Claims 1-5 are pending in the application. Claims 1-5 are rejected.
The rejection over Inoue has been withdrawn in view of the present amendment and response. Inoue does not disclose a laminated product where reinforcing fiber is in the form of a strand. So has the rejection over Ogawa.
New ground of rejection is made in view of newly reference to Kamae et al. (US 2004/0044147).
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 1, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2004/0096609 to Inoue et al. (hereinafter “Inoue”) in view of Kamae.
Inoue discloses a laminate material comprising five layers of fiber-reinforced resin material, each of which being made of reinforcing fibers impregnated with a thermosetting resin composition (paragraph 74). The outermost layer or the innermost layer of the laminate material reads on the claimed heat-insulating layer. The reinforcing fibers comprise a glass non-woven fabric (paragraph 57). The thermosetting resin composition comprises (a) a radically polymerizable resin, (b) a thermoplastic resin, (c) a radically polymerizable monomer and (d) inorganic filler comprising aluminum hydroxide (paragraphs 10 and 40). Any intermediate layer of the laminate material reads on the claimed molded layer.
Inoue does not explicitly disclose the reinforcing fiber in the form of strand.
Kamae, however, discloses a fiber-reinforced resin material comprising an epoxy resin composition and reinforcing fibers embedded therein (paragraphs 16-19, and 124). The reinforcing fibers are in the form of mats, strands and braids (paragraph 124).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute fiber strands disclosed in Kamae for the non-woven fabric of Inoue because the fiber strands and the non-woven fabric have been shown in the art to be recognized equivalent reinforcing fibers for the fiber-reinforced resin materials and the selection of these known equivalents to be used as reinforcing fibers for the fiber-reinforced resin materials will be within the level of the ordinary skill in the art.
Inoue in view of Kamae does not explicitly disclose the fiber-reinforced resin layer which is a molded layer. However, the layer prepared using molding is a product-by-process limitation not as yet shown to produce a patentably distinct molded layer. It is the examiner's position that the resulting fiber-reinforced resin layer of Inoue in view of Kamae is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed molded layer because both layers are formed from the same materials, having structural similarity.
The resulting fiber-reinforced resin material comprises reinforcing fibers impregnated with a thermosetting resin composition wherein the reinforcing fibers are glass fiber strands. The thermosetting resin composition comprises (a) a radically polymerizable resin, (b) a thermoplastic resin, (c) a radically polymerizable monomer and (d) inorganic filler comprising aluminum hydroxide.
Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or an obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to the applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289,291 (Fed. Cir. 1983). It is noted that if the applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted Declaration to show non- obviousness, the applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with Inoue as modified by Kamae.
As to claim 2, Inoue discloses that the thermosetting resin composition comprises inorganic filler including aluminum hydroxide (paragraphs 10 and 40).
As to claim 5, Inoue discloses that the laminate material comprises five layers of the fiber-reinforced resin material (paragraph 58). The outermost layer and innermost layer of the laminate material read on the first and second heat-insulating layers, respectively.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Kamae as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2009/0305595 to Ogawa et al. (hereinafter “Ogawa”).
Inoue does not explicitly disclose the fiber-reinforced resin layer comprising expandable graphite.
Ogawa, however, discloses that a molded laminate sheet is formed by laminating a sound absorbing fiber sheet on both sides of a fiber base sheet (abstract). The laminate sheet is molded into a prescribed shape (paragraph 17). The sound absorbing sheet comprises reinforcing fibers and a thermosetting resin binder impregnating the reinforcing fibers (paragraphs 25, 26 and 66). The reinforcing fibers are made of a nonwoven fabric of glass fibers (paragraphs 21 and table 4). The impregnating thermosetting resin binder of the sound absorbing sheet includes aluminum hydroxide and expandable graphite (paragraphs 61 and 72). The sound absorbing sheet reads on the claimed heat insulating layer.
The fiber base sheet is comprised of glass wool impregnated with cured phenol resin (paragraph 114). The fiber base sheet can be made of the same material as the sound absorbing sheet, provided that the unit weight of the fiber base sheet is from 100 to 2000 g/m2 while the sound absorbing layer has a unit weight of 15 to 200 g/m2 (paragraphs 86 and 87). The impregnating thermosetting resin binder of the sound absorbing sheet includes aluminum hydroxide and expandable graphite (paragraphs 61 and 72) and so does the impregnating thermosetting resin binder of the fiber base sheet.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include expandable graphite from Ogawa into the fiber-reinforced resin layer disclosed in Inoue motivated by the desire to impart flame retardant properties.
Response to Arguments
The rejection over Inoue has been withdrawn in view of the present amendment and response. Inoue does not disclose a laminated product where reinforcing fiber is in the form of strand. However, new ground of rejection is made in view of new combination of Inoue and Kamae.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa in view of Kamae.
Ogawa discloses that a molded laminate sheet is formed by laminating a sound absorbing fiber sheet on both sides of a fiber base sheet (abstract). The laminate sheet is molded into a prescribed shape (paragraph 17). The fiber base sheet is thus a molded layer. One surface of the sound absorbing layer in the thickness direction is thus exposed.
The sound absorbing sheet comprises reinforcing fibers and a thermosetting resin binder impregnating the reinforcing fibers (paragraphs 25, 26 and 66). The reinforcing fibers are made of a nonwoven fabric of glass fibers (paragraphs 21 and table 4). The impregnating thermosetting resin binder of the sound absorbing sheet includes aluminum hydroxide and expandable graphite (paragraphs 61 and 72).
The fiber base sheet comprises a fiber mat impregnated with cured phenol resin (paragraphs 13 and 114). The fiber base sheet can be made of the same material as the sound absorbing sheet, provided that the unit weight of the fiber base material is from 100 to 2000 g/m2 while the sound absorbing layer has a unit weight of 15 to 200 g/m2 (paragraphs 86 and 87). The impregnating thermosetting resin binder of the sound absorbing sheet includes aluminum hydroxide and expandable graphite (paragraphs 61 and 72) and so does the impregnating thermosetting resin binder of the fiber base material. The fiber base sheet reads on the claimed molded layer while the sound absorbing sheet reads on the claimed heat-insulating layer.
Ogawa does not explicitly disclose the fiber base sheet comprising fiber strands.
Kamae, however, discloses a fiber-reinforced resin material comprising an epoxy resin composition and reinforcing fibers embedded therein (paragraphs 16-19, and 124). The reinforcing fibers are in the form of mats, strands and braids (paragraph 124).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute fiber strands disclosed in Kamae for the fiber mat of Ogawa because the fiber strands and the fiber mats have been shown in the art to be recognized equivalent reinforcing fibers for the fiber-reinforced resin materials and the selection of these known equivalents to be used as reinforcing fibers for the fiber-reinforced resin materials will be within the level of the ordinary skill in the art.
As to claims 2-4, Ogawa discloses that the fiber base sheet can be made of the same material as the sound absorbing sheet, provided that the unit weight of the fiber base sheet is from 100 to 2000 g/m2 while the sound absorbing layer has a unit weight of 15 to 200 g/m2 (paragraphs 86 and 87). The sound absorbing sheet comprises reinforcing fibers and a thermosetting resin binder impregnating the reinforcing fibers (paragraphs 25, 26 and 66). The reinforcing fibers of the sound absorbing sheet are made of nonwoven fabric of glass fibers (paragraphs 21 and table 4). The impregnating thermosetting resin binder of the sound absorbing sheet includes aluminum hydroxide and expandable graphite (paragraphs 61 and 72) and so does the impregnating thermosetting resin binder of the fiber base sheet.
As to claim 5, Ogawa discloses that a molded laminate sheet is formed by laminating a sound absorbing fiber sheet on both sides of a fiber base sheet (abstract). The laminate sheet is molded into a prescribed shape (paragraph 17). The sound absorbing sheet reads on the claimed heat insulating layer while the fiber base sheet reads on the claimed molded layer.
Response to Arguments
The rejection over Ogawa has been withdrawn in view of the present amendment and response. Ogawa does not disclose a laminated product where reinforcing fiber is in the form of strand. However, new ground of rejection is made in view of new combination of Ogawa and Kamae.
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 Hai Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-1485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm with every other Friday off.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/Hai Vo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788