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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimaki (JP 2016041800 A, hereinafter referring to the attached ESPACENET translation) in view of Toyoshima (WO 2018212016 A1, hereinafter referring to US 11,359,060 as the English language equivalent).
Regarding claim 1, Fujimaki teaches a carbon fiber reinforced polyester resin comprising a thermoplastic polyester (A), carbon fiber (B), and a polyfunctional epoxy resin binder (C) ([0001]). The polyfunctional epoxy resin binder reads on the claimed “functional group-containing compound” because epoxy groups are functional groups, and further because the instant application contemplates epoxy groups as suitable functional groups (c.f. claims 9 and 10). Fujimaki teaches that the inventive composition contains 100 parts of the polyester component, 5 to 150 parts of the carbon fiber, and 0.1 to 2 parts of the polyfunctional epoxy component ([0009]). The amounts taught by Fujimaki are identical to, encompass, and fall within the claimed amounts, respectively, establishing prima facie cases of obviousness.
Fujimaki specifically teaches that recycled carbon fibers are suitable for the carbon fiber component (B) ([0011], [0016]) and specifically indicates the suitability of recycled carbon fibers recovered from a carbon fiber-reinforced thermosetting epoxy resin composite ([0020]). Fujimaki further contemplates the production of recycled fibers via a baking process (p. 21, [0028]), but differs from claim 1 because it is silent with regard to the claimed residue amount.
In the same field of endeavor, Toyoshima teaches a method of producing reclaimed carbon fibers (Abstract), involving baking a carbon fiber/resin composite (col. 2, lines 50-61), and teaches the advantageous control of variation in remaining resin residue (Abstract). Furthermore, Toyoshima specifies that the amount of resin residue may be controlled to between 0.1 and 30 mass % (col. 4, lines 12-14), which overlaps the claimed range of “5% by mass or more,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Finally, Toyoshima specifies that the inventive recycled carbon fibers are useful for forming carbon fiber reinforced resin (col. 3, lines 49-59) and specifies that the resin may be a thermoplastic polyester (col. 7, lines 43-44). It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known in the art as suitable for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the recycled carbon fibers of Toyoshima within the formulation of Fujimaki, as Toyoshima recognizes them as suitable recycled carbon fibers for use in carbon fiber reinforced resin compositions.
Fujimaki further differs from claim 1 because it is silent with regard to the claimed maximum flexural strength. Nevertheless, Fujimaki as modified by Toyoshima as applied above results in a composition that is structurally identical to the claimed resin composition, which contains all of the same components in all of the same compositional amounts. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. The claimed maximum flexural strength will therefore necessarily be present in Fujimaki as modified by Toyoshima as applied above.
Regarding claim 2, as described above, Fujimaki teaches the incorporation of 100 parts of the polyester component and 0.1 to 2 parts of the polyfunctional epoxy component ([0009]), which falls within the claimed range of “0.1 to 5,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 3, as described above, Toyoshima teaches that the amount of resin residue may be controlled to between 0.1 and 30 mass % (col. 4, lines 12-14), which overlaps the claimed range of “10% by mass or more,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 4, as described above, Fujimaki teaches the incorporation of 100 parts of the polyester component and 0.1 to 2 parts of the polyfunctional epoxy component ([0009]), which falls within the claimed range of “0.1 to 5,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Furthemore, as described above, Toyoshima teaches that the amount of resin residue may be controlled to between 0.1 and 30 mass % (col. 4, lines 12-14), which overlaps the claimed range of “10% by mass or more,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Finally, while Fujimaki as modified by Toyoshima is silent with regard to the claimed maximum flexural strength characteristic, Fujimaki as modified by Toyoshima as applied above results in a composition that is structurally identical to the claimed resin composition, which contains all of the same components in all of the same compositional amounts. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. The claimed maximum flexural strength will therefore necessarily be present in Fujimaki as modified by Toyoshima as applied above.
Regarding claim 5, as described above, Toyoshima teaches that the amount of resin residue may be controlled to between 0.1 and 30 mass % (col. 4, lines 12-14), which encompasses the claimed range of “no less than 5% by mass and no more than 30% by mass,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claims 6-8, Fujimaki teaches the specific use of polyesters ([0001]) including polybutylene terephthalate ([0002]). Furthermore, Fujimaki does not require a blend of thermoplastic polyesters, and thus Fujimaki teaches compositions wherein 100% of the thermoplastic resin is a polybutylene terephthalate resin, which falls within the claimed range of “30 to 100%,” required by claim 8, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Fujimaki teaches the specific use of a polyfunctional epoxy compound ([0002]), which reads on “epoxy group-containing compound” from the claimed list.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Fujimaki teaches that the polyfunctional epoxy compound has a weight-average molecular weight ranging from 1,000 to 300,000 g/mol, and contains between 2 and 100 epoxy groups therein ([0021]). The claimed mathematical formula for calculating the claimed ratio comprises weight average molecular weight (Mw) in the numerator, and functional group equivalent in the denominator. The unit of functional group equivalent, g/eq, is equivalent to molar mass per equivalent when the equivalents are provided per molecule (because molecules’ masses are commonly provided in grams per mole). Therefore, the denominator of the equation as claimed is a ratio of molecular weight to functional group equivalence. The numerator and denominator therefore both contain Mw, which is algebraically cancelled as follows:
c
l
a
i
m
e
d
r
a
t
i
o
=
M
w
M
w
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
t
y
=
M
w
*
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
t
y
M
w
⇒
M
w
*
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
t
y
M
w
Therefore, the claimed ratio is equivalent to the molar functionality of functional groups within the epoxy compound of Fujimaki. Fujimaki teaches between 2 and 100 epoxy groups per molecule ([0020]), which overlaps the claimed ranges of “1 to 30” and “1 to 10,” establishing prima facie cases of obviousness.
Regarding claim 13, as described above, Toyoshima teaches that the amount of resin residue may be controlled to between 0.1 and 30 mass % (col. 4, lines 12-14), which encompasses the claimed range of “25% by mass or less,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 14, Fujimaki teaches the formation of pellets using the inventive composition ([0032]).
Regarding claims 15 and 18, Fujimaki teaches that fibers with lengths less than 3mm may be utilized ([0020]), which encompasses the claimed range of “100 to 500 µm,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 16, Fujimaki teaches molded articles of the inventive composition ([0021]).
Regarding claim 17, Fujimaki teaches the injection molding of articles of the inventive composition ([0027], [0033]).
Regarding claim 19, Fujimaki teaches that the inventive composition is useful in automobiles and linear motor cars ([0039]), which reads on the claimed “automotive chassis.”
Regarding claim 20, Fujimaki teaches all of the claimed compositional limitations, as described above. Fujimaki teaches a side feed method for producing the inventive composition, wherein the carbon fiber is introduced downstream of the remaining components in order to prevent the carbon fibers from being cut ([0026]), which reads on the claimed step requiring side-feeding of the carbon fiber.
Regarding claim 21, Fujimaki teaches all of the claimed compositional limitations, as described above.
Furthermore, Toyoshima teaches that the amount of resin residue may be controlled to between 0.1 and 30 mass % (col. 4, lines 12-14), which overlaps the claimed range of “5% by mass or more,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Finally, while Fujimaki as modified by Toyoshima is silent with regard to the claimed maximum flexural strength characteristic, Fujimaki as modified by Toyoshima as applied above results in a composition that is structurally identical to the claimed resin composition, which contains all of the same components in all of the same compositional amounts. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. The claimed maximum flexural strength will therefore necessarily be present in Fujimaki as modified by Toyoshima as applied above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE whose telephone number is (703)756-5376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. EST.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at 571-270-7733. 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.
/JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights