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 .
This application is in response to an election/restriction requirement filed on 05/29/2026.
Claims 1-11 are pending. Applicant has elected Group I, claims 1-9, with traverse and claims 10-11 are withdrawn as non-elected Group II claims.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 05/29/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that pending claims are linked by single general inventive concept and share same or corresponding special technical feature directed to carbon fiber bundle and does not make contribution over prior art taught by Okuda. However, even though the special technical feature share the same feature directed to only carbon fiber bundle which is taught by Okuda where this carbon fiber bundle can be made by different process other than as claimed in process claims 10-11 which don’t share each and every feature of carbon fiber bundle as recited in claim 1 and the only thing common that is shared is carbon fiber bundle which can include any process or can have any feature of the carbon fiber bundle composition. Therefore, the restriction is maintained.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 10-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05/29/2026.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Currently abstract is more than 50 words in length. It is suggested to have the abstract within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
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.
7. Claim 8 is 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 8, recites “the tensile strength of resin-impregnated strands is 5.5 to 7.0 GPa” lacks antecedent basis and further it is not clear as claim 1 does not recites the tensile strength and only recites tensile modulus E. Clarification is requested.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In order to ensure proper antecedent basis, it is suggested to mend "the fiber axis" to “a fiber axis” in claim 2 line 2.
In order to ensure proper antecedent basis, it is suggested to mend "the fiber axis" to “a fiber axis” in claim 9 lines 2-3.
In order to ensure proper antecedent basis, it is suggested to mend "the area" to “an area” in claim 9 line 2.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claim(s) 1-2 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Matsumoto et al (US PGPUB No.: 20200190705).
Regarding Claim 1, Matsumoto discloses a carbon fiber bundle wherein average single fiber diameter is 6.5 to 8.0 um with an elastic modulus of strands of 240-280 GPa, a tensile strength of strands of 5.8 GPa or more (paragraph 0016), the number of fuzzes of the carbon fiber bundle less than 0.1/m (paragraph 0081). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose or suggest a proportion of fuzzes with a structure having a difference between skin and core is 1 to 25% of fuzzes inherent in the carbon fiber bundle.
However, Matsumoto discloses skin and core structure tends to decrease as the average single fiber bundle diameter is smaller (paragraph 0028) and further discloses that skin and core structure is suppressed, and the structure is stabilized so both carbonization yield and high tensile strength of strands can be achieved (paragraph 0061). In addition claim recites “fuzzes with a structure having a difference between skin and core is 1 to 25% of fuzzes inherent in the carbon fiber bundle” so therefore given that Matsumoto discloses the carbon fiber bundle having average single fiber diameter is 6.5 to 8.0 um with an elastic modulus of strands of 240-280 GPa and number of fuzzes being less than 0.1 fuzzes/m substantially identical to carbon fiber bundle in the present claimed invention, it is clear that the carbon fiber bundle of Matsumoto would intrinsically have substantially identical the fuzzes with a structure having a difference between skin and core is 1 to 25% of fuzzes as presently claimed unless otherwise unexpected results are shown. 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). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claim 2, Matsumoto does not disclose or suggest proportion of fuzzes with an area ratio of 50% or less of the cross-section perpendicular to the fiber axis is 0 to 3% fuzzes inherent in the carbon fiber bundle. However, Matsumoto discloses carbon fiber bundle having average single fiber diameter is 6.5 to 8.0 um with an elastic modulus of strands of 240-280 GPa, a tensile strength of strands of 5.8 GPa or more (paragraph 0016), the number of fuzzes of the carbon fiber bundle less than 0.1/m (paragraph 0081) and further claim recites “inherent” therefore property of fuzzes with an area ratio of 50% or less of cross section perpendicular to the fiber axis is 0 to 3% fuzzes would be expected as Matsumoto discloses substantially identical carbon fiber bundle as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 6, Matsumoto discloses number of filaments N is 10,000 to 60,000 (paragraph 0025). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Regarding claim 7, Matsumoto discloses knot strength A(MPa) and average single-fiber diameter B (um) satisfy the relationship of the formula (2):
-88B+1,360≤A
(see paragraph 0026, i.e., K(MPa) represents A(MPa) and B(um) represent D(um)). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Regarding claim 8, Matsumoto discloses tensile strength of strand of 5.8 GPa or more (paragraphs 0016, 0022). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Regarding claim 9, Matsumoto discloses wherein an area ratio of an outer layer to the entire cross section perpendicular to the fiber axis direction of the single fiber of carbon fiber is preferably 90% by are or more, 90-95% by area (paragraph 0030). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
11. Claim(s) 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Matsumoto et al (US PGPUB No.: 20200190705) in view of Tanaka et al (JP 2009256833, machine translation in English).
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, Matsumoto discloses carbon fiber bundle having an average single fiber diameter is 6.5 to 8.0 um with an elastic modulus of strands of 240-280 GPa, a tensile strength of strands of 5.8 GPa or more (paragraph 0016), the number of fuzzes of the carbon fiber bundle less than 0.1/m (paragraph 0081). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Matsumoto does not disclose or suggest wherein the tensile modulus E of resin-impregnated strand and a crystallite size Lc (nm) satisfy the relationship of the formula (I)
50XLc+130≤E≤50XLc+180.
However, Tanaka discloses carbon fiber having crystallite size Lc of 1.8 to 2.6 nm (meets claim 4), a strand tensile strength TS of 6-9 GPa and further disclosing formula 50XLc+210≤YM≤50XLc+270 where YM represent modulus E of resin-impregnated (see tables 1-2 where YM ranges from 234-325 GPa, average diameter ranges from 4.4-7.0, Lc ranges from 1.7-2.4 in table 2 and YM ranges from 310-350 GPa, average diameter is 3.9-5.5 and Lc being 2.0 in table 1, see also paragraphs 0026-0027, 0033). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Given Matsumoto and Tanaka both directed carbon fiber and Tanaka further discloses Lc 1.8 to 2.6 nm, YM representing modulus E ranging from 234-352 GPa, an average diameter ranging from 4.4-7.0 um and a formula substantially identical to presently claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Matsumoto with Tanaka to include the formula represented in presently claimed invention (50XLC+130≤E≤50XLc+180) which would provide excellent tensile strength, compression strength and tensile elastic modulus as taught by Tanaka (see abstract, paragraph 0025). For example when Lc is 1.8 and plug in the number in the present formula it would result as 300≤E≤360.
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka discloses yarn with W is 4 to 16 mm (example 10, paragraph 0257). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SMITA S PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5837. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM EST M-W.
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).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached on 5712705713. 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.. 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.
/SMITA S PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 09/29/2026
Prosecution Insights