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 .
Claims 1-8, and 15-20 have been examined.
Claims 9-14 are withdrawn from examination.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected product, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/19/2026.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN112477310B (YIWU, see IDS) in view of KR 20210046899 A (KR, see IDS).
Re 1, YIWU teaches of a method for forming a fire-retardant thermoplastic composite panel (see teaching of flame retardant effect in the molded parts, see [0005, 0006, 0008, 0009], the method comprising:
mixing a thermoplastic polymer with a fire-retardant additive to form a fire-retardant polymer composition (see teaching of mixing in an extruder and fed into a mold to form a film [0053]);
assembling a composite layup of a plurality of first layers and a plurality of second layers by alternatingly positioning the plurality of first layers and the plurality of second layers (see of carbon fiber and resin film being alternatively laid, see [0055]) with:
each first layer including a fire-retardant polymer composition film of the fire- retardant polymer composition (see phosphorus and borate); and
each second layer including a carbon-fiber fabric (see [0023, 0050, 0051, 0055]); and
compression molding the composite layup to form the fire-retardant thermoplastic composite panel (see of mold at 220 C and 3 MPa, [0055]).
YIWU teaches of borate and phosphorus, and wherein borax being a borate, and of phosphorus. Regarding “the fire-retardant additive including one or both of borax and red phosphorus”, though YIWU does not state of the specific material.
Wherein, the KR reference teaches of resin matrix that includes dispersed flame retardants, and in this known material such as borax, see claim 1 of the KR reference, and further in use with a carbon fiber layer with the base resin layer.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified YIWU with the use of borax as taught by the KR reference as a known flame retardant material used in the composite structure, this is seen under KSR rationale, MPEP 2143, as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Re 3 (upon 1), wherein the fire-retardant additive is five to eight percent (5-8%) of the fire-retardant polymer composition by weight.
YIWU teaches of the additive at 2-20 wt%, see [0002]. Although the reference does not explicitly state the claimed range, there is an overlapping ranges taught in the reference and the claimed range. Here, regarding the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Re 8 (upon 1), further comprising extruding the fire-retardant polymer composition to form the fire-retardant polymer composition film.
YIWU teaches of extrusion, see use of extruder [0034, 0053, 0069] in forming the film.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YIWU in view of the KR reference as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2021/0039356 A1 (USUI).
Re 2 (upon 1), YIWU does not teach of wherein the thermoplastic polymer includes polyether ether ketone (PEEK).
The use of PEEK as the resin layer in a composite structure that includes an adjacent carbon fiber layer is known in the art as seen in USUI, see resin layer 20 that includes polyether ether ketone, see [0061], as seen in Figure 1A, the resin layer is adjacent to the carbon fiber layer 30, and wherein combined the layers form a composite 1, and d see also in Fig. 1B, of alternating layers.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified YIWU with the use of PEEK as taught by USUI as a known resin used in forming the composite structure, this is seen under KSR rationale, MPEP 2143, as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YIWU in view of KR reference as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2021/0276276 A1 (TANAKA).
Re 4 (upon 1), wherein compression molding the composite layup includes exposing the composite layup to a consolidation temperature in a range of 380 0C to 420 C.
YIWU instead teaches of consolidation at 220 C, see [0103, 0109].
Re 5 (upon 1), wherein compression molding the composite layup includes applying a consolidation pressure to the composite layup, the consolidation pressure less than twelve (12) bar.
YIWU instead teaches of consolidation at 3 MPa or 30 bar, see [0103, 0109].
Re 6 (upon 5), wherein the consolidation pressure less than seven (7) bar.
YIWU instead teaches of consolidation at 3 MPa or 30 bar, see [0103, 0109].
Wherein, YIWU does not teach of the particular consolidation temperature and pressure for the composite layup.
However, it is known in the art as seen in TANAKA regarding the use of the particular material of PEEK (see [0144]), wherein of the consolidation operations include at least 340 C (see claim 2 of TANAKA), and pressure at less than 10 bar and further less than 8 bar (see claim 3 of TANAKA), or less than 5, 3, and around 1 bar (see claims 14-16 of TANAKA). As shown, the operations of the particular materials in the process can affect the operation conditions for the optimum consolidation.
Wherein, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modify the consolidation operations of the modified YIWU with the temperature and pressure as taught by TANAKA for operations upon a particular material such as PEEK in the process, see KSR rationale, MPEP2143, wherein, as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YIWU in view of the KR reference as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO2021/194585A2 (SHI, see IDS).
Re 7 (upon 1), YIWU fails to teach of further comprising applying a plasma cleaning process to the carbon-fiber fabric prior to assembling the composite layup of the plurality of first layers and the plurality of second layers.
SHI teaches of pre-treating carbon fiber with plasma cleaning. This being a known surface treatment for the one or more pre-treated carbon fibers, see page 8, lines 15-20, as it allows to improve one or more properties such as mechanical properties of carbon fibers, see page 8, lines 4-8.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified YIWU with the as a known processing step of the formed carbon fibers for improving properties.
Claim(s) 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YIWU in view of WO2021/194585A2 (SHI, see IDS).
Re 15, similar to claim 1, difference, does not specify the particular fire retardant additive material, and also teaches of a plasma cleaning step of the carbon-fiber fabric.
Wherein, see teaching above by the YIWU reference for the elements of claim 1.
YIWU does not teach of the plasma cleaning step of the carbon-fiber fabric. This being a known surface treatment for the one or more pre-treated carbon fibers, see page 8, lines 15-20, as it allows to improve one or more properties such as mechanical properties of carbon fibers, see page 8, lines 4-8.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified YIWU with the plasma cleaning step of the carbon fibers as taught by SHI as a known processing step of the formed carbon fibers for improving properties.
Re 18 (upon 15), wherein the carbon-fiber fabric includes a plurality of continuous carbon fibers.
See YIWU reference, see carbon fiber layer [0025].
Claim(s) 16-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YIWU in view of SHI as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of US 2021/0276276 A1 (TANAKA).
Re 16 (upon 15), similar to claim 5, see rejection above with the teachings by the YIWU and TANAKA references.
Re 17 (upon 16), similar to claim 6, see rejection above with the teachings by the YIWU and TANAKA references.
Re 20 (upon 15), similar to claim 4, see rejection above with the teachings by the YIWU and TANAKA references.
YIWU instead teaches of consolidation at 3 MPa or 30 bar, see [0103, 0109].
Wherein, YIWU does not teach of the particular consolidation temperature and pressure for the composite layup.
However, it is known in the art as seen in TANAKA regarding the use of the particular material of PEEK (see [0144]), wherein of the consolidation operations include at least 340 C (see claim 2 of TANAKA), and pressure at less than 10 bar and further less than 8 bar (see claim 3 of TANAKA), or less than 5, 3, and around 1 bar (see claims 14-16 of TANAKA). As shown, the operations of the particular materials in the process can affect the operation conditions for the optimum consolidation.
Wherein, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modify the consolidation operations of the modified YIWU with the temperature and pressure as taught by TANAKA for operations upon a particular material such as PEEK in the process, see KSR rationale, MPEP2143, wherein, as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YIWU in view of SHI as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of the KR reference (KR, see IDS).
Re 19 (upon 15), similar to claim 3, but to borax specifically. Wherein, the YIWU reference teaches broadly of borate instead.
Wherein, the KR reference teaches of resin matrix that includes dispersed flame retardants, and in this known material such as borax, see claim 1 of the KR reference, and further in use with a carbon fiber layer with the base resin layer.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified YIWU with the use of borax as taught by the KR reference as a known flame retardant material used in the composite structure, this is seen under KSR rationale, MPEP 2143, as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL S LUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 to 5.
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, Xiao S Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EMMANUEL S LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights