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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsubishi Chemical (JP 62-30008 A) alone.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Mitsubishi Chemical discloses a method for producing a carbon-fiber-reinforced cement material by forming the cement material as a result of continuously cutting a bundled pitch-based carbon fiber tow, and simultaneously mixing the tow with a slurry containing a cement portion through spraying, the method for producing a carbon-fiber-reinforced cement material being characterized in that a cut carbon fiber tow, which is in a state in which the greater part retains a substantially bundled state when the bundled pitch-based carbon fiber tow was cut, is supplied to a mixture in a cement slurry. Mitsubishi Chemical (page 6, upper left column, line 12 to upper right column, line 12) states, "Here, fig. 1 is a photograph showing a tow of the pitch-based carbon fiber used in the present invention, and fig. 2 is a photograph of a cut carbon fiber tow that has been cut using a cutting test method described later. In addition, fig. 4 is a photograph showing that the proportion of cut carbon fiber tow such as those shown in fig. 2a-2e is approximately 90%, but as shown in fig. 4, there is almost no fluffiness or tangling of carbon fiber tow. In a post-cutting carbon fiber tow state that is not the subject of the present invention, that is, a post-cutting carbon fiber tow state which, as a result of cutting, is different from the bundled state prior to cutting, as illustrated by way of example in fig. 3a-3d, a portion of or the majority of single fibers, which are the constituent units of the carbon fiber tow, are defibrated and the tow is spread, or in a swollen or fluffy state, that is, the maximum width of the tow (the length indicated with a Win fig. 2 and 3) is three or more times the width prior to cutting. If cut carbon fiber tows in this state are present in an amount of 50% or more, as shown in fig. 5 (the ratio of the cut carbon fiber tow shown in fig. 2a-2e is approximately 20%) the carbon fiber tow becomes tangled and the whole becomes fluffy." Fig. 2a of Mitsubishi Chemical illustrates a form in which the entire shape is black and rod-like, and both ends are slightly thinned. Mitsubishi Chemical (page 7, upper right column, line 6 to lower left column, line 1) indicates that the cement slurry contains sand, and thus the cement slurry corresponds to the mortar composition of this application. In document 1, the cut carbon fiber tow which is in a state in which the greater part retains a substantially bundled state and a sizing agent for bundling in document 1 respectively correspond to the carbon-fiber mass and the binder in this application.
The invention disclosed in document 1 differs from the invention as in claim 1 in that the former does not describe a "spindle form". However, Mitsubishi chemical discloses the form is black and rod-like, and in which both ends are slightly thinned corresponds to the form mentioned in paragraph [0021] of this application of "spindle form means a shape that is thick at the center and gradually narrows toward either end"; therefore, this feature does not constitute a difference in invention-defining matter and it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan that it meets the definition of a “spindle”.
Regarding claim 2, because document 1 (page 6, lower right column, lines 7-10) indicates that the length of the tow is preferably 5-50 mm, it is considered that either there is no difference between the inventions, or that the difference is a matter that a person skilled in the art could easily conceive of.
Regarding claim 3, document 1 (page 7, upper left column, lines 2-6) states that "when a carbon fiber tow having a single-fiber diameter of 19 μ and a tow single fiber number of 240 is used", and 19 μ x ✓240 = approximately 0.3 mm; therefore, it is considered that either there is a high probability that the inventions overlap in this feature, or even if it were considered that there is a difference between the inventions, the difference is a matter that a person skilled in the art could easily conceive of.
Regarding claim 4, it is conceivable that the single-fiber length after cutting of the tow would be slightly less than the cut length of the tow if there are areas that had been cut prior to cutting. Provided that the value is slightly smaller than 5-50 mm, it is considered that either there is a high probability that the inventions overlap in this feature, or even if it were considered that there is a difference between the inventions, the difference is a matter that a person skilled in the art could easily conceive of.
Regarding claim 5, if the cut length of the tow is used as a numerator, and the carbon fiber length, which is slightly smaller than the tow cut length is used as a denominator, the ratio of numerator/denominator is slightly more than 1; therefore, it is considered that either there is a high probability that the inventions overlap in this feature, or even if it were considered that there is a difference between the inventions, the difference is a matter that a person skilled in the art could easily conceive of.
Regarding claim 6, document 1 (page 5, upper right column, lines 11-16) indicates that the amount of sizing agent deposited depends on the type of sizing agent, but the amount is preferably 0.1-10 wt% when polyvinyl alcohol is used as the sizing agent, and thus, there is no difference between the inventions.
Regarding claim 10, document 1 (page 2, lower left column, lines 6-9) indicates that the carbon fiber-reinforced cement material is used in construction and civil engineering, etc., and thus can be referred to as a "mortar structure".
Claim(s) 7-9 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsubishi Chemical (JP 62-30008 A) in view of Research Institute (JP 2013-87269 A).
Mitsubishi Chemical further discloses that carbon fibers can be used without any particular limitation and suggests various options (page 3, lower right column, lines 1-6).
However, Mitsubishi Chemical fails to disclose the use of a regenerated carbon fiber.
Research Institute teaches that although regenerated carbon fibers can be obtained by thermally decomposing a carbon-fiber-reinforced composite resin material, there is a problem with dispersibility (Paragraph 4); and that affinity for a matrix component is improved by chemically modifying short carbon fibers; therefore, it is possible to obtain a fiber-reinforced cement composition having improved properties such as fluidity (Paragraph 61).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mitsubishi Chemical by utilizing a regenerated carbon fiber as taught by Research Institute to better the environment and save on materials from the viewpoint of resource reuse, as it is preferable to use a recycled product (Paragraph 24).
Specifically regarding claim 9, it would have been obvious some level of residual component of the carbon fibers was included in the composition (e.g. tiny scrap strands, dust etc.).
The Examiner notes that claim 14 has been drafted as a product-by-process claim. Therefore the claim is not limited to the manipulations of the recited process steps, but the determination is based on the product itself, see MPEP 2113. As such, the Mitsubishi Chemical-Research Institute combination teaches the claim since it discloses a concrete composition.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tezuka (US 5685902), Ceylan (US 20210024418), Heo (KR 102160910 B1), Hashimoto (JP H11268973 A), Tezuka (JP H11116303 A), and Heo (KR 102175574 B1) disclose concrete/mortar compositions containing concrete fibers similar to that of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE A ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1184. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~10-6.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
KYLE ARMSTRONG, P.E.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3678
/KYLE ARMSTRONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights