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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano (US 20190270225) in view of James (US 5,204,042).
As to claims 1 and 16, Takano teaches a manufacturing method for manufacturing a fiber-reinforced resin article comprising heating a prepreg preform (4) in a press mold ([0019]) together with a core (1) comprising a wax material ([0088]) to obtain a cured product ([0080]). Takano teaches the core having an expansion part (1) made of a first wax material, and a barrier layer (2) that meets the claimed stamper part incompatible with the first wax material (see Fig. 3B) and disposed on a surface of the core (Fig. 3A, items 1 and 2). Takano places/puts a preform inside the mold “which has been heated in advance” ([0080]), and even in the alternative, this is an obvious matter of the order of steps which would not cause a difference in the resulting article. Takano teaches a core removal step of removing the core from the cured product (Fig. 3B; [0058]), and the fact that the first wax (1) material melts before the barrier layer (2) teaches or suggests that the first wax has a softening and melting temperature lower than the barrier layer. The Takano cured part would necessarily have a portion mirroring a shape of the barrier layer/stamper surface on its surface (i.e. flat surfaces or corners).
Although Takano does not specifically teach that the barrier layer/stamper part (2) is a “wax”, the polyethylene or polypropylene material ([0055]) used for this stamper part are materials that fall within the scope of instant claim 16 (organic polar compound), and therefore are interpreted as a second wax material.
Takano is silent the press having a metal mold.
James teaches a metal mold (5:26) since heat curing typically requires the use of metal molds. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the James metal molds into Takano because Takano teaches a heat curing process and James teaches/suggests that heat curing requires metal molds (see 5:26). There is a reasonable expectation of success given that both references cure a composite material.
As to claim 2, since Takano provides a barrier layer (2), the expansion part is not exposed on the surface of the Takano core. As to claim 3, the core of Takano is interpreted as having a second wax material (barrier layer is either polyethylene or polypropylene) and is interpreted as being a low expansion part relative to the meltable wax core (1). As to claims 4-7 and 9, James shows that it is known to provide a core with a groove pattern for forming a rib on the surface of the core (Fig. 4). The structure depicted in James Fig. 4 meets a stripe pattern (three ribs on right portion of part 50) and provides a boss in a recessed part (left side of part 50). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate his feature from James into Takano motivated by providing additional stiffness to the resulting article using a rib. There is a reasonable expectation of success given that both references form a cured composite material using a core. As to claim 8, the core of Takano already shows a flat stamper part (barrier layer 2). As to claim 10, Takano sprays a release agent which forms a barrier film before molding [0058]). As to claim 11, Takano teaches an SMC ([0072]). As to claim 12, Takano places the core and prepreg in a pre-heated mold ([0080]), and would pre-heat the core and prepreg before molding. As to claims 13-15, Takano uses a polypropylene wax ([0132]) or polyethylene ([0046]) and is considered to be “blended in”.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano (US 20190270225) in view of James (US 5,204,042), and further in view of Bjork (US 20060032600).
As to claim 17, Takano is silent to a wax containing a coloring agent.
Bjork teaches that wax patterns can include a pigment which may be used to help identify one formulation of wax from a different formulation of wax ([0043]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate Bjork’s wax pigment into Takano to identify a formulation of wax in the Takano process. Takano teaches a base device (wax core) and Bjork teaches a known technique (pigmented wax core) applicable to the base device. One would have recognized that adding the Bjork pigment to the Takano process would predictably allow identification of one wax from another (Bjork, [0043]).
Claim 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano (US 20190270225) in view of James (US 5,204,042), and further in view of Gill (Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 2021).
As to claims 18 and 19, Takano is silent to the expansion part containing particles which absorb microwaves and a high-frequency electromagnetic field.
Gill teaches pattern wax that contains carbon black which would absorb high-frequency electromagnetic radiation and microwaves.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the carbon black from Gill into Takano because the carbon black improves/decreases dewaxing time (Gill, page 6716 and 6724). Takano provides a base device, and Gill provides a device or process improved in the same way as the claimed invention. One could have applied the Gill improvement and the result would be predictable, as discussed by Gill (decreased dewaxing time).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant recognizes that the Takano bag can be polypropylene or polyethylene film, but these films do not necessarily seem to be a wax (page 8). Applicant further argues that the claim requires preheating the mold and this causes the pressure inside the press metal mold to rise suddenly (pages 8-9).
The Examiner maintains that the Takano barrier layer (2) meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of a wax, and in light of Takano’s Fig. 3B, the Examiner takes the position that Takano’s first wax has a softening and melting temperature lower than the barrier layer (2). The specification does not appear to provide any clear disclosure of what constitutes a “wax” except for the discussion in instant claim 16 that the second wax contains an organic compound having a polar group. It is noted that the Takano barrier layer (2) meets this feature, and so there does not appear to be any clear basis for distinguishing over Takano.
Regarding the preheating of the mold, it is noted that the Takano reference appears to be assigned to the Applicant for this case and includes similar phrasing about preheating. See the last five lines of Takano’s [0080] which state that molding precursor is placed in the lower mold while “the molding die…has been heated in advance”. Even in the alternative that the Examiner has misinterpreted this phrase compared to the instant invention, the decision whether to preheat the mold or heat after placement of the molding materials in the die represents an obvious difference in the order of steps that does not result in a difference in the resulting article. One would have found it obvious to perform these steps in any order.
The Examiner is available to discuss the rejection or potential amendments to the pending claims.
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 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
Prosecution Insights