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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH11116295A issued to Mizuguchi et al.
Regarding Claim 1-Mizuguchi et al. at Example 1, discloses a method for producing carbon fibers by heating an untwisted acrylic fiber having a thickness of 1 denier and a single fiber count of 12000 in air at 250 ° C to obtain an oxidized fiber having a moisture rate of 4.0% while being stretched at a stretch rate of 1.05. The oxidized fibers are then carbonized in a nitrogen atmosphere at 1400 ° C, creating carbon fibers. As a sizing agent, water was adhered by immersion and then contacted with heated rollers passing at a temperature of 150 ° C to get carbon fibers having a flatness of 15, an interlacement of 1.2, and a sizing agent adhesion amount of 10%. At Example 1 of the instant reference, a sizing agent of 2.0 wt.% of polyethylene glycol with a molecular weight of 400 is attached to the carbon fiber by impregnation, and then brought into contact with a heated rollers passing at a temperature of 150 ° C. The resultant carbon fiber has a flatness of 18 and an interlacement of 1.3. Productivity is stable and no fuzz is attached to the roll surface and the take-up of bobbins is facilitated in a streamlined manner. At Claim 1, Mizuguchi et al. at claim 1 teaches that the molecular weight sizing agent component is in the range of 100-600.
Mizuguchi et al. also does not teach the features of the heat decrement rate under specific conditions/ thermal weight loss ratio. It is the position of the Office that the claimed resultant properties from the thermal weight loss, would be inherent if not obvious to the sized carbon fibers of Mizuguchi et al. It is reasonable to presume so, as support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials (i.e. same type of fibers, same sizing agent, same method of making and same process controls). The burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties as set forth above, it would obviously have been present once the Mizuguchi et al. product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote (CCPA 1977) as to the providing of this rejection made above under 35 USC 102. Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though rejection is based on Section 103 instead of Section 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Regarding Claim 2, Applicant is directed to ¶ 0025 and claim 1 where polyethylene glycol has a molecular weight of 100 to 600.
Regarding Claim 3, The carbon fiber bundle of claim 1, wherein the sizing agent is substantially free of an aromatic ring. The instant reference does not mention any aromatic rings.
Regarding Claim 4, Applicant is directed to ¶ 0025 indicates that 0.5-10 mass% is favorable for the amount of polyethylene glycol adhered. A person skilled in the art could, as appropriate, make the amount of polyethylene glycol adhered to be 0.5 mass% or 1.0 mass%. This range overlaps with that sought by Applicant.
Regarding Claim 5, where Applicant seeks that the carbon fiber bundle of claim 1, wherein the carbon fibers have a bundle-bundle friction coefficient of not less than 0.25 and not more than 0.43 before the sizing agent is applied; With regards to requirements of the friction coefficient property, it is the position of the Office that the claimed resultant properties as desired in the aforesaid claims, would be inherent if not obvious to the sized carbon fiber of Mizuguchi et al. It is reasonable to presume so, as support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials (i.e. same type of fibers, same sizing agent, same method of making and same process controls). The burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties as set forth above, it would obviously have been present once the Mizuguchi et al. product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote (CCPA 1977) as to the providing of this rejection made above under 35 USC 102. Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though rejection is based on Section 103 instead of Section 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Regarding Claim 6, where Applicant seeks that the carbon fiber bundle of claim 1, wherein the surface oxygen concentration of the carbon fiber is not less than 0.11 and not more than 0.25 as measured by X- ray photoelectron spectroscopy before the sizing agent is applied to the carbon fibers; With regards to requirements of the surface oxygen concentration measured by X- ray photoelectron spectroscopy, it is the position of the Office that the claimed resultant properties as sought, would be inherent if not obvious to the sized carbon fiber of Mizuguchi et al. It is reasonable to presume so, as support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials (i.e. same type of fibers, same sizing agent, same method of making and same process controls). The burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties as set forth above, it would obviously have been present once the Mizuguchi et al. product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote (CCPA 1977) as to the providing of this rejection made above under 35 USC 102. Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though rejection is based on Section 103 instead of Section 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Regarding claim 7, Mizuguchi et al. discloses at Example 1 the same method limitations as sought by Applicant but differs only in average molecular weight of the sizing agent that is used. A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it well within their purview to adjust the average molecular weight of the sizing agent of Mizuguchi et al. It should be noted that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges that would be discovered through routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, amounts, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, would be deemed through routine experimentation and as such is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. See also KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding Claim 8, which further defines the process parameters of the drying process of carbon fibers. A skilled artisan would have found it well in their purview to select an appropriate drying temperature of the carbon fiber to ensure that its overall physical properties are not affected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPUB 20120276383A1 issued to Hirano et al. Hirano et al teach making carbon fiber bundle has carbon fibers and a sizing agent, wherein the sizing agent comprises a water soluble polyurethane resin having an SP value of 11.2 to 13.3, and the sizing agent is deposited on the carbon fibers at a rate of 0.5 to 7% by mass. In another carbon fiber bundle, the sizing agent is composed of the component shown in (A) and the component shown in (B1) or (B2) below, and the sizing agent is deposited on the carbon fibers at a rate of 0.5 to 7% by mass: (A) 73 to 98% by mass of a polyoxyalkylene unit; (B1) 0.5 to 15% by mass of an aromatic ester unit, 1.5 to 10% by mass of an aromatic urethane unit; and (B2) 0.5 to 10% by mass of an aromatic ester unit, 1.5 to 11% by mass of an aliphatic urethane unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arti Singh-Pandey whose telephone number is (571)272-1483. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00 and 8:00-10:00.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/Arti Singh-Pandey/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1759
Asp