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 1-10 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwabori et al (JP2016151081A) in view of Heinrich et al (US2007/0004301A1). Iwabori is read from an English machine translation which has been placed in the application file.
With regards to claim 1, Iwabori discloses a nonwoven carbon fiber sheet composed of short fibers (i.e., discontinuous fibers), wherein the nonwoven carbon fiber sheet is in the form of a stack of 20 layers of carbon fiber which area aligned such that their carbon fibers are in a same direction (i.e., the carbon fiber nonwoven fabric sheet is an elongated parallel web in which two or more rectangular fiber webs having carbon fibers oriented substantially in one direction are stacked in the same direction, the carbon fibers constituting the elongated parallel web are arranged in one direction) (Iwabori - Translation: abstract; claims 1-8; page 3, Example 1). In addition, Iwabori discloses its nonwoven carbon fiber sheet as capable of being used to form a carbon fiber resin molded body via vacuum resin impregnation (i.e., the carbon fiber nonwoven fabric sheet is suitable for impregnation with a matrix resin to form a mother plate of a carbon fiber reinforced resin molded body (Iwabori: claims 1-8). As best understood, the carbon fiber layers are stacked, such that, in a length direction, a same number of stacked webs are present (i.e., as the webs all extend in the thickness direction, stacked on one another) (Iwabori: page 3, Example 1).
Iwabori does not appear to disclose end portions of its carbon fiber layers (i.e., carbon fiber webs) as shifted from each other.
Heinrich is directed to a textile composite material comprising activated carbon fibers having a sheetlike structure including first and second rectangular sheetlike pieces which overlap each other at an end portion (i.e., carbon fiber webs which are shifted from each other) (Heinrich: para. [0013] and [0021]; Fig. 1B). Heinrich teaches that its overlapping structure enables the formation of end products which are infinitely adjustable in dimension or width, while also enabling efficient joining (Heinrich: para. [0013]). In addition, the overlapping assembly of Heinrich leads to increased utilization (i.e., as best understood, the process of sizing and joining according to Heinrich has improved efficiency in forming final products, such as protective articles) (Heinrich: para. [0012]-[0014]). Iwabori and Heinrich are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of carbon fiber sheet products for protective articles. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have adopted the configuration of Heinrich for the structure of Iwabori (i.e., to form the structure of Heinrich as overlapping rectangular sheets) in order to enable the formation of a carbon fiber system which is infinitely adjustable in dimension and width, thereby allowing for efficient formation of desired products (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 2, the carbon nonwoven fabric sheet of Iwabori and Heinrich only contains short carbon fibers (i.e., 100% by mass discontinuous carbon fibers and 0% by mass fibers other than carbon fibers) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 3, Iwabori discloses a mass per unit area of the formed carbon fiber sheet of 5 g/m2 or more (Iwabori: abstract). This range overlaps the claimed range of 1 to 1000 g/m2, thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, per MPEP 2144.05.
With regards to claim 4, the number of stacked rectangular fiber webs is 20 (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 5, although Heinrich does not disclose a specific dimension of overlap, Heinrich teaches that the amount of overlap should be selected such that good joining of the adjacent sheetlike pieces is achieved, though Heinrich further cautions that a “relatively small” overlap can be helpful from the perspective of reducing material loss (Heinrich: para. [0021]). As best understood from Heinrich, the degree of overlap constitutes a result-effective variable which a person of ordinary skill is expected to optimize (see above discussion). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the degree of overlap, under the motivation of achieving the desired balance between joining and material loss (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 6, Iwabori discloses the carbon fibers as oriented at an angle of +/10 degrees, with 70% mass or more of the carbon fibers meeting this angle (i.e., Iwabori discloses the claimed angle, and an amount of fibers which are strictly within the claimed range) (Iwabori: page 2, “The carbon fiber constituting the carbon fiber sheet is preferably oriented…”).
With regards to claim 7, Iwabori discloses a density of 0.03 to 0.09 g/cm3 when a load of 500 Pa is applied (i.e., Iwabori discloses the claimed load, and the density of Iwabori is entirely within the claimed range of 0.01 to 0.40 g/cm3) (Iwabori: page 2, “The carbon fiber sheet preferably has a density…”).
With regards to claim 8, Iwabori discloses a fiber length of 50 to 80 mm (i.e., which is squarely within the claimed range of 1 to 300 mm) (Iwabori: page 2, “Although the fiber length of carbon fiber…”).
With regards to claim 9, Iwabori discloses a carbon fiber sheet having dimensions of 270 mm x 900 mm (i.e., regardless of direction of carbon fiber orientation, the dimensions disclosed in Iwabori meet the claimed lengths) (Iwabori: page 3, Example 9).
With regards to claim 10, Iwabori discloses the selection of recycled carbon fibers (Iwabori: page 3, Example 9).
With regards to claim 21, the carbon nonwoven fabric sheet of Iwabori and Heinrich only contains short carbon fibers (i.e., 100% by mass discontinuous carbon fibers and 0% by mass fibers other than carbon fibers) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 22, the carbon nonwoven fabric sheet of Iwabori and Heinrich only contains short carbon fibers (i.e., 100% by mass discontinuous carbon fibers and 0% by mass fibers other than carbon fibers) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 23, since the carbon nonwoven fabric sheet of Iwabori and Heinrich is capable of impregnation with resin, it is considered capable of impregnation with epoxy resin (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 24, the number of stacked rectangular fiber webs is 20 (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 25, although Heinrich does not disclose a specific dimension of overlap (i.e., degree of shift between end portions), Heinrich teaches that the amount of overlap should be selected such that good joining of the adjacent sheetlike pieces is achieved, though Heinrich further cautions that a “relatively small” overlap can be helpful from the perspective of reducing material loss (Heinrich: para. [0021]). As best understood from Heinrich, the degree of overlap constitutes a result-effective variable which a person of ordinary skill is expected to optimize (see above discussion). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the degree of overlap, under the motivation of achieving the desired balance between joining and material loss (see above discussion).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 4th, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 6-7, Applicant summarizes present claim 1. Applicant argues that Iwabori and Heinrich neither disclose nor teach the product of claim 1. Applicant argues Iwabori fails to teach end portions of the webs shifted from one another (which the previous office action acknowledges). Applicant argues that Heinrich, which was cited by the previous action to overcome the deficiency of Iwabori, fails to teach shifted end portions, as Heinrich contemplates the production of composite textile structures having activated carbon that can absorb irritating or poisonous biological agents. Applicant argues that Heinrich seeks to overcome the disadvantage of shrinkage during treatment by providing a textile support layer on which multiple carbonized textiles can be mounted, and thus, Heinrich focuses on products formed from activated carbon fibers, which are not suitable for impregnation and molding. This argument is not found persuasive as paragraphs [0040] and [0044] of Heinrich actually acknowledges that its materials may be impregnated. In addition, paragraphs [0029]-[0030] of Heinrich teaches that any adhesive known in the art may be applied to its carbon fiber sheet by any known method in the art. Moreover, Iwabori already teaches the impregnation of carbon fibers, with, for example, an epoxy resin. Based on Heinrich’s acknowledgement of impregnation, Heinrich’s teaching of including any known adhesive applied by any known method, and Iwabori’s teaching of impregnating carbon fibers with epoxy (i.e., an adhesive), a person of ordinary skill would have been directed towards using the structure of Heinrich in applications involving impregnation. Applicant further argues that the products of Heinrich are not related to products suitable for impregnation with matrix resin to form a mother plate of a carbon fiber reinforced resin molded body, as such impregnation would minimize exposure of activated carbon (i.e., preventing its ability to absorb irritating or biological agents), but this argument is not found persuasive as, given the teachings of Heinrich and Iwabori, it is clear that the structure of Heinrich remains suitable for the formation of other types of products (such as those which are impregnated with adhesive or matrix resin). Applicant argues that Heinrich’s textile support has low strength, and Heinrich specifically recommends the use of endless filament fibers when strength is desired. However, this argument is not found persuasive as paragraph [0034] (i.e., the paragraph of Heinrich teaching the selection of endless fibers) also teaches that, alternatively, staple fibers (i.e., non-endless fibers) may be used. In totality, Heinrich is not limited to endless or continuous fibers – a person of ordinary skill is free to select either continuous or discontinuous fibers according to Heinrich. Therefore, Heinrich is not considered to teach away from discontinuous fibers.
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 ETHAN WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Maria V. Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/E.W./
Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights