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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
i. Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 9, “impregnation section”, which has been interpreted as (i) the combination of a fiber opening roller, an impregnation roller and an extruder; or (ii) the combination of a fiber opening roller and an impregnation die; or equivalents thereof. See Applicant’s published application (paragraphs 66 and 93).
ii. Claims 1, 5-6, “switching apparatus”, which has been interpreted as (i) the combination of a pressurization head, a pedestal portion, a heater for the head and a cylinder; or (ii) rotary rolls; or equivalents thereof. See Applicant’s published application (paragraphs 48 and 52-53).
iii. Claim 2, “pressing section”, which has been interpreted as (i) the combination of a pressurization head, a pedestal portion and a cylinder; or (ii) rotary rolls; or equivalents thereof. See Applicant’s published application (paragraphs 48 and 52-53).
iv. Claims 5-6, “holding section”, which has been interpreted as guide rollers or equivalents thereof. See Applicant’s published application (paragraphs 38 and 42-43; Figure 1).
v. Claims 5-6, “uniting section”, which has been interpreted as a pair of rolls or equivalents thereof. See Applicant’s published application (paragraph 44; Figure 1).
vi. Claim 8, “dividing section”, which has been interpreted as a slitter or equivalents thereof. See Applicant’s published application (paragraph 92).
vii. Claim 9, “removal section”, which has been interpreted as the combination of a thickness sensor and a cutter or equivalents thereof. See Applicant’s published application (paragraph 70; Figure 6).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Additional limitations not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) may be listed here for clarity of the claim interpretation. Such claim limitations are:
viii. Claim 2, “supply section”, which has not been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) in view of the structural modifier “supply”, which would have been understood by the person of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the specification, as the name for a broad class of structures which act as a source of the second resin in the form of a thin film. See Applicant’s published application (paragraph 51).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 4-9 and 11-12 are 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.
Regarding claim 4, there is no clear indication in parent claim 1 that the first resin is melted. For example a thermosetting resin is capable of impregnating reinforcing fiber, but is not necessarily melted. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the melted first resin” in claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, intervening claim 5 recites a plurality of switching apparatuses. It is unclear which is being referenced by “the switching apparatus” in claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, as above in claim 4, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the melted first resin”.
Regarding claim 7, line 3 recites “a bundle”. However, line 4 references “each bundle” which implicitly refers to two or more bundles. Since plural bundles are not recited, there is an issue of insufficient antecedent basis for the plural bundles which are implicitly referenced by “each bundle”.
Regarding claim 8, as above in claim 7, there is an issue of insufficient antecedent basis for instances of “each bundle”.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear what is meant by “the die hole that is different for each bundle of the reinforcing fiber”. In particular, only one die hole is recited. It is unclear how a single die hole can be different for different bundles. Also, as noted above, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the plural bundles which are implicitly referenced by “each bundle”.
Regarding claim 9, it is unclear if “a resin” was intended to reference the previously recited first resin.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear if “the resin” is referencing the first resin or the second resin.
Regarding claim 12, it is unclear what is meant by “while connecting the reinforcing fiber to one another”. Only one reinforcing fiber is recited in claim 12. Accordingly, it is unclear what “one another” is referring to.
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 1-4, 7 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tashiro (US 2017/0252988 A1) in view of Otsuka (JP 2008-143087 A, referencing attached machine translation) and Tingley (US 2007/0044896 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tashiro teaches a production apparatus for producing a fiber-reinforced resin in which a reinforcing fiber is arranged to be oriented in a single direction, the production apparatus comprising an impregnation section 22 that impregnates the reinforcing fiber with a first resin. As noted above in the claim interpretation section, the impregnation section has been interpreted, in one alternative, as the combination of a fiber opening roller and an impregnation die. Such is clearly taught by Tashiro (Figure 1; paragraphs 38-40).
Tashiro differs from claim 1 in that:
i. Tashiro does not teach a switching apparatus that switches the reinforcing fiber from a preceding reinforcing fiber to a new reinforcing fiber at an upstream side of the impregnation section, wherein when switching the reinforcing fiber, the switching apparatus is capable of connecting the new reinforcing fiber to the preceding reinforcing fiber by forming a bonded body in which the preceding reinforcing fiber and the new reinforcing fiber are bonded by fusing a melted second resin in a form of a thin film.
ii. As detailed in the Claim Interpretation section above, one interpretation of the switching apparatus is the combination of a pressurization head, a pedestal portion, a heater for the head and a cylinder; or equivalents thereof. Otsuka does not teach these details for the switching apparatus.
(i) In the related art of fiber reinforced composite material manufacturing, Otsuka teaches a production apparatus for producing a fiber-reinforced resin with a switching apparatus 42 that switches the reinforcing fiber from a preceding reinforcing fiber to a new reinforcing fiber at an upstream side of an impregnation section (Figure 1; paragraphs 20 and 24), wherein when switching the reinforcing fiber, the switching apparatus is capable of connecting the new reinforcing fiber to the preceding reinforcing fiber by forming a bonded body in which the preceding reinforcing fiber and the new reinforcing fiber are bonded by fusing a melted second resin in a form of a thin film (paragraphs 31-33). It is noted that apparatus claims are not limited to recited method limitations, but are only limited to structure implied thereby. See MPEP 2114. The switching apparatus of Otsuka facilitates switching from an old reinforcing fiber to a new supply, thereby allowing continuous operation (paragraphs 1-5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these limitations in Tashiro because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to facilitates switching from an old reinforcing fiber to a new supply, thereby allowing continuous operation in accordance with the teachings of Otsuka.
(ii) Otsuka is applied above for modifying Tashiro to include the claimed switching device. Otsuka suggests joining the new reinforcing fiber to the preceding reinforcing fiber with a thermoplastic film using heat and pressure (paragraphs 32-33), but does not provide details as to the apparatus structure for supplying such heat and pressure. In a fiber splicing device, Tingley suggests a pressurization head, a pedestal portion, a heater for the head and a cylinder for applying heat and pressure for joining the new reinforcing fiber to the preceding reinforcing fiber (Figures 3-6; paragraph 43). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this additional structure in the modified apparatus of Tashiro because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide known suitable structure for applying the heat and pressure for joining in view of the above noted teachings of Otsuka and Tingley.
Regarding claim 2, naturally the film adhesive of Otsuka requires a supply thereof. It is clear from Otsuka that the film is used to join the new and preceding reinforcing fibers and thus comes into contact with them. The pressing section is satisfied for the reasons provided above in view of Tingley. It is noted that the pressing section has been interpreted as detailed above in the Claim Interpretation section.
Regarding claim 3, this material worked upon limitation does not distinguish the claimed apparatus over the modified apparatus of Tashiro. The modified apparatus of Tashiro uses first and second resins and is considered capable of using first and second resins of the same type.
Regarding claims 4 and 7, Tashiro clearly satisfies these additional limitations.
Regarding claims 10-11, these material worked upon limitations do not distinguish the claimed apparatus over the modified apparatus of Tashiro. Tashiro teaches both the use of carbon fiber and thermoplastic first resin (paragraphs 23 and 35), and accordingly is structured to use such materials.
Regarding claim 12, Tashiro clearly teaches the additional method limitation of producing a fiber reinforced resin in which a reinforcing fiber is oriented in a single direction. As detailed above, Otsuka suggests connecting reinforcing fibers to facilitate switching from a previous reinforcing fiber to a new supply, thereby allowing continuous operation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this step in Tashiro because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted benefits in accordance with the teachings of Otsuka.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 8-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 5 and 8-9, the closest prior art of record is applied above. In combination with the claimed limitations, no teaching or suggestion was found in the prior art of record to provide the respective additional limitations of these claims. The following references are cited as being pertinent to the claimed invention. Yokota (US 5266139) teaches splicing upstream of fiber impregnation (Figure 1). Barnaud (US 2008/0318020 A1), Syuto (US 2019/0135576 A1), Tanigawa (US 2014/0346270 A1) and Street (US 4428992) are all drawn to splicing of reinforcing fibers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A TOLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8633. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6 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, Phillip C. Tucker can be reached at (571) 272-1095. 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.
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745