DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 04/29/2026 is acknowledged. In light of amendments, new grounds of rejection are set forth below. Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are examined on the merits in this office action.
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.
Claims 1, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatt et al. (WO 03/045673 A1) in view of Prospector (ULTEM Resin 1000, 2018), taken in view of evidence by Plastic Melting Point Guide (2024) and Nukada et al. (JP 2012185393 A). It is noted that the disclosures of Nukada et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference which is included in this action.
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Bhatt et al. disclose a film member 34 comprising an outer layer 48 made of PEEK, i.e. polyetheretherketone (second thermoplastic material layer), an enclosure portion 12 made of PC, i.e. polycarbonate (first thermoplastic material layer) and an inner layer that serves as an intermediate or tie layer made of PEI, i.e. polyetherimide (interface layer) to bond dissimilar polymer materials (see Figure 5 and page 10, paragraph 1 and page 14, claim 8). As evidenced by Plastic Melting Point Guide, the melting point temperature of PEEK is 350 to 390 °C and the melting point temperature of PC is 280 to 320 °C (see page 3, Plastic Material Melt and Mold Temperatures Table). Therefore, the melting point temperature difference between PEEK and PC is 30 to 110 °C. Given that PEEK and PC are identical to thermoplastic materials utilized in the present invention, PEEK and PC are thermoplastic materials (see paragraph 0024 of present specification). Given that PEEK and PC are dissimilar polymer materials, a joint is between dissimilar thermoplastic materials. Accordingly, Bhatt et al. disclose a joint between dissimilar thermoplastic materials as presently claimed.
Bhatt et al. do not disclose the inner layer (interface layer) made of polyetherimide has a melting point having a value of between the melting point temperature of the first thermoplastic material layer made of polycarbonate (PC) and the melting point temperature of the second thermoplastic material layer made of polyetheretherketone (PEEK).
Prospector discloses ULTEM Resin 1000, which is a polyetherimide (PEI) resin, having high heat resistance, high strength and modulus and broad chemical resistance up to high temperatures (see page 1, Product Description). As evidenced by Nukada et al., ULTEM Resin 1000 has a melting point temperature of 350 to 400 °C (see paragraph 0142). The melting point of 350 C is between the melting point of PC (i.e. 280 °C) and PEEK (i.e. 390 °C).
In light of motivation for using ULTEM Resin 1000 disclosed by Prospector as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ULTEM Resin 1000 as the polyetherimide resin in the inner layer (interface layer) of Bhatt et al. in order to provide high heat resistance, high strength and modulus and broad chemical resistance up to high temperatures, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, Bhatt et al. in view of Prospector disclose the inner layer (interface layer) made of polyetherimide having melting point of 350 to 400 °C. Therefore, the inner layer (interface layer) has a melting point having a value of between the melting point temperature of the first thermoplastic material layer made of polycarbonate (PC) and the melting point temperature of the second thermoplastic material layer made of polyetheretherketone (PEEK).
Regarding claim 5, Bhatt et al. in view of Prospector disclose the joint between dissimilar thermoplastic materials as presently claimed. The interface layer comprises polyetherimide (PEI), the first thermoplastic material comprises polycarbonate (PC) and the second thermoplastic material comprises polyetheretherketone (PEEK) as noted above. The interface layer, the first thermoplastic material layer and the second thermoplastic material layer are identical to that utilized in the present invention (see paragraph 0032 of present specification). Accordingly, the interface layer comprises a material (PEI) with a lower processing temperature that chemically interacts and bonds to the first thermoplastic material layer (PC) and the second thermoplastic material layer (PEEK) in the absence of melting during the welding.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatt et al. (WO 03/045673 A1) in view of Prospector (ULTEM Resin 1000, 2018), taken in view of evidence by Plastic Melting Point Guide (2024) and Nukada et al. (JP 2012185393 A) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Massengale et al. (WO 96/10046 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Bhatt et al. in view of Prospector disclose the joint between dissimilar thermoplastic materials as set forth above. While Bhatt et al. disclose second thermoplastic material layer comprising PEEK, Bhatt et al. in view of Prospector do not disclose second thermoplastic material layer is a thermoplastic composite material.
Massengale et al. disclose a composite material comprising a carbon fiber reinforced polymer, wherein the reinforced polymer can be polyetheretherketone (PEEK) (see Abstract and page 4, lines 22-27). The composite material provides excellent friction and wear characteristics (see Abstract).
In light of motivation for using a composite material comprising polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and carbon fiber disclosed by Massengale et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use composite material comprising polyetherketone and carbon fiber as the outer layer (second thermoplastic material layer) in Bhatt et al. in view of Prospector in order to provide excellent friction and wear characteristics, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatt et al. (WO 03/045673 A1) in view of Prospector (ULTEM Resin 1000, 2018), taken in view of evidence by Plastic Melting Point Guide (2024) and Nukada et al. (JP 2012185393 A) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Ebnesajjad (Handbook of Adhesives and Surface Preparation, 2011).
Regarding claim 3, Bhatt et al. in view of Prospector disclose the joint between dissimilar thermoplastic materials as set forth above. Bhatt et al. in view of Prospector do not disclose a surface treatment on at least one of the first thermoplastic material layer and the second thermoplastic material layer.
Ebnesajjad disclose surface treatment of thermoplastic material such as polyetheretherketone (PEEK) improves adhesion and joint strength (see page 107, col. 1, 7.2, paragraph 1 and col. 2, 7.2.1.1, paragraph 1).
In light of motivation for using surface treatment of thermoplastic material such as polyetheretherketone (PEEK) disclosed by Ebnesajjad et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use surface treatment on the second thermoplastic material layer made of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) in Bhatt et al. in view of Prospector in order to improves adhesion and joint strength, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatt et al. (WO 03/045673 A1) in view of Prospector (ULTEM Resin 1000, 2018), taken in view of evidence by Plastic Melting Point Guide (2024) and Nukada et al. (JP 2012185393 A). It is noted that the disclosures of Nukada et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference which is included in this action.
Regarding claim 6, Bhatt et al. disclose a film member 34 comprising an outer layer 48 made of PEEK, i.e. polyetheretherketone (second thermoplastic material layer or component), an enclosure portion 12 made of PC, i.e. polycarbonate (first thermoplastic material layer or attachment) and an inner layer that serves as an intermediate or tie layer made of PEI, i.e. polyetherimide (interface layer) to bond dissimilar polymer materials (see Figure 5 and page 10, paragraph 1 and page 14, claim 8). As evidenced by Plastic Melting Point Guide, the melting point temperature of PEEK is 350 to 390 °C and the melting point temperature of PC is 280 to 320 °C (see page 3, Plastic Material Melt and Mold Temperatures Table). Therefore, the melting point temperature difference between PEEK and PC is 30 to 110 °C. Given that PEEK and PC are identical to thermoplastic materials utilized in the present invention, PEEK and PC are thermoplastic materials (see paragraph 0024 of present specification).
Bhatt et al. do not disclose the inner layer (interface layer) made of polyetherimide has a melting point having a value of between the melting point temperature of the first thermoplastic material layer made of polycarbonate (PC) and the melting point temperature of the second thermoplastic material layer made of polyetheretherketone (PEEK).
Prospector discloses ULTEM Resin 1000, which is a polyetherimide (PEI) resin, having high heat resistance, high strength and modulus and broad chemical resistance up to high temperatures (see page 1, Product Description). As evidenced by Nukada et al., ULTEM Resin 1000 has a melting point temperature of 350 to 400 °C (see paragraph 0142). The melting point of 350 C is between the melting point of PC (i.e. 280 °C) and PEEK (i.e. 390 °C).
In light of motivation for using ULTEM Resin 1000 disclosed by Prospector as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ULTEM Resin 1000 as the polyetherimide resin in the inner layer (interface layer) of Bhatt et al. in order to provide high heat resistance, high strength and modulus and broad chemical resistance up to high temperatures, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, Bhatt et al. in view of Prospector disclose the inner layer (interface layer) made of polyetherimide having melting point of 350 to 400 °C. Therefore, the inner layer (interface layer) has a melting point having a value of between the melting point temperature of the first thermoplastic material layer made of polycarbonate (PC) and the melting point temperature of the second thermoplastic material layer made of polyetheretherketone (PEEK).
Accordingly, Bhatt et al. in view of Prospector disclose an attachment joined to a component via an interface layer to form a joint. Bhatt et al. in view of Prospector do not disclose an attachment “welded” to a component via an interface layer and do not disclose “a welded joint”.
However, it is noted that “[E]ven 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 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, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Bhatt et al. in view of Prospector meets the requirements of the claimed product, Bhatt et al. in view of Prospector clearly meet the requirements of present claims.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatt et al. (WO 03/045673 A1) in view of Prospector (ULTEM Resin 1000, 2018), taken in view of evidence by Plastic Melting Point Guide (2024) and Nukada et al. (JP 2012185393 A) as applied to claim 6 above, further in view of Massengale et al. (WO 96/10046 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Bhatt et al. in view of Prospector disclose the attachment joint to a component via an interface layer as set forth above. While Bhatt et al. disclose second thermoplastic material layer comprising PEEK, Bhatt et al. in view of Prospector do not disclose second thermoplastic material layer is a thermoplastic composite material.
Massengale et al. disclose a composite material comprising a carbon fiber reinforced polymer, wherein the reinforced polymer can be polyetheretherketone (PEEK) (see Abstract and page 4, lines 22-27). The composite material provides excellent friction and wear characteristics (see Abstract).
In light of motivation for using a composite material comprising polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and carbon fiber disclosed by Massengale et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use composite material comprising polyetherketone and carbon fiber as the outer layer (second thermoplastic material layer or component) in Bhatt et al. in view of Prospector in order to provide excellent friction and wear characteristics, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatt et al. (WO 03/045673 A1) in view of Prospector (ULTEM Resin 1000, 2018), taken in view of evidence by Plastic Melting Point Guide (2024) and Nukada et al. (JP 2012185393 A) as applied to claim 6 above, further in view of Ebnesajjad (Handbook of Adhesives and Surface Preparation, 2011).
Regarding claim 9, Bhatt et al. in view of Prospector disclose the attachment joint to a component via an interface layer as set forth above. Bhatt et al. in view of Prospector do not disclose a surface treatment on at least one of the first thermoplastic material layer (attachment) and the second thermoplastic material layer (component).
Ebnesajjad disclose surface treatment of thermoplastic material such as polyetheretherketone (PEEK) improves adhesion and joint strength (see page 107, col. 1, 7.2, paragraph 1 and col. 2, 7.2.1.1, paragraph 1).
In light of motivation for using surface treatment of thermoplastic material such as polyetheretherketone (PEEK) disclosed by Ebnesajjad et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use surface treatment on the second thermoplastic material layer (component) made of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) in Bhatt et al. in view of Prospector in order to improve adhesion and joint strength, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatt et al. (WO 03/045673 A1) in view of Prospector (ULTEM Resin 1000, 2018), taken in view of evidence by Plastic Melting Point Guide (2024) and Nukada et al. (JP 2012185393 A) as applied to claim 6 above, further in view of Koshi et al. (WO 2019/093277 A1). It is noted that when utilizing Koshi et al., the disclosures of the reference are based on US 2020/0369838 A1 which is an English language equivalent of the reference. Therefore, the paragraph numbers cited with respect to Koshi et al. are found in US ‘838.
Regarding claim 10, Bhatt et al. in view of Prospector disclose the attachment joint to a component via an interface layer as set forth above. Bhatt et al. in view of Prospector do not disclose the interface layer (inner layer) comprising a fiber reinforcement on the interface layer.
Koshi et al. disclose a fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin filament comprising a reinforcing fiber such as carbon fiber impregnated with a thermoplastic resin such as polyetherimide resin (PEI) (see page 6, claims 11 and 15, and Table 1, Example 7). A shaped product can be made from the fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin film (see paragraphs 0045 and 0047). The fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin filament provides good reinforcing effect and good handling ability at the time of forming (see paragraphs 0006, 0008 and 0066).
In light of motivation for using a fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin filament disclosed by Koshi et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use a carbon fiber impregnated with polyetherimide resin (PEI) as the inner layer (interface layer) in Bhatt et al. in view of Prospector in order to provide good reinforcing effect and good handling ability at the time of forming, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Accordingly, Bhatt et al. in view of in view of Prospector and Koshi et al. disclose a fiber reinforcement on the interface layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/29/2026 have been fully considered. In light of amendments, new grounds of rejections are set forth above. All arguments are moot in light of new grounds of rejections.
In light of amendments, claim objections are withdrawn.
In light of amendments, 112(b) paragraph rejections are withdrawn.
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 KRUPA SHUKLA whose telephone number is (571)272-5384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00 PM.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/KRUPA SHUKLA/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights