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 .
Examiner ‘s Comments
Applicants’ response filed on 11/13/2025 has been fully considered. Claim 5 is cancelled and claims 1-4 and 6-16 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7-8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morin (US 2007/0290942 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Morin discloses a thermoplastic unidirectional tape (multi-layer composite structure; paragraphs [0006] and [0066]) comprising:
a unidirectional fiber layer comprising a plurality of unidirectional fibers and a first thermoplastic polymer (layer of a multiple unidirectional fibers aligned and held in a matrix of a polymeric binder agent where the polymeric binding agent is thermoplastic; paragraphs [0066] and [0084]); and
a discontinuous coating layer comprising a plurality of discontinuous coating regions on at least one side of the unidirectional fiber layer (any layer of composite structure being discontinuous and thermoplastic resin binding agent coated onto layers of composite structure; paragraphs [0078] and [0084]), wherein the plurality of discontinuous coating regions consists of a second thermoplastic polymer (thermoplastic resin binding agent; paragraph [0084]) and wherein the first and second thermoplastic polymers are the same (thermoplastic resin binding agent between layers of the composite structure and within individual fibers being the same; paragraph [0084]).
Since the composite structure of Morin is the same as the structure of the thermoplastic unidirectional tape as claimed in claim 1, the composite structure of Morin would inherently have a max void content of at most 10%.
Regarding claim 7, Morin discloses a thermoplastic unidirectional tape (multi-layer composite structure; paragraphs [0006] and [0066]) comprising:
a unidirectional fiber layer comprising a plurality of unidirectional fibers and a first thermoplastic polymer (layer of a multiple unidirectional fibers aligned and held in a matrix of a polymeric binder agent where the polymeric binding agent is thermoplastic; paragraphs [0066] and [0084]); and
a discontinuous coating layer comprising a plurality of discontinuous coating regions on at least one side of the unidirectional fiber layer (any layer of composite structure being discontinuous and thermoplastic resin binding agent coated onto layers of composite structure; paragraphs [0078] and [0084]), wherein the plurality of discontinuous coating regions consists of a second thermoplastic polymer and a conductive additive (polymeric binding agent is thermoplastic and polymeric binding agent includes filler such as carbon black; paragraphs [0084] and [0089]) and wherein the first and second thermoplastic polymers are the same (thermoplastic resin binding agent between layers of the composite structure and within individual fibers being the same; paragraph [0084]).
Since the composite structure of Morin is the same as the structure of the thermoplastic unidirectional tape as claimed in claim 1, the composite structure of Morin would inherently have a max void content of at most 10%.
Regarding claim 8, Morin discloses the thermoplastic unidirectional tape of claim 7 as noted above and Morin discloses the thermoplastic unidirectional tape comprising the conductive additive comprising carbon particles (polymeric binding agent includes filler such as carbon black; paragraphs [0084] and [0089]).
Regarding claim 11, Morin discloses the thermoplastic unidirectional tape of claim 1 as noted above and Morin discloses the thermoplastic unidirectional tape comprising the unidirectional fiber layer comprises conductive additives (individual layers of composite structure includes filler such as carbon black; paragraph [0089]).
Regarding claim 12, Morin discloses the thermoplastic unidirectional tape of claim 11 as noted above and Morin discloses the thermoplastic unidirectional tape comprising the conductive additive comprising carbon black (individual layers of composite structure includes filler such as carbon black; paragraph [0089]).
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.
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 2-3, 9-10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morin (US 2007/0290942 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Morin discloses the thermoplastic unidirectional tape of claim 1 as noted above and Morin discloses the thermoplastic unidirectional tape comprising a discontinuous coating layer comprising a plurality of discontinuous coating regions on at least one side of the unidirectional fiber layer (any layer of composite structure being discontinuous and thermoplastic resin binding agent coated onto layers of composite structure; paragraphs [0078] and [0084]).
Morin does not disclose the thermoplastic unidirectional tape comprising the discontinuous coating layer covering 5-75% of a surface area of the at least one side of the unidirectional fiber layer.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the pattern of the polymeric binding agent between the layers to provide a coverage of 5-75% of the surface area of the composite plies because doing so would securely attach the layers together (paragraph [0084]).
Regarding claim 3, Morin discloses the thermoplastic unidirectional tape of claim 1 as noted above.
Morin does not disclose the thermoplastic unidirectional tape comprising the thickness of the unidirectional tape having a coefficient of variation of 5-50%.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the thickness of the composite structure such that the coefficient of variation of 5-50% because doing so would provide the desired strength and durability for the composite structure while using the required material for each of the layers in order to keep manufacturing costs low.
Regarding claim 9, Morin discloses thermoplastic unidirectional tape of claim 8 as noted above.
Morin does not appear to explicitly disclose the thermoplastic unidirectional tape comprising carbon black having a mean diameter of a volume distribution of 10-50 microns.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the mean diameter of a volume distribution of carbon black to be 10-50 microns because doing so would provide the desired electrical or mechanical characteristics of the composite laminate while not protruding from the polymeric binder as a mean diameter too low such as less than 10 micrometers would not provide the desired conductivity for the polymeric binder and a mean diameter too high such as more than 50 micron would result in the carbon black protruding from the film.
Regarding claim 10, Morin discloses thermoplastic unidirectional tape of claim 8 as noted above.
Morin does not disclose the thermoplastic unidirectional tape comprising 2-10 wt.% of carbon black.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of carbon black in the polymeric binder to be from 2-10 wt.% because doing so would provide the desired electrical or mechanical characteristics of the composite laminate while not using excess material as a means for reducing manufacturing cost as an amount less than 2 wt.% of carbon black would not provide the desired conductivity and an amount more than 10 wt.% of carbon black would result in a polymeric binder with a higher manufacturing cost.
Regarding claim 13, Morin discloses thermoplastic unidirectional tape of claim 11 as noted above.
Morin does not disclose the thermoplastic unidirectional tape comprising the conductive additives having a mean diameter of a volume distribution of 20 nanometers to 1 micron.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the mean diameter of a volume distribution of the carbon black to be from 20 nanometers to 1 micron because doing so would provide the desired electrical or mechanical characteristics of the composite laminate while not protruding from the surface of the fiber layer.
Regarding claim 14, Morin discloses thermoplastic unidirectional tape of claim 11 as noted above.
Morin does not disclose the thermoplastic unidirectional tape comprising the unidirectional fiber layer comprising 0.1-10 wt.% conductive additives.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of carbon black in the unidirectional fiber layer to be 0.1-10 wt.% because doing so would provide the desired electrical or mechanical characteristics of the composite laminate while not using excess material in order to reduce manufacturing cost.
Claims 4, 6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morin (US 2007/0290942 A1) in view of Meure et al (US 2016/0083871 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Morin discloses the thermoplastic unidirectional tape of claim 1 as noted above.
Morin does not disclose the thermoplastic unidirectional tape comprising the first and second thermoplastic polymers comprising polyethyleneimine.
However, Meure discloses a thermoplastic unidirectional tape comprising the first and second thermoplastic polymers comprising polyethyleneimine (resin comprising polyetherimide and second material contains polymer nanoparticles comprising polyetherimide; paragraphs [0040] and [0045])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the thermoplastic unidirectional tape of Morin to substitute the polymeric binding agent of Morin for the polyetherimide of Meure because having the required thermoplastic resin provides increased toughness and flammability resistance (paragraph [0045] of Meure).
Regarding claim 6, Morin discloses the thermoplastic unidirectional tape of claim 1 as noted above.
Morin does not disclose the thermoplastic unidirectional tape comprising the plurality of unidirectional fibers comprising carbon fibers.
However, Meure discloses the thermoplastic unidirectional tape comprising the plurality of unidirectional fibers comprising carbon fibers (reinforcing filaments formed of a first material such as carbon material; paragraph [0036]).
Meure discloses the reinforcing filaments comprising polypropylene (paragraph [0036] of Meure) which is the same as the polypropylene fibers of Morin (paragraph [0083] of Morin).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the thermoplastic unidirectional tape of Morin to substitute the polypropylene fibers of Morin for the carbon fibers of Meure because having the required carbon fibers provides desired reinforcement for a composite tape .
Regarding claim 15, Morin discloses a method of producing a thermoplastic unidirectional tape (paragraph [0084]) comprising:
preparing a unidirectional fiber layer comprising a plurality of unidirectional fibers and a first thermoplastic polymer (coating thermoplastic polymeric binding agent onto individual fibers; paragraph [0083]);
discontinuously coating at least one side of the unidirectional fiber layer with a second thermoplastic polymer (any layer being discontinuous and coating layers of composite structure with thermoplastic polymeric binding agent; paragraph [0083]);
heating (paragraph [0084]), wherein the plurality of discontinuous coating regions consists of the second thermoplastic polymer (thermoplastic resin binding agent; paragraph [0084]); and
pressing the at least one side of the coated unidirectional fiber layer to form the thermoplastic unidirectional tape (pressure during a compression molding process; paragraph [0084]) and the first and second thermoplastic polymers are the same (thermoplastic resin binding agent between layers of the composite structure and within individual fibers being the same; paragraph [0084]).
Since the composite structure of Morin is the same as the structure of the thermoplastic unidirectional tape as claimed in claim 15, the composite structure of Morin would inherently have a max void content of at most 10%.
Morin does not disclose the method comprising a plurality of particles comprising a second thermoplastic polymer and heating the plurality of particles such that the plurality of particles coalesce into a plurality of discontinuous regions on the at least one side of the unidirectional fiber layer.
However, Meure discloses a method comprising a plurality of particles comprising a second thermoplastic polymer (second material comprises polymer nanoparticles; paragraph [0045]) and heating the plurality of particles such that the plurality of particles coalesce into a plurality of discontinuous regions on the at least one side of the unidirectional fiber layer (printing a pattern of a second material onto the composite plies where the second material comprises in pixels of up to 100 microns in diameter and applying heat and pressure to the composite structure; paragraphs [0037] and [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the thermoplastic unidirectional tape of Morin to substitute the polymeric binding agent between layers of composite structure of Morin for the polymer nanoparticles of Meure because doing so provides the desired tack between the composites plies (paragraph [0048] of Meure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the thermoplastic unidirectional tape of Morin to substitute the heating step of Morin for the heating step of Meure because doing so allows for the composite to cure and harden into a solidified state to form the composite structure (paragraph [0083] of Meure).
Regarding claim 16, Morin discloses the thermoplastic composite structure of claim 15 as noted above.
Morin does not disclose the thermoplastic composite structure comprising the plurality of particles having an average particle diameter of 5-500 microns.
However, Meure discloses the thermoplastic composite structure comprising the plurality of particles having an average particle diameter of 5-500 microns (second material in pixels of up to 100 microns in diameter; paragraph [0052]).
The diameter of the pixels of the second material overlap the claimed average particle diameter of 5-500 microns.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to provide the desired tack between the composites plies (paragraph [0048]). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the thermoplastic unidirectional tape of Morin to substitute the polymeric binding agent between layers of composite structure of Morin for the polymer nanoparticles of Meure because doing so provides desired tack between the composites plies (paragraph [0048] of Meure).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 11/13/2025, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicants argue that Meure does not disclose the plurality of discontinuous second regions consisting of a second thermoplastic polymer.
This argument is moot as Meure does not disclose the plurality of discontinuous second regions consisting of a second thermoplastic polymer. Therefore, the previous rejections have been withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection have been noted above.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that Morin does not cure the deficiencies of Meure.
This argument is not persuasive as Morin is a teaching reference used to teach a conductive additive of carbon black.
However, note that while Morin does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Morin is a teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches certain concepts, namely a conductive additive of carbon black, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
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 SATHAVARAM I REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-6:00 PM EST.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)-272-1291. 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.
/SATHAVARAM I REDDY/ Examiner, Art Unit 1785