DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-9 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonoda (US 20150292145) in view of Suzuki (US 20160194461).
As to claim 1, Sonoda teaches a method for laminating a molding material formed from a plurality of random mats ([0113]). One of Sonoda’s random mats meets the claimed molding material X and a second (identical) one of Sonoda’s random mats meets the claimed molding material Y.
Regarding molding material X, Sonoda teaches that each random mat may include discontinuous carbon fibers having the claimed Cx1 ([0064], “less than 0.3 mm”) and Cx2 ([0064], “width of 1.5 mm”) in the claimed volume ratio ([0064], “1% by weight to 30% by weight” and “10% by weight”) since weight ratio is equivalent to volume ratio when both fibers are carbon. Sonoda teaches glass fiber ([0086]) which would obviously be discontinuous in Sonoda’s “random” mat. The average molding shrinkage (X) in an in-plane direction would obviously satisfy claimed Formula (1) since Sonoda teaches the same carbon fibers used in the same proportion as the claimed invention along with the same list of possible matrix resins (compare Sonoda [0085] to page 10 of the 10/16/23 Specification for the instant case).
Regarding molding material Y, a second mat in Sonoda’s plurality of random mats ([0113]) meets this molding material because it contains the same discontinuous carbon and glass fibers and matrix resin discussed above as meeting molding material X. Since Sonoda’s molding material Y is compositionally the same as the molding material X, the two molding materials would have the same average molding shrinkage, and therefore the average molding material shrinkage ratio is inherently 1, which meets claimed Formula (2).
Sonoda is silent to cold-pressing a molding material.
Suzuki teaches that a material formed from a similar mixture of discontinuous carbon fibers and matrix resin can be molded by either cold press method (Steps A-1 and A-2) or hot press method (Steps B-1 and B-2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate this cold pressing method from Suzuki into Sonoda because:
In light of Suzuki’s disclosure one would have considered cold pressing to be an obvious interchangeable substitute molding process for that already used in Sonoda. The substituted process (cold pressing method) and its function (pressing to a shape) were known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the at could have substituted one known element for another to provide the predictable result (a molded part).
One would have been motivated to incorporate the cold pressing method of Suzuki into Sonoda in order to decrease the cycle time since a cold pressing method would absorb heat from the part during the molding and cool the part more rapidly than a hot press method. There was a reasonable expectation of success in light of the fact that Suzuki teaches that they can be used interchangeably.
As to claim 2, Sonoda teaches carbon fibers having an average length of 5-60 mm ([0050]), and suggests that fiber length is a result effective variable ([0051], “where the average fiber length is longer than 100 mm, the shaped product becomes difficult to have homogeneous mechanical strength”). While Sonoda does not specifically teach an average glass fiber length, in light of Sonoda’s disclosure that fiber length is a result effective variable, one would have found it obvious to use glass fibers having the same length as the carbon fibers. As to claim 3, Sonoda renders this claim obvious because it includes glass fibers with the carbon fibers ([0049]). As to claims 4-9, Sonoda teaches a plurality of random mats ([0113]). These claims are met by a plurality of Sonoda’s random mats because every layer has the carbon fibers and glass fibers. As to claim 11, Sonoda meets this feature because there is no structural distinction between recycled and unrecycled fibers. As to claim 12, Sonoda teaches the same thermoplastic matrix resins (compare Sonoda [0085] to page 10 of the 10/16/23 Specification for the instant case). As to claim 13, Sonoda meets this feature because is teaches the same layers and is capable is being subjected to an impact. As to claim 14, Sonoda teaches a plurality of random mats ([0113]). These claims are met by a plurality of Sonoda’s random mats because every layer has the carbon fibers and glass fibers. As to claim 15, Sonoda teaches that the molded article may be a flat plate-like shaped product ([0262]). As to claim 16, Sonoda teaches that the thickness of the shaped product formed from a plurality of random mats can be 0.2-100 mm ([0044]), and some combinations of number of layers and thicknesses included in this overall part thickness would fall within the claimed range.
Claims 17, 18, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonoda (US 20150292145) in view of Suzuki (US 20160194461), and further in view of Yokomizo (US 20190016067). Sonoda and Suzuki teach the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103 above.
As to claim 17, Sonoda teaches molding a stack comprised of a plurality of random layers, Suzuki teaches cold pressing, but these references lack the other features in this claim.
Yokomizo teaches a top mold and bottom mold as a pair (Fig. 6A, 10 and 11), which are respectively brought into contact with top and bottom surfaces of a molding material (12). The Yokomizo molding process includes a pair of side walls (angled faces of top hat in Fig. 6D) and a connecting wall (horizontal face of top hat in Fig. 6D) and produces a molded body which has a wave shape (top hat shape). While Yokomizo does not specifically teach a flatness of the of the molded body and a height of the side walls, since Yokomizo teaches a part depicted as flat and side walls that have a non-zero size, the claim is met because it would have a Fa/h = 0.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate this feature from Yokomizo into Sonoda because Sonoda provides a composite material containing carbon fiber, and Yokomizo’s molding process is specifically taught/suggested for carbon fiber composites ([0001]). A reasonable expectation of success is evident from the similarity in the Sonoda and Yokomizo materials.
As to claims 18 and 22, Yokomizo provides two molds, including an upper mold and a lower mold which provide a (hat shaped) rib between the connecting wall and side walls. As to claims 20 and 21, Yokomizo teaches side walls that are angled (Fig. 2, Fig. 6D). Although the particular dimensions shown in the drawing cannot be relied upon, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized an angle between 90 degrees and 160 degrees to be obvious and in this embodiment, the theta1 would be equal to theta2. As to claim 23, Sonoda teaches a low springback ([0001]). When there is no springback (consistent with Sonoda), the flatness of the part would be the same as the flatness of the mold cavity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 19, and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 10 requires a particular set of physical characteristics not disclosed by the prior art.
Claim 19 requires multiple waves and a particular size limitation not taught by the prior art, especially when combined with the 0≤Fa/h≤1.1 limitation in claim 17.
Claim 24 requires a step of “deforming…to reduce the angle [Symbol font/0x71]1” and “joining...in a state in which a relationship…satisfies 0≤Fa’/h≤0.1” which are not taught by the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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 J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742