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 with respect to at least independent claims 4 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19, the phase “a density” should be “the density”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 22 and 29 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.
Regarding claim 22, the claim limitations, “the plurality of carbon fibers extend in a direction parallel to a polarization axis of the polarizer” are considered to be indefinite. The claim limitations “the plurality of carbon fibers extend in a direction parallel to a polarization axis of the polarizer” appear to contradict the disclosure. See figs.5 and 10 disclose the plurality of carbon fibers extend in a direction parallel to an absorption axis of the polarizer. Also, the plurality of carbon fibers can not extend in a direction parallel to a polarization axis of the polarizer because the plurality of carbon fibers themselves function to absorb or reflect electromagnetic wave. Therefore, it is indefinite.
For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret the above limitation as - - “the plurality of carbon fibers extend in a direction parallel to an absorption axis of the polarizer” - -.
Regarding claim 29, the claim limitations, “each of the plurality of carbon fibers extends in a direction within a range of ±7° relative to a polarization axis of the polarizer” are considered to be indefinite. The claim limitations “each of the plurality of carbon fibers extends in a direction within a range of ±7° relative to a polarization axis of the polarizer” appear to contradict the disclosure. See figs.5-7 and 10 disclose the plurality of carbon fibers extend in a direction parallel to an absorption axis of the polarizer. Also, the plurality of carbon fibers can not extend in a direction parallel to a polarization axis of the polarizer because the plurality of carbon fibers themselves function to absorb or reflect electromagnetic wave. Therefore, it is indefinite.
For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret the above limitation as - - “each of the plurality of carbon fibers extends in a direction within a range of ±7° relative to an absorption axis of the polarizer” - -.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 4, 6, 13, 14, 16, 20, 22-25 and 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Willett WO 2019025011A1 (see document of 18292943_2026-06-29_WO_2019025011_A1_M.pdf).
Regarding claim 4, Willett discloses a polarizer (12) that polarizes electromagnetic waves (abstract), in at least figs.1 and 4-20, comprising:
a plurality of carbon fibers (see figs.4, 6 and 8 and para.72 and 114); and
a holder (see figs.4,6 and 8 and para.72 and 114) to hold the plurality of carbon fibers in a state of being arranged with spacing between each other,
wherein the plurality of carbon fibers respectively include parts extending in a same direction (para.72 and 114),
the holder includes a molded plastic part to keep the plurality of carbon fibers embedded therein (para.72 and 114), and the molded plastic part comprises a cured contains thermosetting resin (para.73).
Regarding claim 6, Willett discloses a volume content rate of the plurality of carbon fibers relative to the polarizer is in a range from 55% to 75% (para.12,175, 178 and 181).
Regarding claim 13, Willett discloses a manufacturing method of a polarizer that polarizes electromagnetic waves, in at least figs.1 and 4-20 and para.12 discloses a melt impregnation, comprising: arranging a plurality of carbon fibers (see figs.4, 6 and 8 and para.72 and 114) oriented to respectively include parts extending in a same direction and a plastic raw material containing thermosetting resin on a forming die (see figs.4, 6 and 8 and para.12, 72, 73 and 114); molding the plastic raw material by applying pressure to the plurality of carbon fibers and the plastic raw material arranged on the forming die (see figs.4, 6 and 8 and para.12, 72, 73 and 114); forming a molded object including the plurality of carbon fibers and a molded plastic part comprising cured thermosetting resin and filling in spaces around the plurality of carbon fibers by heating and curing the molded plastic raw material (see figs.4, 6 and 8 and para.12, 72, 73 and 114); and demolding the molded object from the forming die (see figs.4, 6 and 8 and para.12, 72, 73 and 114).
Regarding claim 14, Willett discloses the arranging the plurality of carbon fibers and the plastic raw material includes arranging a prepreg obtained by impregnating the plurality of carbon fibers with the plastic raw material, on the forming die (para.12 discloses a melt impregnation).
Regarding claim 16, Willett discloses the thermosetting resin is epoxy resin (para.12 and 73).
Regarding claim 20, Willett discloses a diameter of each of the plurality of carbon fibers is in a range from 5 µm to 15 µm (para.55, 171, 178 and 184).
Regarding claim 22, Willett discloses the plurality of carbon fibers extend in a direction parallel to an absorption axis of the polarizer (see figs.1, 4, 6 and 8).
Regarding claim 23, Willett discloses the electromagnetic waves are terahertz waves having frequencies in a range of 0.1 THz to 10 THz (para.57).
Regarding claim 24, Willett discloses the plurality of carbon fibers are continuous fibers (abstract and para.72 and 114).
Regarding claim 25, Willett discloses at least one of the plurality of carbon fibers are exposed to a surface of the plastic part (see figs.4, 6 and 8).
Regarding claim 29, Willett discloses each of the plurality of carbon fibers extends in a direction within a range of ±7° relative to an absorption axis of the polarizer (see figs.1, 4, 6 and 8).
Regarding claim 30, Willett discloses the plurality of carbon fibers are continuous fibers (abstract and para.72 and 114).
Regarding claim 31, Willett discloses a volume content rate of the plurality of carbon fibers relative to a molded object formed from the prepreg is in a range from 55% to 75% (para.12,175, 178 and 181).
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) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willett WO 2019025011A1 as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Komatsu US 2019/0241711.
Regarding claim 17, Willett discloses the plastic part has a specific inductive capacity in a range of 3.2 to 4.0 and a loss tangent tan ẟ in a range of 0.002 to 0.05 (para.12 and 73 discloses an epoxy, and it’s well-known that an epoxy has a normal specific inductive capacity of 3.2 to 4.5 and a normal tangent tan ẟ of 0.01 to 0.03).
Claim(s) 18, 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willett WO 2019025011A1 as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Komatsu US 2019/0241711.
Regarding claim 18, Willett does not explicitly disclose a density of each of the plurality of carbon fibers is in a range from 1.76 g/cm3 to 2.26 g/cm3.
Komatsu discloses analogous art, a density of each of the plurality of carbon fibers is in a range from 1.76 g/cm3 to 2.26 g/cm3 (para.88 and para.158 disclose a density of each of the plurality of carbon fibers is 1.82 g/cm3) for purpose of forming PAN-based carbon fibers or pitch-based carbon fibers (para.88, 155 and 158).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a density of each of the plurality of carbon fibers is in a range from 1.76 g/cm3 to 2.26 g/cm3 as taught by Komatsu in the polarizer of Willett for the purpose of forming PAN-based carbon fibers or pitch-based carbon fibers.
Regarding claim 19, Willett in view of Komatsu does not explicitly disclose the density of each of the plurality of carbon fibers is in a range from 2.10 g/cm3 to 2.22 g/cm3. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the density of each of the plurality of carbon fibers is in a range from 2.10 g/cm3 to 2.22 g/cm3 through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the density of each of the plurality of carbon fibers is in a range from 2.10 g/cm3 to 2.22 g/cm3 in the polarizer of Willett in view of Komatsu for the purpose of forming PAN-based carbon fibers or pitch-based carbon fibers.
Regarding claim 21, Willett discloses the plurality of carbon fibers maybe PAN-based carbon fibers (para.175).
Willett does not explicitly disclose the plurality of carbon fibers are pitch-based carbon fibers.
Komatsu discloses analogous art, the plurality of carbon fibers can be PAN-based carbon fibers or pitch-based carbon fibers for purpose of forming carbon fibers (para.88, 155 and 158).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plurality of carbon fibers can be PAN-based carbon fibers or pitch-based carbon fibers as taught by Komatsu in the polarizer of Willett in order to have the plurality of carbon fibers are pitch-based carbon fibers for the purpose of forming carbon fibers.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willett WO 2019025011A1 as applied to claim 13 above,
Regarding claim 26, Willett discloses the thermosetting resin is epoxy resin having a specific inductive capacity in a range of 3.2 to 4.0 and a loss tangent tan ẟ in a range of 0.002 to 0.05 (para.12 and 73 discloses an epoxy, and it’s well-known that an epoxy has a normal specific inductive capacity of 3.2 to 4.5 and a normal tangent tan ẟ of 0.01 to 0.03).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willett WO 2019025011A1 as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Komatsu US 2019/0241711.
Regarding claim 27, Willett discloses the plurality of carbon fibers maybe PAN-based carbon fibers (para.175).
Willett does not explicitly disclose the plurality of carbon fibers are pitch-based carbon fibers having a density in a range from 2.10 g/cm3 to 2.22 g/cm3.
Komatsu discloses analogous art, the plurality of carbon fibers can be PAN-based carbon fibers or pitch-based carbon fibers having a density of 1.82 g/cm3 for purpose of forming carbon fibers (para.88, 155 and 158).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plurality of carbon fibers can be PAN-based carbon fibers or pitch-based carbon fibers having a density of 1.82 g/cm3 as taught by Komatsu in the polarizer of Willett in order to have the plurality of carbon fibers are pitch-based carbon fibers for the purpose of forming carbon fibers.
Moreover, Willett in view of Komatsu does not explicitly disclose the density in a range from 2.10 g/cm3 to 2.22 g/cm3. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to having the density in a range from 2.10 g/cm3 to 2.22 g/cm3 through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the density in a range from 2.10 g/cm3 to 2.22 g/cm3 in the polarizer of Willett in view of Komatsu for the purpose of forming pitch-based carbon fibers.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willett WO 2019025011A1 as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Komatsu US 2019/0241711.
Regarding claim 28, Willett discloses the plurality of carbon fibers maybe PAN-based carbon fibers (para.175).
Willett does not explicitly disclose the plurality of carbon fibers are pitch-based carbon fibers having a density in a range from 1.76 g/cm3 to 2.26 g/cm3.
Komatsu discloses analogous art, the plurality of carbon fibers can be PAN-based carbon fibers or pitch-based carbon fibers having a density in a range from 1.76 g/cm3 to 2.26 g/cm3 (para.88,155 and 158) for purpose of forming pitch-based carbon fibers (para.88, 155 and 158).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plurality of carbon fibers can be PAN-based carbon fibers or pitch-based carbon fibers having a density in a range from 1.76 g/cm3 to 2.26 g/cm3 as taught by Komatsu in the polarizer of Willett in order to have the plurality of carbon fibers are pitch-based carbon fibers having a density in a range from 1.76 g/cm3 to 2.26 g/cm3 for the purpose of forming pitch-based carbon fibers.
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 JIA X PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7574. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Michael H Caley can be reached at (571)272-2286. 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.
/JIA X PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights