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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8 paragraph 1, filed 05/26/2026, with respect to claim 3 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) of 02/25/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, regarding the rejection of claims 1-9 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) filed 05/26/20263 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the specification sufficiently describes the “plate-like molded body”, citing paragraphs 0036, 0041, 0051, and 0088 as well as Figs. 1, 6, and 13 of the published specification (pg 6 last full paragraph continuing through pg 7). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 0036 indicates that the molded body “may be a plate-like molded body, or may also be a molded body having a concavo-convex shape formed by including raised portions and intaglio portions”, the use of “or” appears to indicate that including raised portions and intaglio portions renders the molded body not “plate-like”. Paragraphs 0041, 0051, 0088 as well as Figs. 1, 6, and 13 give examples of what is included in “plate-like” but do not provide sufficient description to establish the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Paragraph 0051, for example, states “[t]he thickness of the molded body may be adjusted to an appropriate level depending on the purpose, which is not greatly limited” (emphasis added) without any mention of “plate” or “plate-like”.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10 paragraph 3, filed 05/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Masui (JPH09254248A – previously of record) or Masui and McCullough (US20040251804A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-9 and 20 recite the limitation “plate-like molded body”. The use of “plate-like” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear from the claims what the scope of “plate-like” is and the application, as filed, does not provide sufficient disclosure to reasonably determine the scope of “plate-like”. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-9, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masui (JPH09254248A – previously of record) alone or, alternatively, Masui in view of McCullough (US20040251804A1).
In reference to claim 1:
Masui discloses a plate-like molded body (Fig. 5) comprising:
a resin component (para 0006, thermoplastic resin); and
a filler component (para 0006, fiber-reinforced);
wherein the filler component comprises a fibrous filler (para 0006);
wherein the molded body has sides formed along a first direction (Fig. 5) and
a concavo-convex shape including raised portions and intaglio portions formed thereon (Fig. 5); and
wherein the molded body has pores (paras 0007, 0022)
Masui further discloses that the molded body has “high porosity” (paras 0007, 0026, and 0027) and that poor expansion results in a resin molded product without “sufficient voids” (para 0008). Masui does not explicitly disclose wherein the molded body has a porosity of 10% or more. It is the Examiner’s first position that the disclosure of “high porosity” of Masui would render obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the claimed range of “10% or more”. It is the Examiner’s second position that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). As applied to the instant application, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine an optimum value of the porosity as Masui explicitly discloses the need for “sufficient porosity” and “high porosity”.
Masui discloses the fibrous filler preferably having an aspect ratio of 60 (para 0009 disclosing “preferably” a diameter of 50 μm and a length of 3mm which has an aspect ratio of 60) but does not explicitly disclose the fibrous filler having an aspect ratio ranging from 3 to 40. However, it is the Examiner’s first position that choosing a desired aspect ratio, such as that claimed, would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the general conditions of the claim are disclosed by the prior art and it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). If the aspect ratio is not obvious in over Masui, it is the Examiner’s second position that the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). As applied to the instant application, McCullough teaches a polymer composite (abstract). McCullough further teaches utilizing carbon fibers having aspect ratios of 4, 5, or 10 to manufacture a “plate-like” molded body (para 0020, Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a fibrous filler having an aspect ratio of 4, 5, or 10 based on its suitability for the intended purpose.
In reference to claim 2:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Masui does not explicitly disclose wherein the pores are formed at an interface between the resin component and the filler component. However, it is the Examiner’s position that at least a portion of the pores in Masui will be formed at an interface between the resin component and the filler component (see para 0008 discussing fiber content, expandability, and sufficient voids).
In reference to claim 3:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Masui does not explicitly disclose wherein a tensile rupture strength in each of an upper, a middle, and a lower end is obtained by trisecting the molded body in a direction perpendicular to the sides formed along the first direction, and wherein the tensile rupture strength has a standard deviation of 100 MPa or less, wherein the standard deviation is a value calculated as {[ (Su-A)2+(SM-A)2+(SL-A)21/3}0.5, wherein Su is the tensile rupture strength of the upper end, SM is the tensile rupture strength of the middle end, SL is the tensile rupture strength of the lower end, and A is an arithmetic mean.
However, as Masui discloses all of the positively recited structural limitations of the claim it is the Examiner’s position that the structure of Masui would meet the claimed tensile rupture strength standard deviation. See MPEP 2112.01.I.
Alternatively, it is the Examiner’s second position that the tensile strength of Masui would be consistent through the molded body (standard deviation of 0 which meets the “100 MPa or less” claimed).
In reference to claim 4:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Masui further discloses wherein the resin component is a thermoplastic polymer (para 0007).
In reference to claim 7:
In addition to the discussion of claim 6, above, Masui further discloses wherein the fibrous filler has a cross-sectional diameter ranging from 1 μm to 100 μm (para 0009).
In reference to claim 8:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Masui further discloses wherein the filler component is in an amount of 1 to 100 parts by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of the resin component (para 0008).
In reference to claim 9:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Masui further discloses wherein a thickness of the molded body ranges from 100 μm to 100 mm (para 0029 – Example 1i, specifically page 21 last paragraph).
In reference to claim 20:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Masui further discloses wherein the plate-like body is an insulator (para 0026).
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 ANDREW L SWANSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1724. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 0800-1900 and every other Friday 0800-1600.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/ANDREW L SWANSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights