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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “one skilled in the art would not have been motivated by Garesio's limited teaching concerning glass fibers to modify Li in order to arrive at the claimed invention concerning carbon fibers, much less have been led to an expectation of success, absent impermissible hindsight” but this is not found persuasive. Although Li teaches carbon fibers and Garesio teaches glass fiber, the motivation applies to both types of fibers once coated with epoxy resin sizing agents, as taught by both references. Namely, to vary the temperature such that the fiber is dried at a temperature below the melting point of the matrix-resin powder with the method of Garesio with the sizing slurry and carbon fiber of Li because it ensures a water content of less than 0.25% in the final product which is desirable for coated fibers, see [0069]. It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the field of inventor’s endeavor includes drying and winding epoxy resin-coated fibers.
Regarding claim 16-18, Applicant argues “Garesio, fails to teach one-step in-situ slurry formation without the addition of surfactant” but this is not found persuasive. Firstly, only claims 17-18 recite “in-situ slurry”. However, independent claim 17 recites “method comprising” leaving the method open to additional steps. That is, the claim does not exclude a method with additional steps such as applying a surfactant. Moreover, the step is met by Liu teaching a single composition applied, see [0015]. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., excluding surfactants) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
Claim 18 is 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 18 recites “the sizing comprises polyurethane dispersions (PUD)” rendering the claim indefinite. It is not clear if “sizing” refers to “sizing agents” previously listed in claim 18. Furthermore, claim 18 recites duplicate chemicals such as “epoxy dispersion” in contradictory listings of “sizing agents”. For purposes of examination, the claim will be understood to recite a single sizing agent. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1, 3-7, 9-10, and 16-18 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Li et al (CN 104389176 B), English machine translation of record relied upon, in view of Garesio (US 2014/0228486 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Li meets the claimed method of making a sized and resin-coated fiber tow for use in a fiber reinforced composite, the method comprising the steps of: a) providing a carbon fiber; (Li teaches an emulsion sizing agent to be applied to carbon fibers [0013]) b) contacting at least a portion of the fiber with a sizing slurry to form a sized and resin-coated fiber, the sizing slurry comprising 0.1-25 wt. % of a sizing agent (5-20 wt% nonionic epoxy emulsifier, [0015]) and 20-80 wt. % of a matrix-resin powder in a solvent, (30-45 wt% epoxy resin [0015] made with organic solvent [0017]) wherein the amounts in wt. % are based on the total amount of the sizing slurry, such that the total solid content, including the sizing agent and the matrix-resin powder, of the sizing slurry is greater than 30 wt. % (Li teaches at least 35 wt% total when calculated from the teaching of 5% nonionic epoxy emulsifier and 30 wt% epoxy resin [0013]).
Li does not teach c) drying the sized and resin-coated fiber at a temperature below the melting point of the matrix-resin powder, thereby forming a dried sized and resin-coated fiber; and d) winding the dried sized and resin-coated fiber onto a spool.
Garesio meets the claimed c) drying the sized and resin-coated fiber at a temperature below the melting point of the matrix-resin powder, (Garesio teaches the glass fiber strands obtained by coating glass fibers with sizing compositions, and the thermoplastic composites incorporating said glass fiber strands [0002] sizing compositions including epoxy compounds [0012] were applied using a “full bath” sizing roll [0095] where drying is carried out at a temperature which varies from 100° to 150° C for 10 to 20 hours, depending on the type of package and the initial water content. [0069]. Examiner notes that the instant specification does not disclose a temperature for drying or a melting temperature of the matrix-resin and Garesio teaches varying the temperature of drying) thereby forming a dried sized and resin-coated fiber; and d) winding the dried sized and resin-coated fiber onto a spool. (Garesio teaches winding onto a rotating support [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the present application to vary the temperature such that the fiber is dried at a temperature below the melting point of the matrix-resin powder with the method of Garesio with the sizing slurry and carbon fiber of Li because it ensures a water content of less than 0.25% in the final product which is desirable for coated fibers, see [0069].
Regarding claim 3, Li as modified by Garesio does not explicitly teach the claimed method according to claim 1, wherein the drying step provides the dried sized and resin-coated fiber having greater than 21 wt. % and less than 80 wt. % of the sizing agent and the matrix-resin based on the total amount of the dried sized and resin-coated fiber.
Garesio teaches the amount of water to be used to prepare the sizing composition is determined so as to obtain a solids content (dry extract) which varies from about 10 to about 60%, [0057], and the dry (organic) particles deposited on the glass fibers is in the range from about 2.5% to about 35% by weight [0070].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the present application to vary amount of resin and particles as taught by Garesio such that the fiber has greater than 21 wt. % and less than 80 wt. % of the sizing agent and the matrix-resin based on the total amount of the dried sized and resin-coated fiber in order to optimize mechanical properties [0005].
Regarding claim 4, Li as modified by Garesio does not explicitly teach the claimed method according to claim 1, wherein the contacting step includes providing the sizing slurry comprising the matrix-resin powder having an average particle size in the range of 1-500 μm.
Li teaches 90% of the emulsion particles are smaller than 500 nm [0052] while prior art provided the best result was the preparation of an emulsion with a particle size of 1.8 μm [0009].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to vary the particle size of Li to be at least 1 um because prior art provided the best result was the preparation of an emulsion with a particle size of 1.8 μm see Li [0009].
Regarding claim 5, Li as modified by Garesio meets the claimed method according to claim 1, wherein the contacting step includes providing the sizing slurry comprising the sizing agent comprising at least one of an epoxy, (5-20 wt% nonionic epoxy emulsifier, [0015] prepared from an epoxy resin [0020]) a phenoxy, a polyester, a polyamide, a polyimide, a polypropylene, a polyurethane, a polyvinyl acetate, a vinyl-ester, a polyvinyl alcohol, an ethylene/vinyl alcohol copolymer, a silane-grafted polyvinyl alcohol and a silane-grafted ethylene/vinyl alcohol copolymer, a silane-grafted polyvinyl alcohol, a silane-grafted ethylene/vinyl alcohol copolymer, and the like.
Regarding claim 6, Li as modified by Garesio meets the claimed method according to claim 1, wherein contacting step includes providing the sizing slurry comprising the matrix-resin powder which is a thermoset (co)polymer, (30-45 wt% epoxy resin [0015]) a thermoplastic (co)polymer, or alloys and blends thereof.
Regarding claim 7, Li as modified by Garesio meets the claimed method according to claim 6, wherein contacting step includes providing the sizing slurry comprising the thermoset (co)polymer comprising epoxy, (30-45 wt% epoxy resin [0015]) vinyl ester polyester, bismaleimide, cyanate ester, polyurethane, or mixtures thereof.
Regarding claim 9, Li as modified by Garesio does not explicitly teach the claimed method according to claim 1, further comprising molding the dried sized and resin-coated fiber without impregnating the dried sized and resin-coated fiber with additional matrix-resin.
Garesio teaches subsequently processed e.g., by molding [0073].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the molding step of Garesio with the fiber treatment method of Li because molding forms a functional product shape from the fibers of Li.
Regarding claim 10, Li as modified by Garesio meets the claimed fiber reinforced composite prepared by the method according to claim 1. (Li teaches an emulsion sizing agent to be applied to carbon fibers [0013]).
Regarding claim 16, Li as modified by Garesio meets the claimed method according to claim 1, further comprising: e) contacting at least a portion of the carbon fiber with the sizing slurry to form a sized and resin-coated fiber, (Li teaches an emulsion sizing agent and resin to be applied to carbon fibers [0013]) whereby the sizing agent forms a film on at least a portion of the carbon fiber to thereby increase compatibility with the matrix-resin powder. (Li teaches the sizing agent serves as a transitional bonding layer between the carbon fiber and the matrix resin, and it also bonds to both the carbon fiber surface and the matrix resin, [0004]. Examiner interprets the layer of Li to meet the claimed “film”. Furthermore, Li teaches the same process with substantially identical materials in the claimed contacting step, therefore the properties are presumed inherent, see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding claim 17, Li as modified meets the claimed method of making a sized and resin-coated fiber tow for use in a fiber reinforced composite, the method comprising the steps of: a) providing a carbon fiber; (Li teaches an emulsion sizing agent to be applied to carbon fibers [0013]) b) forming in-situ a sizing slurry by adding a matrix-resin powder to a sizing composition, such that the slurry comprises 0.1-25 wt.% of a sizing agent and (5-20 wt% nonionic epoxy emulsifier, [0015]) and 20-80 wt. % of a matrix-resin powder in a solvent, (30-45 wt% epoxy resin [0015] made with organic solvent [0017]) and mixing it to thereby keep the matrix-resin powder in suspension and to prevent the matrix-resin powder from settling out, (mix thoroughly at 60℃, [0043]) wherein the amounts in wt.% are based on the total amount of the sizing slurry, such that the total solid content, including the sizing agent and the matrix-resin powder, of the sizing slurry is greater than 30 wt.%; (Li teaches at least 35 wt% total when calculated from the teaching of 5% nonionic epoxy emulsifier and 30 wt% epoxy resin [0013]) c) contacting at least a portion of the carbon fiber with the sizing slurry to form a sized and resin-coated fiber; (Li teaches an emulsion sizing agent and resin to be applied to carbon fibers [0013]) whereby the sizing agent forms a film on at least a portion of the carbon fiber to thereby increase compatibility with the matrix-resin powder. Li teaches the sizing agent serves as a transitional bonding layer between the carbon fiber and the matrix resin, and it also bonds to both the carbon fiber surface and the matrix resin, [0004]. Examiner interprets the layer of Li to meet the claimed “film”. Furthermore, Li teaches the same process with substantially identical materials in the claimed contacting step, therefore the properties are presumed inherent, see MPEP 2112.01.
Li does not teach d) drying the sized and resin-coated fiber at a temperature below the melting point of the matrix-resin powder, thereby forming a dried sized and resin-coated fiber, and e) winding the dried sized and resin-coated fiber onto a spool.
Garesio meets the claimed c) drying the sized and resin-coated fiber at a temperature below the melting point of the matrix-resin powder, (Garesio teaches the glass fiber strands obtained by coating glass fibers with sizing compositions, and the thermoplastic composites incorporating said glass fiber strands [0002] sizing compositions including epoxy compounds [0012] were applied using a “full bath” sizing roll [0095] where drying is carried out at a temperature which varies from 100° to 150° C for 10 to 20 hours, depending on the type of package and the initial water content. [0069]. Examiner notes that the instant specification does not disclose a temperature for drying or a melting temperature of the matrix-resin and Garesio teaches varying the temperature of drying) thereby forming a dried sized and resin-coated fiber; and d) winding the dried sized and resin-coated fiber onto a spool. (Garesio teaches winding onto a rotating support [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the present application to vary the temperature such that the fiber is dried at a temperature below the melting point of the matrix-resin powder with the method of Garesio with the sizing slurry and carbon fiber of Li because it ensures a water content of less than 0.25% in the final product which is desirable for coated fibers, see [0069].
Regarding claim 18, Li as modified by Garesio meets the claimed wherein when the matrix-resin powder is a thermoset (co)polymer including epoxy, (Li teaches epoxy [0015]) vinyl ester polyester, bismaleimide, cyanate ester, polyurethane, or mixtures thereof.
Li as modified does not teach the sizing agent is polyvinyl acetate, vinyl acetate-ethylene, vinyl ester, epoxy, phenoxy, unsaturated polyester, saturated polyester, or polyurethane; or wherein when the matrix-resin powder is a thermoplastic (co)polymer including polyethylene, polypropylene, polycarbonate, polyethylene terephthalate, polybutylene terephthalate, polyamide-6, polyamide-66, polyamide-11, polyamide-12, polyamide-46, polyetherimide, polyphenylene sulfide, polysulfone, polyimide, polyethersulfone, polyether- ketone-ketone, polyether-ether-ketone, or mixtures thereof; the sizing agent is an epoxy dispersion, a polyurethane dispersion, or a polyester dispersion, or wherein when the matrix-resin powder is nylon, the sizing comprises polyurethane dispersions (PUD), polyamide dispersions, epoxy dispersions, acrylics, or maleic anhydride- grafted ethylene.
Garesio meet the claimed the sizing agent is polyvinyl acetate, (the film-forming agent comprises a compound selected from a polyvinyl acetate, an epoxy compound, [0012]) vinyl acetate-ethylene, vinyl ester, epoxy, phenoxy, unsaturated polyester, saturated polyester, or polyurethane; or wherein when the matrix-resin powder is a thermoplastic (co)polymer including polyethylene, polypropylene, polycarbonate, polyethylene terephthalate, polybutylene terephthalate, polyamide-6, polyamide-66, polyamide-11, polyamide-12, polyamide-46, polyetherimide, polyphenylene sulfide, polysulfone, polyimide, polyethersulfone, polyether- ketone-ketone, polyether-ether-ketone, (this limitations is considered an alternative) or mixtures thereof; the sizing agent is an epoxy dispersion, a polyurethane dispersion, or a polyester dispersion, or wherein when the matrix-resin powder is nylon, the sizing comprises polyurethane dispersions (PUD), polyamide dispersions, epoxy dispersions, acrylics, or maleic anhydride- grafted ethylene. (this limitations is considered an alternative).
The courts have held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application, see MPEP § 2143(I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the epoxy emulsion sizing agent of Li with the polyvinyl acetate sizing agent of Garesio because it obtains the predictable result of protecting the filament from abrasion during drawing and attacks from chemicals and the environment, see [0036].
Claim 2 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Li et al (CN 104389176 B), English machine translation of record relied upon, in view of Garesio (US 2014/0228486 A1) and in further view of Mishima (US 2011/0217228 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Li as modified does not meet the claimed method according to claim 1, wherein the method is a continuous process further comprising steps (i)-(iv) before the step of contacting at least the portion of the fiber with the sizing slurry: (i) stabilizing a precursor fiber at a temperature in the range of 200-300° C to form a stabilized precursor fiber; (ii) carbonizing the stabilized precursor fiber at a temperature in the range of 1000-1500° C. to form a carbonized fiber; (iii) graphitizing the carbonized fiber at a temperature in the range of 2000-3000° C. to form a carbon fiber; and (iv) optionally treating at least a portion of a surface of the carbon fiber.
Mishima teaches wherein the method is a continuous process further comprising steps (i)-(iv) before the step of contacting at least the portion of the fiber with the sizing slurry: (the resulting carbon fiber bundle or graphitized fiber bundle is treated with a sizing agent [0137]) (i) stabilizing a precursor fiber at a temperature in the range of 200-300° C to form a stabilized precursor fiber; (fiber bundle is pulled out from the bobbin, subjected to oxidizing treatment in air at 230C to 280C [0136]) (ii) carbonizing the stabilized precursor fiber at a temperature in the range of 1000-1500° C. to form a carbonized fiber; (carbonized in a carbonizing furnace controlled at temperatures below 1,900.degree. C. to produce a carbon fiber bundle [0136]) (iii) graphitizing the carbonized fiber at a temperature in the range of 2000-3000° C. to form a carbon fiber; (the resulting carbon fiber bundle may be heated up to a temperature of 1,900.degree. C. to 2,600.degree. C. to produce a graphitized fiber bundle [0136]) and (iv) optionally treating at least a portion of a surface of the carbon fiber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the heat treatment steps of Mishima before the sizing slurry and drying steps of Li and Garesio because it allows a continuous carbon fiber production process, consequently leading to improvement of the operation of the process, see [0003].
Claim 8 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Li et al (CN 104389176 B), English machine translation of record relied upon, in view of Garesio (US 2014/0228486 A1) and in further view of Pollet (US 5,026,410).
Regarding claim 8, Li as modified by Garesio does not meet the claimed contacting step includes providing the sizing slurry comprising the thermoplastic (co)polymer comprising polyethylene, polypropylene, polycarbonate, polyethylene terephthalate, polybutylene terephthalate, polyamide-6, polyamide-66, polyamide-11, polyamide-12, polyamide-46, polyetherimide, polyphenylene sulfide, polysulfone, polyimide, polyethersulfone, polyether-ketone-ketone, polyether-ether-ketone, or mixtures thereof.
Pollet teaches wherein contacting step includes providing the sizing slurry comprising the thermoplastic (co)polymer comprising polyethylene, polypropylene, polycarbonate, polyethylene terephthalate, (Pollet teaches strand (bundle of filaments) pre-impregnated with a thermoplastic or thermoset polymer during the filament forming operation, Col. 2, lines 27-30, where the materials can include poly(ethylene terephthalate) PET, polyester, or solid epoxies, Col. 3, lines 12-15) polybutylene terephthalate, polyamide-6, polyamide-66, polyamide-11, polyamide-12, polyamide-46, polyetherimide, polyphenylene sulfide, polysulfone, polyimide, polyethersulfone, polyether-ketone-ketone, polyether-ether-ketone, or mixtures thereof.
The courts have held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application, see MPEP § 2143(I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the PET of Pollet for the epoxy resin of Li as modified because it is suitable for the intended purpose of coating a fiber and provides the predictable result of providing strength to the fiber with superior properties, see Col. 4, lines 35-36.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Naito (US 2015/0025191 A1) teaches this fiber bundle was dried by passing the bundle through a 120-150.degree. C. drying oven over 120 seconds, thereby obtaining a reinforcing-fiber bundle having a width of about 9.9 mm [0197].
Pollet (US 5,387,468 A) teaches epoxy, polyester, polyvinyl acetate, polyvinyl alcohol, acrylics, or other chemicals which have the ability to bond the thermoplastic powder particles to the fiber upon the evaporation of the water or which have the ability themselves to suspend the particles in the slurry and subsequently bond themselves to the fiber, Col. 3, lines 11-17.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL M. ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0467. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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, Sam 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.
/MICHAEL M. ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights