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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/13/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3, 5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (CN 102206919).
Regarding claims 1-3, 8-9, Zhang et al. teaches an in organic fiber having an inorganic fiber sizing agent for inorganic fibers (carbon fibers) attached thereto wherein the fiber sizing agent comprises vinyl ester compound (A), surfactant (B) (also referred to as emulsifier), and fatty acid ester (C) (lubricant butyl stearate) where the content of the vinyl ester (A) in the inorganic fiber sizing is in the claimed amount [Embodiment 4]. The fatty acid ester (C) is an ester compound of a monohydric alcohol with not less than 3 and not more than 10 carbon
atoms and a monobasic fatty acid with not less than 8 and not more than 24 carbon atoms.
Regarding claim 5, the sizing agent further comprises an epoxy compound (D) [Embodiment 10].
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.
Claims 6-7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 102206919).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang et al. are silent regarding the epoxy (D) being a monoepoxy. However, given the limited types of epoxies(number of options) and the level of ordinary skill in the art knowing that monoepoxies provide improved processability, and mechanical properties, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use monoepoxy and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 7 and 10-11, Zhang et al. teaches “emulsifier is 2 to 14% of organic resin. lubricant quality is 0.5 to 2% of organic resin” in 0005. Zhang et al. also teaches inclusion of vinyl ester resin and epoxy resin in varying ratios in the examples in order to affect the compatibility with matrices, strength, and adhesion. In example 10, it can be seen the claimed amount surfactant is taught and given the ranges of surfactant and fatty acid ester (lubricant) taught and the ratios of resins taught, the claimed sum of the contents of the vinyl ester compound (A), the surfactant (B), the fatty acid ester (C), and the epoxy compound (D) in the inorganic fiber sizing agent is taken as 100 parts by mass, the inorganic fiber sizing agent contains the vinyl ester compound (A) at a ratio of not less than 40 parts by mass and not more than 80 parts by mass, the surfactant (B) at a ratio of not less than 5 parts by mass and not more than 50 parts by mass, the fatty acid ester (C) at a ratio of not less than 2 parts by mass and not more than 30 parts by mass, and the epoxy compound (D) at a ratio of not less than 3 parts by mass and not more than [[70]]40 parts by mass he claimed parts of each component are taught and further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed amounts of each component through routine experimentation in order to affect the compatibility with matrices, strength, and adhesion.
Claims 1-3, 5-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (JP 2016/151069).
Regarding claim 1, 7-9 and 11, Yoshida et al. teaches an inorganic fiber (carbon or glass fibers) having an inorganic fiber sizing agent attached to the inorganic fibers wherein the inorganic fiber sizing comprises a vinyl ester compound (A) (vinyl ester resin), surfactant (B) (surfactant is taught) and a fatty acid ester (C) (fatty acid esters are taught as included) [Abstract, 0002, 0012, 0044, 0052-0053, 0058-0065 and 0074]. Yoshida et al. teach the inorganic fiber sizing comprising vinyl ester is 5-50%, surfactant is 5-30% and epoxy is 5-95%. Yoshida et al. teaches the inorganic fiber sizing includes fatty acid ester as a smoothing agent and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use smaller amounts of fatty acid agent. If the sum of the contents of the vinyl ester compound, surfactant, fatty acid ester and the epoxy compound in the inorganic fiber sizing agent is taken as 100 parts by mass of inorganic fiber sizing agent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed parts by mass of each of the components given the teachings of the amounts of vinyl ester compound, surfactant and epoxy and the claimed amount of fatty acid ester would have been understood to one of ordinary skill in the art to have been taught by Yoshida in smaller amounts, including the claimed amount. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed amount of fatty acid ester in order to affect the sizing properties on the fiber including lubricity, wettability, plasticity, processability and composite performance and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, the fatty acid ester (c) taught by Yoshida et al. is an ester compound of monohydric alcohol with the claimed amount of carbon atoms and monobasic fatty acid with the claimed carbons is taught in all the fatty acids in 0054 of Yoshida et al.
Regarding claim 3, Yoshida et al. fatty acid ester that include an ester compound of monohydric alcohol with the claimed amount of carbon atoms and monobasic fatty acid with the claimed carbons. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the fatty acid esters that include an ester compound of monohydric alcohol with the claimed amount of carbon atoms and monobasic fatty acid with the claimed carbons because they offer lighter weights since they short esters and quick wetting.
Regarding claim 5, Yoshida et al. teach the inorganic fiber sizing agent further comprising epoxy compound (D) [0017-0018 and formula 11].
Regarding claim 6, Yoshida et al. teach the inorganic fiber sizing agent further comprising epoxy compound (D) including a monoepoxy compound [0017-0018 and formula 11].
Prior Art Not Used but Relevant
PG Pub. 2014/0228481 teach a sizing composition with a vinyl ester resin, surfactant and fatty acid ester.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Sakaguchi et al. have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Sakaguchi et al. for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Yoshida does not recognize the importance of the vinyl ester resin, but admits Yoshida teaches it in the claimed amount. Yoshida need not recognize the importance of the vinyl ester resin if Yoshida teaches the vinyl ester resin in the claimed amount. Applicant attempts to point to a narrow embodiment of the vinyl ester resin amount taught and the examples in Yoshida. Yoshida is not limited to particular embodiments and is relied upon for all that is taught by Yoshida. Yoshida plain teaches resin (X) in 5-50% which is taught as vinyl ester resin.
Applicant point to Table 2 for data of unexpected results. The data provided in Table 2 is not commensurate in scope with the present claims as claim 1 broadly recites any fatty acid ester, any surfactant and any vinyl ester resin while the data provided does not encompass all this and therefore is not commensurate in scope and the data provided is not found to be convincing.
Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the cited art.
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 SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights