device with non-contact heaters.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LABERGE LEBEL et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0193346), hereinafter LABERGE, in view of Sumerak (U.S. 5,556,496), hereinafter SUMERAK.
Regarding claim 1, LABERGE teaches: A continuous molding machine for manufacturing a fiber-reinforced composite material by molding a sheet-like reinforcing fiber base material formed by impregnating thermoplastic resin into a reinforcing fiber material (LABERGE teaches a continuous molding machine for molding reinforcing fiber base material formed by impregnating resin into a fiber material [Abstract; Fig. 1].), in which the continuous molding machine includes a molding device configured to perform a molding operation of pressurizing and molding a plurality of the overlapped reinforcing fiber base materials supplied from a supply device (LABERGE teaches a molding device (pultrusion die (31)) to perform a molding operation of pressure and molding a plurality of the overlapped reinforcing fiber base materials supplied from a supply device (creel) [0065; 0054; Fig. 1]) . . . , wherein the continuous molding machine comprises a heating device including a non-contact heater provided between the supply device and the molding device (LABERGE teaches a contactless preheater (21) is between the supply device (20) and the molding device (31) [Figs. 1-2; 0054; 0055; 0060]) and the heater is configured to be able to make a temperature of at least a direct heating target a melting point of the thermoplastic resin within a predetermined heating time according to a time of the molding operation (LABERGE teaches by passing through the contactless preheater, the preform is heated to a temperature such that on leaving preheating module (20) the preform is heated to the point where the thermoplastic resin is in a near-liquid state [0063]. LABERGE teaches the contactless heater has suitable capacity for preheating the preform by itself [0060] and the contact heater may not be in the module [0062].).
LABERGE does not explicitly teach: an upper mold and a lower mold by a pressure by a drive device. In the same field of endeavor, molding, SUMERAK teaches a mold (32) comprised of a lower part (54) and an upper part (56) used to press the product (27) and the parts move by a drive device (57) [Col. 7, lines 25-40; Fig. 3]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify LARBERGE, by having a molding press die with a lower part and an upper part, as suggested by SUMERAK, in order for reshaping [Col. 7, lines 35-36].
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boissonnat et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2006/0087059), hereinafter BOISSONNAT, in view of Sumerak (U.S. 5,556,496), hereinafter SUMERAK.
Regarding claim 1, BOISSONNAT teaches: A continuous molding machine for manufacturing a fiber-reinforced composite material by molding a sheet-like reinforcing fiber base material formed by impregnating thermoplastic resin into a reinforcing fiber material (BOISSONNAT teaches a continuous molding machine for molding reinforcing fiber base material formed by impregnating resin into a fiber material [Abstract].), in which the continuous molding machine includes a molding device configured to perform a molding operation of pressurizing and molding a plurality of the overlapped reinforcing fiber base materials supplied from a supply device (BOISSONNAT teaches a molding device (80, 100) to perform a molding operation of pressure and molding a plurality of the overlapped reinforcing fiber base materials supplied from a supply device (20) [0086; 0075; 0096-0099; Fig. 1]) . . . , wherein the continuous molding machine comprises a heating device including a non-contact heater provided between the supply device and the molding device (BOISSONNAT teaches an oven (70) is between the supply device (20) and the molding device (80, 100) [Fig. 1; 0074; 0082]) and the heater is configured to be able to make a temperature of at least a direct heating target a melting point of the thermoplastic resin within a predetermined heating time according to a time of the molding operation (BOISSONNAT teaches by passing through the oven, the sheet is heated to a temperature such that on leaving the oven the sheet has a temperature high enough to reach the melting point of the thermoplastic of the yarns (11) so that the molten thermoplastic sticks together and is embedded in the glass filaments of the entire sheet [0083; 0123]).
BOISSONNAT does not explicitly teach: an upper mold and a lower mold by a pressure by a drive device. In the same field of endeavor, molding, SUMERAK teaches a mold (32) comprised of a lower part (54) and an upper part (56) used to press the product (27) and the parts move by a drive device (57) [Col. 7, lines 25-40; Fig. 3]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify BOISSONNAT, by having a molding press die with a lower part and an upper part, as suggested by SUMERAK, in order for reshaping [Col. 7, lines 35-36].
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LABERGE LEBEL et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0193346), hereinafter LABERGE, and Sumerak (U.S. 5,556,496), hereinafter SUMERAK, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watanabe et al. (U.S. 6,607,798), hereinafter WATANABE.
Regarding claim 2, LABERGE and SUMERAK teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, including a position changing structure capable of changing an attachment position of the lateral heater in a direction toward and away from the path (LABERGE teaches the heating elements (23) may be mounted to the casing (22) by way of a height adjustment mechanism (23A) that allows for adjusting the heating elements (23) to be closer or farther to the preform passing through the cavity [0061; Fig. 3]), but are silent as to: wherein the heating device includes: a lateral heater that is the heater provided on a side of a path of the reinforcing fiber base materials. In the same field of endeavor, molding, WATANABE teaches a heating device (104) that has a lateral heater (104a) [Col. 31, lines 5-20; Fig. 21(b)]. WATANABE teaches the heater (104a) is slidable along slide rails (guide frames) 4b to and from the cross head die (102) [Col. 33, lines 11-20]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify LABERGE and SUMERAK, by having lateral heaters, as suggested by WATANABE, in order to prevent reduction in surface temperature of the resin, uneven cooling and uneven temperature due to atmospheric air and its convection [Col. 31, lines 13-19].
Regarding claim 3, LABERGE teaches: wherein the lateral heater is provided in plural along a traveling direction of the reinforcing fiber base materials (LABERGE teaches heaters are provided in plural along a traveling direction of the reinforcing fiber materials [Figs. 2-3]).
Regarding claim 3, WATANABE further teaches: wherein the lateral heater is provided in plural along a traveling direction of the reinforcing fiber base materials (WATANABE shows the lateral heater (104a) is provided in plural along a traveling direction of the reinforcing fiber base materials [Fig. 21(a)]).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boissonnat et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2006/0087059), hereinafter BOISSONNAT, and Sumerak (U.S. 5,556,496), hereinafter SUMERAK, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watanabe et al. (U.S. 6,607,798), hereinafter WATANABE.
Regarding claim 2, BOISSONNAT and SUMERAK teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but is silent as to: wherein the heating device includes: a lateral heater that is the heater provided on a side of a path of the reinforcing fiber base materials, and a position changing structure capable of changing an attachment position of the lateral heater in a direction toward and away from the path. In the same field of endeavor, molding, WATANABE teaches a heating device (104) that has a lateral heater (104a) [Col. 31, lines 5-20; Fig. 21(b)]. WATANABE teaches the heater (104a) is slidable along slide rails (guide frames) 4b to and from the cross head die (102) [Col. 33, lines 11-20]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to substitute the oven in BOISSONNAT for the heating apparatus of WATANABE, in order to prevent reduction in surface temperature of the resin, uneven cooling and uneven temperature due to atmospheric air and its convection [Col. 31, lines 13-19].
Regarding claim 3, WATANABE further teaches: wherein the lateral heater is provided in plural along a traveling direction of the reinforcing fiber base materials (WATANABE shows the lateral heater (104a) is provided in plural along a traveling direction of the reinforcing fiber base materials [Fig. 21(a)]).
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 CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
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, ABBAS RASHID can be reached on (571) 270-7457. 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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748