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 .
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) 1-10, 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimazaki, JP 2005036333 in view of Kiriyama et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0314870 and Hirota et al, JP 2015093780A.
Shimazaki discloses a carbon fiber bundle including 1000-24,000 filaments, which meets the limitations of claim 2, with a thickness of 0.06-0.21 mm and a width of 7-20 mm, which meets the limitations of claim 5, wherein the ratio of with to thickness of 27-130, which meets the limitations of claim 6. See paragraph 0018. The fabric has a weight of 24-210 gsm. See paragraph 0022.
Shimazaki differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose the claimed total fineness of the claimed variation rate of the fiber bundle and does not teach winding the bundle onto a spool.
With regard to the fineness, Kiriyama teaches suitable fineness for a carbon fiber bundles is 25,000 to 35,000 denier, which meets the claimed limitation of 2 g/m or more, noting that 2 g/m equals 18,000 denier. Kiriyama teaches winding the filament bundle. See abstract.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have formed the bundle of Shimazaki to have the claimed fineness in view of the teaching Kiriyama that values greater than 2g/m were suitable values for the fineness of carbon fiber bundles and to have wound the bundle onto a spool since it is conventional to wind filaments onto a spool and Kiriyama teaches winding the filaments.
With regard to the variation in the thickness of the fiber bundle in a width direction of the fiber bundle of 30% or less, Hirota discloses a carbon fiber bundle. The bundle is made by constantly monitoring the thickness and width of the bundle and correcting any defects so that the dimensions of the bundle remain constant. See abstract and claims.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have monitored the bundle of Shimazaki during production and corrected defects as taught by Hirota in order to provide a bundle having the optimum uniformity.
Shimazaki does not teach the claimed fiber thickness. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected carbon fibers having an individual fiber thickness so as to produce a bundle having the desired size and weight.
Shimazaki does not employ a sizing agent which meet the limitations of claim 8.
With regard to the properties of cantilever value, stickability, and fiber-fiber and fiber-metal dynamic friction coefficient, since the structure of Shimazaki as modified by Hirota and Kiriyama would be the same as the claimed structure, either the claimed properties would necessarily be present since the specification teaches that the properties are due to the particular claimed carbon fiber bundle structure.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Shimazaki does not teach the variation rate of the thickness and that Shimazaki is drawn to a gas diffusion substrate while the instant invention is drawn to a molded product. However, for both a gas diffusion substrate and a molded product, it would be desirable to provide uniform carbon fibers and carbon fiber bundles so that the resulting product has uniform and consistent properties throughout the structure. Additionally, Hirota teaches controlling and monitoring the thickness of a carbon fiber bundle so that the thickness remains uniform throughout the bundle. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide a uniform bundle and Hirota teaches a method of providing a uniform bundle in order to provide a product having the desired consistency throughout the entire structure.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the objection to the specification, the 112 rejections and the 102 rejection.
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 ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights