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 § 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 1-2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willemsen et al. (PG Pub. 2008/0251965).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 6, Willemsen et al. teach a fiber reinforced composite comprising a polyamide based resin and an aramid staple fiber imparted with twist in the claimed range [Title, Abstract and 0014]. The aramid staple fiber has a length in the claimed range [Abstract]. The aramid staple fiber surface is treated with a sizing agent [0007].
The background section of Willemsen et al. teaches it is known in the art to use aramid staple fiber in amounts up to 20 wt% based on the weight of the composite (which reads on the claimed 10 wt% or less since any amount between 0-20% is taught) and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use amounts of 10 wt% or less as is common and known in the art in order to adjust the properties of the composite. Since Willemsen et al. teaches up to 20 wt% this would also read on the claimed fiber reinforced composite comprising aramid staple fiber in an amount of 0.1- 20 parts by weight based on 100 pbw polyamide resin. Given Willemsen et al. teach such similar composite made of such similar materials in such similar amounts with such similar lengths, the claimed properties are inherent to the composite of Willemsen et al. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 1-2, 6-7 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukeda et al. (JP 2020/105362) in view of Willemsen et al. (PG Pub. 2008/0251965).
Regarding claims 1, 6-7 and 14-15, Tsukeda et al. teaches a balanced gear comprising a fiber reinforced composite comprising a polyamide based resin and an aramid staple fiber [0007]. The composite further comprises one or more fibers including a glass fiber or carbon fiber [0007]. The composite contains 45 wt% or less of the glass or carbon fibers based on 100 wt% of the total weight of the composite. Tsukeda et al. teach the aramid staple fibers are contained in an amount in the claimed range by weight of the composite [0007]. Tsukeda et al. teach the aramid staple fiber is contained in an amount in the claimed parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of polyamide resin given Tsukeda et al. teach the resin is present in an amount of 1.5-90% by mass and the aramid staple fiber is present in an amount of 1-30% mass based upon simple math calculation. The aramid staple fiber surface is treated with a sizing agent [0007]. Tsukeda et al. teach a fiber reinforced composite with flexural strength in the claimed range and coefficient of friction in the claimed range [Table 1]. Given cited art teaches such a similar fiber reinforced composite made of such similar materials in such similar amounts with such similar fiber lengths, the claimed properties are inherent to the composite of the cited art.
Tsukeda et al. are silent regarding the claimed twist. However, Willemsen et al. teach aramid staple fibers with twist imparted in the claimed amount in order to increase filament cohesiveness, strength and prevent fuzz balls. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the twist as taught by Tsukeda et al. in Willemsen et al. in order to increase filament cohesiveness, strength and prevent fuzz balls and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Tsukeda et al. teach the aramid staple fiber has a length in the claimed range [0007].
Regarding claims 16-17, Tsukeda et al. teach a method for producing a fiber reinforced composite with the method comprising the steps of preparing an aramid staple fiber and charging the prepared aramid staple fiber surface coated with a sizing agent with the aramid staple yarns having a length in the claimed range and a polyamide based resin into an extruder and then discharging them to produce a fiber reinforced composite. Tsukeda et al. are silent regarding the claimed twist. Tsukeda et al. teach coating the aramid fibers with sizing and then chopping the yarn. However, Willemsen et al. teach aramid staple fibers with twist imparted in the claimed amount in order to increase filament cohesiveness, strength and prevent fuzz balls. Willemsen et al. teach imparting twists to yarn coated with sizing and then chopping the yarn to produce aramid staple yarn with a length in the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the twist as taught by Tsukeda et al. in Willemsen et al. in order to increase filament cohesiveness, strength and prevent fuzz balls and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 12-13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama et al. (JP 2018/039972).
Regarding claim 1, Murayama et al. teach a fiber reinforced composite comprising a polyamide based resin and an aramid staple fiber imparted with twist in the claimed range [0005, 0007, 0011 and Examples]. Murayama et al. teach the aramid staple fiber is contained in the claimed weight % based on the weight of the composite as Murayama et al. teach 5-30pbw carbon fiber, 1-20 pbw aramid fiber per 100 pbw polyamide resin [0016]. Murayama et al. teach the fiber reinforced composite according to claim 1 has the claimed flexural strength. Given cited art teaches such a similar fiber reinforced composite made of such similar materials in such similar amounts with such similar fiber lengths, the claimed properties are inherent to the composite of the cited art.
Regarding claim 2, the aramid staple fiber has a length in the claimed range [Examples].
Regarding claim 6, the aramid staple fiber surface is treated with a sizing agent [0012].
Regarding claim 7, Murayama et al. teach comprising one or more fibers selected from glass fiber or carbon fiber [0016].
Regarding claims 12-13, Murayama et al. teach automotive parts (which would include automotive interior material and automotive exterior material and would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based upon the teachings of Murayama et al.) comprising the reinforced composite material of claim 1.
Regarding claims 16-17, Murayama et al. teach a method for producing a fiber reinforced composite with the method comprising the steps of preparing an aramid staple fiber with twist in the claimed amount and charging the prepared aramid staple fiber surface coated with a sizing agent with the aramid staple yarns having a length in the claimed range and a polyamide based resin into an extruder and then discharging them to produce a fiber reinforced composite [Examples].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Williamsen does not teach any ratio between aramid fibers and polyamide resin. Willemsen et al. teaches up to 20 wt% this would also read on the claimed fiber reinforced composite comprising aramid staple fiber in an amount of 0.1- 20 parts by weight based on 100 pbw polyamide resin since amounts including minor amounts of 0.01% are included in this.
Applicant argues Tsukeda does not teach aramid fibers with twist. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Williamsen teaches the aramid twist as set forth in the rejection.
Applicant argues Tsukeda does not teach the ratio between the polyamide resin and aramid fibers. Tsukeda et al. teach the polyamide resin is present in an amount of 1.5-90% by mass and the aramid staple fiber is present in an amount of 1-30% and therefore plainly and clearly teaches the claimed ratio between the polyamide resin and aramid fibers. It is noted the present claims recite polyamide-based resin and does not claim nylon 6 argued.
Applicant only embodiments of Tsukeda with at least 5% PTFE have a flexural strength in the claimed range. This is not the case. Tsukeda teaches examples with a flexural strength in the claimed range at 10% and 5% aramid fibers. Further, the present claims do not exclude the inclusion of any other components. Moreover, Tsukeda is not limited to the examples and embodiments of Tsukeda that include lesser amounts of aramid fiber clearly have properties in the claimed range. It is noted Tsukeda teaches strength up to 500 MPa.
Applicant argues Murayama does not teach 10 wt% or less of aramid fiber based on the composite total weight and does not teach 2-5 parts of aramid fiber based on 100 parts of polyamide resin. Murayama et al. teach the aramid staple fiber is contained in the claimed weight % based on the weight of the composite as Murayama et al. teach 5-30pbw carbon fiber, 1-20 pbw aramid fiber per 100 pbw polyamide resin [0016]. Therefore, Murayama plainly and clearly teaches aramid fiber in an amount of 10 wt % or less based on the total composite weight and the claims pbw of aramid fiber based on 100 pbw of polyamide resin. It is reiterated that given Murayama teaches such a similar composition in such similar amounts, the claimed properties are inherent to Murayama. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the cited art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm 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, 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789