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 § 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.
Claims 98 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.
Claims 98 and 99 contain contradictory limitations wherein the carbon fiber fluff does not contain fibers of a given length and does contain fibers of that length in 5 wt.% or less. The contradictory limitations render the scope of the claim indefinite.
Claim 102 recites, “the method for producing according a prepreg to claim 95”, this is language is unclear and therefore renders the scope of the claim unclear. The claim is taken to mean “the method for producing a prepreg according to claim 95”.
Claim 104 recites, “and phenol resin has been added to the liquid thermosetting resin composition”. It is unclear if phenol resin is an optional resin to be added to the composition or if it is necessary. The claim is interpreted to mean that it is optional. An alternative wording for the claim could be, “wherein at least one resin has been added to the liquid thermosetting resin composition, the resin is selected from the group consisting of vinyl ester resin, unsaturated polyester resin, epoxy resin, polyimide resin, maleimide resin, and phenol resin”.
Claim 109 recites, “wherein the method comprises curing the prepreg according to claim 108”. The claim is written such that it alludes to a curing process in claim 108 which does not exist, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. The claim is interpreted to mean a method comprising curing the prepreg of claim 108.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 95, 96, 98, 100, 101, 102, 104 and 108 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baxter (WO 2021076239 A9).
Regarding claim 95, 96, 98, Baxter teaches a method suitable for forming carbon fiber composite prepregs comprising impregnating a carbon fiber mat (sheet) made of self-assembled carbon fiber bundles with a thermosetting resin (page 6, line 28 - page 7, line 2; page 7, line 32 - page 8, line 2; page 20, lines 14-25, Table 2). Baxter also teaches a method for producing self-assembled carbon fiber bundles wherein the carbon fibers are isolated from recycled carbon fiber reinforced materials (having fiber lengths of 5 mm or less) by burning or washing, are dispersed in a bundling liquid (water and chloroform, polyethylimide (organic binder)), and are dried, wherein the fibers are less than 60 mm in length (page 9, lines 1-14; page 21, line 9 - page 22, line 11; Table 2).
Regarding claim 100, Baxter teaches the carbon fiber bundle and bundling liquid can contain epoxy resin (page 6, line 32).
Regarding claims 101 and 102, the processes of burning or washing referenced above, produce both fibers that are thermally degraded and not thermally degraded.
Regarding claim 104, the bundling liquid referenced above contains the resin polyethylimide, a polyimide.
Regarding claims 108, Baxter teaches a polymer-carbon fiber composite (prepreg) sheet produced by the method described above (Fig. 9; page 9, lines 23-28; page 7, line 32 - page 8, line 2).
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.
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 103 and 109 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baxter (WO 2021076239 A9) in view of Eiji (JP 2005320641 A) and further in view of Park (Element and Processing).
Regarding claim 103, Baxter teaches the method of forming a prepreg and self-assembled carbon fiber bundles as referenced above but fails to teach the process of claim 103 nor does it teach a cured carbon fiber reinforced material.
Eiji teaches a method of producing a carbon fiber-reinforced prepreg sheet where sheets of release paper (protective film) are coated with epoxy resin and are then used to laminate a carbon fiber fabric (mat) by the application of the sheets to either side of the fabric with the epoxy resin facing the fabric (paragraph [0059]). Eiji further teaches a fiber reinforced material having with cured resin (claim 13). Eiji does not teach forming the carbon fiber mat onto the first protective film.
Park teaches “spray-up molding”, a known method of applying a fiber-resin mixture to a substrate wherein the chopped fibers, resin, and catalyst (curing agent) are sprayed onto a surface to form a fiber mat (section 6.4.2.).
A person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant application would have found it obvious to substitute the carbon fiber fabric of Eiji with the known method of producing a carbon fiber mat described in Park and use the method to spray a carbon fiber mat on the epoxy resin of a first protective film, and then laminate the mat with a second protective film coated with resin to produce the predictable result of the claimed prepreg. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill, in the pursuit of producing a cured material, would have found it obvious to apply the known technique of curing the product produced by the method described above and the results would have been predictable.
Claim 107 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baxter (WO 2021076239 A9) in view of Nakayama (JP 2013116999 A).
Regarding claim 107, Baxter teaches the method for producing a prepreg and further teaches epoxy as a thermosetting resin as described above but fails to teach epoxy curing agents.
Nakayama teaches a prepreg and carbon fiber-reinforced composites and further teaches a prepreg containing an epoxy resin and an epoxy resin curing agent (claim 16; page 3, line 125).
A person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant application would have found it obvious to include an epoxy resin curing agent in the prepreg composition and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Claims 97 and 99 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baxter (WO 2021076239 A9) in view of Takehara (US 20180044488 A1)
Regarding claims 97 and 99, Baxter applies as described above but fails to teach carbon fibers with lengths of 10 mm or more.
Takehara teaches carbon fiber reinforced resins using carbon fibers with a length of 50 mm (paragraph [0062]).
The fibers of Baxter and Takehara and their functions are known in the art, person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant application would have found it obvious to substitute or add the fibers of Takehara to the composition of Baxter and the result would have been predictable.
Claims 105 and 106 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baxter (WO 2021076239 A9) in view of Takikawa (US 20190092915 A1) .
Regarding claims 105 and 106, Baxter teaches the method for producing a prepreg as described above but fails to teach the inclusion of a fire retardant and the items of claim 106.
Takikawa teaches a carbon fiber-reinforced prepreg composite comprising an initiator, a polyisocyanate (abstract), unsaturated polyester resin, vinyl ester resin, ethylenically unsaturated monomers, an inhibitor, and flame retardant (paragraphs [0035], [0038], [0039]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant application would have seen the application of the components of Takikawa as listed above and found it obvious to incorporate them into the method of Baxter because it is a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KOLTON JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-9802. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (517)272-1130. 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.
/KOLTON JONES/ Examiner, Art Unit 1763 /JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights