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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the communication filed on 01/20/2026. Currently claims 1-10 are pending in the application; and claim 10 withdrawn from consideration.
ELECTION / RESTRICTION
Applicant's election of Group I, claims 1-9, without traverse, drawn to a composite material chip, in the reply filed on 1/20/2026 is acknowledged.
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 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. 103 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made 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 non-obviousness.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Simmons et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2014/00217332 A1), hereafter, referred to as “Simmons”.
Regarding claim 1, Simmons teaches a composite material chip, comprising carbon fibers in a cured adhesive, by teaching a panel prepared from multiple unidirectional prepreg layers, which are cured by autoclave to form a panel of 300 mm x 300 mm x 3 mm (para. [0120]). Simmons also teaches that the composite having a substantially constant thickness defined between two parallel opposite faces of the chip, each face including on the surface carbon fibers that are at least partially not included in the cured adhesive; by teaching a composite having a thickness of between 0.5 and 5 mm (para. [0067]). Simmons further teaches that epoxy resin and carbon fibers are oriented in parallel and unidirectionally in the form of a plate of dimensions 40 mm x 40 mm x 3 mm by forming specimens for test from the cured panel (para. [0120]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, therefore, to consider that the composite material would have a substantially constant thickness in the sense of the instant application. Simmons also explicitly teaches that these chips are sanded (mechanical cutting) so as to expose the carbon fibers (para. [0120]), therefore, it would also have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the surface carbon fibers are at least partially not included in the adhesive (epoxy resin), as the sanding would expose the carbon fibers.
Regarding claim 2, Simmons teaches a composite material chip comprising carbon fibers in a cured adhesive, by teaching a panel prepared from multiple unidirectional prepreg layers, which are cured by autoclave to form a panel (para. [0120]). Simmons also explicitly teaches that these chips are sanded (mechanical cutting) so as to expose the carbon fibers (para. [0120]), therefore, it would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that a portion of the carbon fiber which is at least partially not included in the cured adhesive constitutes a bare fiber.
Regarding claim 3, Simmons teaches that the composite material chips are sanded (mechanical cutting) so as to expose the carbon fibers (para. [0120]). Simmons also teaches that excess sanding should be avoided as this will penetrate past the first ply, which will adversely affect the final article mechanical property. Therefore, it would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the amount of bare portion of the carbon fiber would be optimized. Therefore, having a bare fiber area ratio which is greater than or equal to 22%, the percentage being related to the total surface area of the face of the chip which is analyzed; would be a matter of optimization that would be performed under routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 4, Simmons teaches that the composite material chip surface roughness is a key parameter (para. [0095 Therefore, it would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that surface roughness of the composite material chip would be optimized. Therefore, a roughness measured by a mass loss which is greater than or equal to 0.008%, said mass loss being measured by an abrasion test performed on a linear abrasion meter using an H18 abrasive rubber for 100 cycles; would be a matter of optimization that would be performed under routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 5, Simmons teaches a composite material chip, having a thickness between 200 μm and 1 mm; by teaching a composite material having a thickness of between 0.5 and 5 mm (para. [0067]).
Regarding claims 6-7, Simmons teaches a composite material chip, wherein said carbon fibers extend substantially parallel and oriented in the same direction, to said opposite faces of the chip; by teaching multiple unidirectional layers where the fiber orientation of subsequent layers in 0/90 (para. [0120]).
Regarding claim 8, Simmons teaches a composite material chip, having a rectangular shape; by teaching square (a specific form of rectangle) face of the specimens (para. [0120]).
Regarding claim 9, Simmons teaches a composite material chip, wherein each face of the chip has a surface area of at least 1 cm2; by teaching a specimen of 16 cm2 (para. [0120]).
Examiner’s Note
The examiner included a few prior arts which were not used in the rejection but are relevant to the disclosure.
US 2013/0065471 A1 (Mortimer): Mortimer teaches in Fig 3, an assembly of cured thermoplastic resin-based layers at the surface of which carbon fibers 22 are positioned in parallel and unidirectionally (para. [0043-0045]). Each layer appears to have a thickness of between 15 and 50 microns (para. [0035]). The chips may therefore be considered to have a substantially constant thickness. The middle layer has, on each surface, carbon fibers that are not at all contained (or at least partially uncontained) in the resin.
U.S. Tewari et al.: “Solid particle erosion of unidirectional carbon fibre reinforced polyetheretherketone composite”; Wear, 252, (2002), Page 992-1000 (Tewari et al.): Tewari teaches in Fig. 5, a composite based on carbon fibers oriented in parallel and unidirectionally, the fibers being exposed on both faces following a parallel or perpendicular abrasion process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M AMEEN whose telephone number is (469) 295 9214. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9.00 am to 6.00 pm (Eastern Time).
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on (571) 272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMAD M AMEEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742