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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1–7 in the reply filed on 11/25/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 8–19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/25/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1–6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maki (WO 2019/065535 A1) in view of Watanabe (US 2005/0170169 A1).
Maki teaches the formation of a prepreg composite material, wherein the material comprises a plurality of carbon nanotubes 14a that are directly attached to the surface of carbon fibers 12a in the form of a network. Maki abstract, Description of Embodiments. The nanotubes are attached to the surface of the carbon fibers using polymeric resin sizing agent 16a. Id. Description of Embodiments, Fig. 4. The mass of the sizing agent relative to the carbon fibers ranges from about 0.4 to 3 percent. Id. The carbon fibers and nanotubes are covered by a matrix resin layer 20 (second sizing agent) in a composite resin layer 18. Id. Description of Embodiments, Figs. 5, 7. The matrix resin layer 20 may comprise polymers such as epoxy and polyolefin resins. Id. Description of Embodiments. The Examiner notes that while the nanotubes are not described as having a “bent shape with a bent portion,” the nanotubes of Maki appear to have the required bent shape and bent portion based upon illustrations and pictures. See id. Figs. 7–9.
Maki fails to teach that the nanotubes form a network structure, wherein the nanotubes are sized and crosslinked together by a carbodiimide-derived structure and a functional group of the carbon nanotubes.
Watanabe teaches the formation of a nanotube structure and polymer composite in which the structure is formed by cross-linking functional groups bonded to multiple carbon nanotubes via chemical bonding of the functional groups. Watanabe abstract. The nanotubes within the structure 1 have a bent structure with bent portions and are in direct contact with each other, wherein cross-linked sites 12 connect functional groups bonded to the carbon nanotubes. Id. ¶ 67, Fig. 1. The cross-linked sites are formed using a first sizing agent such as polycarbodiimide and the carbon nanotube functional groups. Id. ¶¶ 26–27. The Examiner takes the position that because the polycarbodiimide is a carbodiimide-derived structure that reacts with functional groups of the carbon nanotube to cross-link the nanotubes it constitutes a “sizing agent” because it performs the claimed function and has the claimed composition of a “sizing agent.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the nanotubes of Maki with the bent nanotube structure of Watanabe, wherein the nanotubes within the structure are in direct contact and are cross-linked to each other using carbodiimide to the carbon fibers in the Maki prepreg motivated by the desire to further reinforce the prepreg material using the entangled nanotube structure of Watanabe due to the cross-linked nanotube network structure.
Claim 6 is rejected as it would have been obvious to have selected a water-soluble polymer for the matrix resin layer 20 that creates a composite resin layer 18 and that covers the nanotube structure because as a solvent “water solvent is preferable in terms of handleability and safety.” Maki Description of Embodiments.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maki and Watanabe as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Tomioka (US 2015/004470 A1).
Maki and Watanabe fail to teach the use of polyvinyl alcohol as a protection agent that adheres to the surface of the nanotube structure to cover the surface of the structure.
Tomioka teaches the creation of a carbon fiber resin prepreg, wherein the prepreg is obtained by covering the carbon fibers with resins such as polyolefin and polyvinyl alcohol resins. Tomioka ¶ 97.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute the polyolefin resin of Maki with polyvinyl alcohol because Tomioka teaches the functional equivalency of the two polymers for use in carbon fiber prepregs. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D MATZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-5732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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.
/MATTHEW D MATZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights