Detailed Office Action
Applicant’s amendments and arguments dated 3/31/2026 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 1, 5, 10, and 14 are amended. Claims 4 and 13 are cancelled. Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from examination. Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-20 remain pending.
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 Amendments and Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the independent claims 1 and 10 reciting the detailed structure of the first and the second web material are noted. These amendments overcome the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection over JIA. Upon further search and consideration, a new 35 USC 103 rejection is made in this office action and is detailed below.
Applicant’s arguments that JIA’s copper mesh is not a fabric and JIA does not disclose wire for formation of copper mesh are not persuasive. JIA, indeed, teaches using wire to form a copper mesh {[0010]}. The Examiner submits that a mesh or a layer made of wires is formed by “weaving” the wires that resemble fibers. Therefore, this wire mesh reads on the limitation of fabric.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 10-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIA (CN-109608220-A and its English translation), hereinafter JIA, in view of SUGINO (US 5,071,700), hereinafter SUGINO, as evidenced by KO (US-2006/0214320), hereinafter KO. Note that the italicized text below are the instant claims.
Regarding claims 1 and 10 (note differing claim 10 limitations are in parenthesis), JIA discloses A method of (forming a fibrous preform for) fabricating a composite component {[0002] note plate is the preform, [0011] note presence of carbon fiber cloth, thus a fibrous preform, [0009]/[0010] note presence of other fiber or wire and powder, thus a composite}, comprising:
forming a fibrous preform (locating a first fiber layer in a mold) {[0017] note laying a layer of carbon fiber cloth in the mold} by:
forming a first (layer of) graphite powder and phenolic resin compound mixture layer over a first textile (fiber) layer, the first (layer of) graphite powder and phenolic resin compound mixture layer having a first group of graphite particles {[0009] note graphite powder, [0012] note phenolic resin, [0017] note placing the slurry (graphite powder + phenolic resin) on the carbon fiber cloth or first textile layer or first fiber layer};
disposing a second textile layer (locating a second fiber layer in the mold and) over the first (layer of) graphite powder and phenolic resin compound mixture layer; disposing (locating) a first web material fabric between the second textile (fiber) layer and the first (layer of) graphite powder and phenolic resin compound mixture layer; forming a second (layer of) graphite powder and phenolic resin compound mixture layer over the second textile (fiber) layer, the second graphite powder and phenolic resin compound mixture layer having a second group of graphite particles {[0010] note copper mesh that is made of wire or fiber and can be considered the web material fabric, [0017] note placing copper mesh or web material fabric on the slurry or mixture of graphite powder and phenolic resin and note repeat of the process that reads on this limitation};
and disposing (locating) a third textile (fiber) layer over the second (layer of) graphite powder and phenolic resin compound mixture layer; disposing (locating) a second web material fabric between the third textile (fiber) layer and the second (layer of) graphite powder and phenolic resin compound mixture layer {[0017] note that a layer of carbon layer is mentioned last and before the repeating process, thus it ends with the third textile or fiber layer, [0010] note copper mesh that is made of wire or fiber and can be considered the web material fabric, [0017] note placing copper mesh or web material fabric on the slurry or mixture of graphite powder and phenolic resin and note the repeating process};
and densifying the fibrous preform (the layers) {[0019] note hot pressing is the densifying process}.
As mentioned above, JIA discloses a copper wire mesh as the web material fabric. Therefore, JIA is silent on the first web material fabric and the second web material fabric being a short fiber, carbonized material needled together to form a uniform felt material that are the last limitations of independent claims 1 and 10. The Examiner notes that JIA discloses that the purpose of the copper mesh or fabric is to impart reinforcement {[0033]}. Therefore, it is within the skill of art of an artisan to have substituted this mesh with another fabric that imparts reinforcement.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to carbon fiber-reinforced composite material, SUGINO discloses wherein the first web material fabric and the second web material fabric are a short fiber, carbonized material needled together to form a uniform felt material {[abstract] note that as evidenced by KO in [0002], needling creates a felt, [C2, L44-46] note imparting uniformity, [C4, L21-25] note carbonization, [C3, L21] note short fiber}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the copper fabric of JIA with the short fiber carbonized and needled felt of SUGINO. Note that is has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art {see MPEP 2143 (I)(B)}. Predictable results are obtained because both JIA {[0033]} and SUGINO {[C1, L10-13]} disclose that the purpose of the web material is reinforcement.
Regarding claims 2 and 11 (note differing claim 11 limitations are in parenthesis), JIA discloses wherein the phenolic resin in the first (layer of) graphite powder and phenolic resin compound mixture layer and the second (layer of) graphite powder and phenolic resin compound mixture layer is carbonized during the densification {[0021] note the high temperature of 1000-1400 °C that carbonizes phenolic resin}.
Regarding claims 3, 6, 12, and 15, JIA discloses wherein the first group of graphite particles has a first average particle size, and the second group of graphite particles has a second average particle size, and wherein the first average particle size and the second average particle size are between 25 mesh and 400 mesh (claim 3), wherein the third group of graphite particles has a third average particle size, and wherein the third average particle size is between 25 mesh and 400 mesh (claim 6), wherein the first group of graphite particles has a first average particle size, and the second group of graphite particles has a second average particle size, and wherein the first average particle size and the second average particle size are between 25 mesh and 400 mesh (claim 12), wherein the third group of graphite particles has a third average particle size, and wherein the third average particle size is between 25 mesh and 400 mesh (claim 15) {[0009]}.
The Examiner notes that JIA discloses a particle size range of not less than 100 mesh that partially overlaps the claimed range of 25-400 mesh. A prima facie case of obviousness is established when a claimed narrow range is within a broad prior art range or partially overlaps or touches the broad range {see MPEP 2144.05 (I)}.
Regarding claims 5 and 14 (note differing claim 14 limitations are in parenthesis), JIA discloses further comprising: prior to densifying the fibrous preform: forming a third (layer of) graphite powder and phenolic resin compound mixture layer over the third textile (fiber) layer, the third (layer of) graphite powder and phenolic resin compound mixture layer having a third group of graphite particles; disposing (locating) a third web material fabric over the third (layer of) graphite powder and phenolic resin compound mixture layer; and disposing (locating ) a fourth textile layer over the third web material fabric {[0017] and see claims 1 and 10 for the repeating and web material fabric}.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of JIA and SUGINO as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of KIRKPATRICK (US-2021/0387441), hereinafter KIRKPATRICK.
Regarding claim 7 and 16, JIA discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 10 as discussed above. JIA further discloses disposing the first textile layer on a first plate; locating a first shim around an outer perimeter of the first textile layer; locating a second shim around an outer perimeter of the second textile layer; disposing a second plate over the third textile layer and applying a compressive load to the third textile layer (claim 7), disposing the first fiber layer on a first plate; locating a first shim around an outer perimeter of the first fiber layer; locating a second shim around an outer perimeter of the second fiber layer; disposing a second plate over the third fiber layer and applying a compressive load to the third fiber layer (claim 16) {[0017] note the mold has walls or shims since it needs to enclose the thickness of all the layers or the first and second textile, fabric, graphite powder and phenolic resin, thus the walls or shims that enclose these layers are the first and second shim, [0019] note hot pressing that requires a punch or a male mold or the second plate in cooperation with the mold with the bottom of the mold considered the first plate, note the second plate or punch applies the compressive load to the top layer}.
Combination of JIA and SUGINO, however, is silent on one of the plates including at least one of groove or an orifice.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to forming composites, KIRKPATRICK discloses wherein at least one of the first plate or the second plate includes at least one of a groove or an orifice (rest of claims 7 and 16) {[0041]}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of KIRKPATRICK in the method of combination of JIA and SUGINO and have included grooves or orifices in the second plate of the hot press machine of the combination above. As disclosed by KIRKPATRICK, the advantage of these grooves or orifices is to facilitate the flow of gas to and infiltration of the fibrous preform during densification {[0041]}.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of JIA, SUGINO, and KIRKPATRICK as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of HAYASHI (JP-2024031791-A and its English translation), hereinafter HAYASHI.
Regarding claim 8, combination of JIA, SUGINO, and KIRKPATRICK discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 7 as discussed above. This combination, however, is silent on the controlling the fiber volume by varying compressive load.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to composite material, HAYASHI discloses wherein a fiber volume of the fibrous preform is controlled by varying the compressive load {[P8, last ¶]} note the highlighted section that teaches that the density (or densification) and accompanying voids vary depending on the molding pressure or compressive load and thus the density or fiber volume can be controlled by varying the compressive load}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of HAYASHI in the combination method of JIA, SUGINO, and KIRKPATRICK and have varied the compressive load to determine a desired density or strength of the final product. As disclosed by HAYASHI, this can be accomplished by varying the voids that can be obviously decreased by increasing the compressive force and thus obtain a denser final product {[P8, last ¶]}.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of JIA and SUGINO as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of O’NEIL (US-2019/0162262), hereinafter O’NEIL.
Regarding claim 9, combination of JIA and SUGINO discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. This combination, however, is silent of the fibrous preform being a disk and machining the disk after the densification.
In the same field of endeavor that is related composite preform for brake assembly, O’NEIL discloses wherein the fibrous preform is a disk and wherein the method further comprises: machining the disk after the densification to a final form {[0048]}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of O’NEIL in the method of combination of JIA and SUGINO and have produced the perform in the shape of disk followed by machining it. As disclosed by O’NEIL such machining produces a clean, planarized produce with a desired thickness {[0048]}. The Examiner notes that as disclosed by JIA the product can be a gasket that can be in the form of a disk and requires a predetermined thickness to perform as a good seal {[0005]}.
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 S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI whose telephone number is (571)272-1373. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-(alt Fri) 7:30-5:00.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights