DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Semba et al. (US 2018/0037737, “Semba”) in view of Gehr et al. (US 2016/0060535, “Gehr”) in view of Paulauskas et al. (US 2013/0196155, “Paulauskas”).
Regarding claim 1, Semba teaches a thermoplastic resin composition ([0096], [0185], [0186]) for fiber reinforced products (e.g., molded articles, [0185]) comprising a carbon fiber component ([0022], and wherein the carbon fiber may be derived from recycled components, [0104], [0124]) and a thermoplastic resin ([0022], [0029]). Semba additionally teaches that the thermoplastic may include an acid-modified polypropylene (e.g., maleic anhydride modified polypropylene, [0029]) and teaches, for example, that the thermoplastic resin may include a polyamide resin and have a solubility parameter on the claimed range of from 10 to 15, thus satisfying limitation (i) ([0267] – [0276], including a polyamide and may have a solubility parameter of, for example, 12.2). Semba fails to specifically teach the oxygen content of the recycled fiber. However, in the same field of endeavor of carbon fiber for use in molded articles (e.g., [0099], [0100]), Gehr teaches a specific recycled carbon fiber for use in molded articles and having high contents of oxygen (e.g., [0048] – [0050], describing oxygen-rich pyrolysis zones) and teaches that recycled carbon fibers having a higher proportion of oxygen-containing groups on the surface of the fibers improves their incorporability into plastics compared to primary carbon fibers ([0118], [0024]). It therefore would have been obvious to have included a high oxygen content in the recycled carbon fiber (including in an amount of greater than 5.0% by mass), in order to improve their incorporability into plastics compared to primary carbon fibers ([0118], [0024]). Similarly, Paulauskas teaches a method for surface treating carbon fibers with greater than 5% by mass oxygen ([0029], [0030]; and see [0022], [0023], such fibers being useful in conventional thermoplastic fiber composites). Therefore, the ordinarily skilled artisan, understanding that the inclusion of highly oxygenated carbon fibers improves incorporability into a resin and that forming carbon fibers having 5% oxygen content by mass is known in the art, would have adopted such a process to increase the oxygen content of the fibers to greater than 5% in order to improve their incorporability into plastics compared to primary carbon fibers (Gehr [0118], [0024]; Paulauskas [0022] [0023], [0029], [0030]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Semba additionally teaches that the recycled fiber may have a density of on the range of from 300 to 4500 kg/m^3 (i.e., 0.3 to 4.5 g/cm^3, Gehr, [0097]). The Examiner notes that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Please see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Semba additionally teaches that the thermoplastic may include an acid-modified polypropylene (e.g., maleic anhydride modified polypropylene, [0029]) and teaches, for example, that the thermoplastic resin may include a polyamide resin and have a solubility parameter on the claimed range of from 10 to 15, thus satisfying limitation (i) ([0267] – [0276], including a polyamide and may have a solubility parameter of, for example, 12.2).
Regarding claim 8, Semba additionally teaches the thermoplastic resin may be made into a molded article ([0185]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Semba additionally teaches that the recycled fiber may have a density of on the range of from 300 to 4500 kg/m^3 (i.e., 0.3 to 4.5 g/cm^3, Gehr, [0097]). The Examiner notes that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Please see MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 4-6, 11, 13, 14, 16-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Semba in view of Gehr in view of Paulauskas as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Chen et al. (CN 107177905, a machine copy of which has been provided, hereafter referred to as “Chen”).
Regarding claim 2, modified Semba fails to specifically teach the claimed intensity ratio of the thermoplastic resin composition. However, in the same field of endeavor of methods of producing carbon fibers (pp. 1-3), Chen teaches a carbon fiber material having an intensity ratio of less than 2.9 provides a carbon fiber that results in a useful carbon fiber having surface oxygen-containing functional groups that are useful in multiple fields and thus adopting such an intensity ratio would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing (see Chen, pp. 2-3).
Claim(s) 4-6, 11, 13, 14, 16-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Semba in view of Gehr in view of Paulauskas and further in view of Chen as applied to claims 1-5, above, and further in view of Katayama et al. (US 2018/0030214, “Katayama”).
Regarding claims 4-6, Semba teaches to include polypropylene homopolymer resin ([0029], [0187]) and that this resin may have a melting point of 164C (i.e., greater than 100C, [0392], Table 5). Semba additionally teaches the inclusion of an elastomer ([0480], [0077], including components having a high elastic modulus). Semba additionally teaches that the thermoplastic may include an acid-modified polypropylene (e.g., maleic anhydride modified polypropylene, [0029]) and while these types of polymers typically have melting points of greater than 130C, Semba does not specifically teach this feature. However, in the same field of endeavor of carbon-reinforced thermoplastic polymers and articles derived therefrom ([0002], [0064]), Katayama teaches that among commonplace maleic anhydride modified polypropylenes are ADMER QB550, which possesses the claimed melting point and melt viscosity features (i.e., MP of greater than 130C and a melt viscosity reading on from 10 to 500 Pa-s see present specification at [0285], citing to PG Pub. US 2024/0239970). It would have been obvious to have used the specific example of a maleic anhydride modified polypropylene as taught by Katayama for the generic requirement described by Semba, as they are taught to provide good compatibility between different chemical components (e.g., [0023] – [0025]) and because the simple substitution of one known compound or element for another that would provide predictable results would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill at the time of filing (please see MPEP 2143).
Regarding claims 11, 13, 14, 16-18, and 20, Semba teaches to include polypropylene homopolymer resin ([0029], [0187]) and that this resin may have a melting point of 164C (i.e., greater than 100C, [0392], Table 5). Semba additionally teaches the inclusion of an elastomer ([0480], [0077], including components having a high elastic modulus). Semba additionally teaches that the thermoplastic may include an acid-modified polypropylene (e.g., maleic anhydride modified polypropylene, [0029]) and while these types of polymers typically have melting points of greater than 130C, Semba does not specifically teach this feature. However, in the same field of endeavor of carbon-reinforced thermoplastic polymers and articles derived therefrom ([0002], [0064]), Katayama teaches that among commonplace maleic anhydride modified polypropylenes are ADMER QB550, which possesses the claimed melting point and melt viscosity features (i.e., MP of greater than 130C and a melt viscosity reading on from 10 to 500 Pa-s see present specification at [0285], citing to PG Pub. US 2024/0239970). It would have been obvious to have used the specific example of a maleic anhydride modified polypropylene as taught by Katayama for the generic requirement described by Semba, as they are taught to provide good compatibility between different chemical components (e.g., [0023] – [0025]) and because the simple substitution of one known compound or element for another that would provide predictable results would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill at the time of filing (please see MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 10, 12, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Semba in view of Gehr in view of Paulauskas and further in view of Chen as applied to claims 1-5, above, and further in view of Katayama et al. (US 2018/0030214, “Katayama”).
Regarding claims 10, 12, 15, and 19, Semba teaches to include polypropylene homopolymer resin ([0029], [0187]) and that this resin may have a melting point of 164C (i.e., greater than 100C, [0392], Table 5). Semba additionally teaches the inclusion of an elastomer ([0480], [0077], including components having a high elastic modulus). Semba additionally teaches that the thermoplastic may include an acid-modified polypropylene (e.g., maleic anhydride modified polypropylene, [0029]) and while these types of polymers typically have melting points of greater than 130C, Semba does not specifically teach this feature. However, in the same field of endeavor of carbon-reinforced thermoplastic polymers and articles derived therefrom ([0002], [0064]), Katayama teaches that among commonplace maleic anhydride modified polypropylenes are ADMER QB550, which possesses the claimed melting point and melt viscosity features (i.e., MP of greater than 130C and a melt viscosity reading on from 10 to 500 Pa-s see present specification at [0285], citing to PG Pub. US 2024/0239970). It would have been obvious to have used the specific example of a maleic anhydride modified polypropylene as taught by Katayama for the generic requirement described by Semba, as they are taught to provide good compatibility between different chemical components (e.g., [0023] – [0025]) and because the simple substitution of one known compound or element for another that would provide predictable results would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill at the time of filing (please see MPEP 2143).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J FROST whose telephone number is (571)270-5618. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights