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 17, 18, 20-22, 24, 27-31 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0178329 (hereinafter “Kochi”), as further evidenced by an article titled “Thermomechanical Assessment of Plastic Deformation in Model Amorphous Polyamide/Clay Nanocomposites” by Kunal Tulsyan, et al. (hereinafter “Tulsyan”).Regarding claims 17, 18 and 20 Kochi teaches a binder composition used in forming a reinforcing-fiber base material and a preform suitable for RTM (resin transfer molding) (abstract). Kochi teaches the binder composition may be fusion-bonded to one surface or both surfaces of each layer of the reinforcing-fiber base material (reinforcing fiber aggregate), where the binder composition includes an amorphous polyamide (resin material disposed on at least one surface of a reinforcing fiber aggregate) (abstract and paragraph [0070]). Kochi also teaches the form of the binder composition includes a film or tape provided with through holes (resin material being a porous resin material) (paragraph [0058]). Kochi teaches the reinforcing-fiber base material (reinforcing fiber aggregate) includes reinforcing fibers consisting of warp yarns arranged in parallel to each other, and weft yarns arranged perpendicularly to the warp yarns (paragraph [0031]), which corresponds to a reinforcing fiber yarn, and a reinforcing fiber yarn group formed by aligning reinforcing fiber yarns in parallel. Kochi teaches the binder composition (including the amorphous polyamide or porous resin material) includes a mat, long fibers, woven fabric, knitted fabric, nonwoven fabric, net-like body, and the like (paragraphs [0058] and [0064]). In addition, Kochi teaches the amorphous polyamide is required to have a glass transition temperature of 140°C or higher to inhibit the decline of physical properties, such as the heat resistance of the obtained fiber-reinforced composite and the mechanical properties at high temperature after water absorption (paragraph [0040]). Kochi teaches a fiber-reinforced composite material which has both high mechanical properties and a high volume content of reinforcing fibers can be obtained (paragraph [0064]). Kochi teaches an amount of the reinforcing fibers should preferably range from 50-60 vol% to obtain a fiber-reinforced composite material: (1) being light weight and having a high strength (volume content of the reinforcing fibers being >50 vol%); and (2) preventing the formation of defective portions such as non-impregnated portions and voids (volume content of the reinforcing fibers being <65 vol%) (paragraph [0095]). Kochi does not explicitly teach the amorphous polyamide (resin material) is present in an amount of 1-20 mass% with respect to the reinforcing-fiber base material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine a content, in mass%, of each constituent part (including the amorphous polyamide (resin material)) of the fiber-reinforced composite material using nothing more than routine experimentation to achieve the desired balance of: inhibiting the decline of physical properties; obtaining light weight and high strength characteristics for the formed fiber-reinforced composite material; and/or preventing the formation of defective portions. It has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art unless such a range is shown to be critical. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Kochi teaches the amorphous polyamide (resin material) includes “Grilamid TR90” (paragraphs [0041], [0134], [0143], [0152], etc.). The chemical structure of Grilamid TR90 is well known, as evidenced by Tulsyan. Tulsyan illustrates the chemical structure of Grilamid TR90 as:
PNG
media_image1.png
128
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(top of page 2). The chemical structure of Grilamid TR90 corresponds to: (i) General Formula (1), when R1 and R2 represent identical alkyl groups each having 1 carbon atom, and R3 represents a methylene group having 10 carbon atoms; and (ii) a polyamide including at least 4,4’-diaminodicyclohexylmethane and/or a derivative thereof, and an aromatic or aliphatic dicarboxylic acid, as essential constituents.Regarding claim 21 Regarding the melt flow rate of the amorphous polyamide (resin material), although the prior art does not explicitly disclose a melt flow rate of the resin material as measured under conditions of a load of 2.16 kg and a temperature of 300°C is 20 g/10 min or more and 300 g/10 min or less, the claimed property is deemed to naturally flow from the structure in the prior art since the Kochi reference, as further evidenced by Tulsyan, teaches an invention with an identical and/or substantially identical structure and/or chemical composition as the claimed invention. See MPEP §2112.Regarding claim 22 In addition, Kochi teaches the amorphous polyamide (resin material) has a glass transition temperature Tg of 140°C or more (abstract and paragraph [0037]), which overlaps the claimed range, and the specific Grilamid TR90 amorphous polyamide embodiment has a glass transition temperature of 155°C (paragraphs [0134], [0143], [0152], etc.), which falls within the claimed range.Regarding claim 24 In addition, Kochi teaches the reinforcing-fiber base material includes a sheet-like fiber base material such as a woven fabric, where the woven fabric made of reinforcing fibers consists of warp yarns (reinforcing fiber yarns) arranged (aligned) in parallel to each other (paragraphs [0031] and [0064]), which corresponds to a reinforcing fiber yarn, and a reinforcing fiber yarn group formed by aligning reinforcing fiber yarns in parallel.Regarding claim 27 Due to the fact that element [3] (“a reinforcing fiber fabric”) from claim 17 is recited as an optional feature, the limitations from element [3] are not required to meet claim 17. Therefore, the features from claim 27 which recite further elements of the reinforcing fiber fabric (corresponding to element [3] from claim 17) are also not required to meet the claim.Regarding claims 28 and 33 In addition, Kochi teaches a preform comprising the aforementioned reinforcing-fiber base material are laminated (paragraph [0032] and claim 11), which corresponds to a reinforcing fiber laminate for resin transfer molding, comprising the reinforcing fiber base material according to claim 17 as a reinforcing fiber. Kochi also teaches the reinforcing-fiber base material is obtained by combining the binder composition and reinforcing fibers (paragraphs [0058] and [0061]), which corresponds to a fiber-reinforced plastic comprising the reinforcing fiber laminate for transfer molding according to claim 28 as a reinforcing fiber.Regarding claim 29 In addition, Kochi teaches the reinforcing-fiber base material and binder composition may be fusion-bonded together using heat (paragraphs [0070] – [0072]).Regarding claim 30 In addition, Kochi teaches the reinforcing-fiber base material is obtained by combining the binder composition and reinforcing fibers (fiber-reinforced plastic comprising the reinforcing fiber base material according to claim 17) (paragraphs [0058] and [0061]).Regarding claim 31 In addition, Kochi teaches a liquid thermosetting resin, preferably of an epoxy material which is used as a matrix resin to be impregnated into the preform (including the reinforcing fiber), is cured at a temperature (Tc) in a range from 50-200°C (paragraphs [0034], [0076], [0081], [0082], and [0093]). Kochi teaches for an embodiment, the amorphous polyamide (resin material) is “Grilamid TR90” which has a glass transition temperature (Tg) of 155°C (paragraphs [0134], [0143], [0152], etc.). These teachings correspond to a difference between Tc and Tg ranging from -105°C or more to 45°C or less, which overlaps the claimed range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argued Kochi does not teach or suggest the combination of features highlighted by the applicant in the first full paragraph on page 6 because Kochi fails to recognize the special technical effects in the instant application. The examiner respectfully submits this argument is not persuasive because the applied art does not need to recognize any purported relationship between properties. Furthermore, the skilled artisan need not have been able to predict that the binder compositions exhibits: (1) robustness against variations in molding conditions; (2) improved impact resistance; (3) high-temperature mechanical properties; and/or (4) improved resin impregnability during ETM molding.
The applicant argued the claimed polyamide that includes at least 4,4’-diaminodicyclohexylmethane and/or a derivative thereof, and an aromatic or aliphatic dicarboxylic acid, as essential constituents, is excellent at a high temperature as compared with general linear polyamides, and exhibits stable physical properties regardless of molding conditions and prevents entering of water into the interface with the matrix resin so that deterioration of physical properties under wet heat conditions and resistance to occurrence of cracks associated with thermal cycle load are also dramatically improved, which are specific technical effects attributable to the claimed polyamide composition that Kochi’s general disclosure of an amorphous polyamide with a dicyclohexylmethane skeleton does not teach or suggest. This argument is not persuasive. It appears the applicant is correlating these properties with the added limitation which requires the claimed polyamide to include at least 4,4’-diaminodicyclohexylmethane and/or a derivative thereof, and an aromatic or aliphatic dicarboxylic acid, as essential constituents. As is provided in the updated rejection of record, the Grilamid TR90 polyamide resin from Kochi meets this structural requirement. Therefore, the properties highlighted by the applicant are not commensurate in scope with the claims because such requirements are not recited, and would be considered, nonetheless, to be necessarily present because the claimed chemical structure is the same as the Grilamid TR90 polyamide resin from Kochi. See MPEP§ 2112.01(II).
The applicant argued the unexpected nature of the claimed results is confirmed by comparison with comparative examples. This argument is not persuasive. First, there are no results mentioned by the applicant which are included in at least claim 1. Second, the reliance on a linear polyamide (polyamide 6I) is not commensurate in scope with the Grilamid TR90 polyamide resin from Kochi. Third, according to MPEP§ 2112.01(II), products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.
The applicant argued the examiner’s reliance on inherency of the melt flow rate of the resin material is misplaced because the claimed property must necessarily be present in the prior art. The examiner respectfully disagrees and again contends that products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The examiner would also like to note that the applicant recognizes that the Grilamid TR90 resin composition exhibits a MFR which is commensurate in scope with the claims. See paragraph [0144] from the pre-grant publication of the instant application (US 2024/0059046).
The applicant argued the claimed range of the resin material being present in an amount of 1-20 mass% is critical because the applicant discloses when the content of the resin material is 20 mass% or less, it is possible to present the reinforcing fiber volume content when an FRP is formed is excessively low to deteriorate the heat resistance, chemical resistance, and compressive strength of the FRP, where the claimed polyamides within the claimed range achieves compressive strength at high temperature of 1050-1099 MPa, where the comparative examples achieve inferior results of 960-1007 MPa. The examiner respectfully disagrees and contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect inferior properties when required components are over or under saturated in the system in which they are incorporated. Moreover, the applicant has failed to provide sufficient number of tests both inside and outside of the claimed range to show an unexpected trend of data. See MPEP §716.02(d)(II).
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 BRIAN HANDVILLE whose telephone number is (571)272-5074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, from 9 am to 4 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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/BRIAN HANDVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights