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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2020/0307153 to Yu et al. cited in previous Office action (herein Yu) in view of U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2018/0345623 to Choi et al. cited in previous Office action (herein Choi).
Regarding claim 1, Yu teaches a carbon fiber reinforced structure having excellent thermal conductivity in the thickness direction (abstract) wherein the structure comprises a plurality of carbon fiber reinforced sheets laminated together and a stitch member penetrating one or more carbon fiber reinforced sheets (paragraph 0014). Yu teaches that the carbon fiber reinforced sheets are prepreg sheets comprising carbon fibers and a polymer resin (paragraph 0018) wherein the resin is a thermosetting resin such as epoxy resin (paragraph 0051). Yu teaches that the stitch members can be a plurality of stitch members made from pitch-based carbon fiber (paragraph 0052) and is cut off to leave a margin on either side of the structure (paragraph 0080).
Yu is silent as to the protruding parts of the stitch members being bent.
Choi teaches a composite material structure (abstract) comprising a plurality of laminated prepregs and a fiber which penetrates the composite material (paragraph 0011). Choi teaches that the penetrating fiber is a bundle of strands (paragraph 0041) made from a pitch-based carbon fiber (paragraph 0043). Choi teaches that the penetrating fibers are spaced apart from one another in a planar direction and a formed such that the distal ends of the fiber protrude from each side of the structure before being bent at 90 degrees relative to the penetration direction (paragraph 0044). Choi teaches that the plurality of strands of the penetrating fiber are bent radially as illustrated in Fig 7 shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Choi also teaches that the radial arrangement of the strands are bent via compression and fixed by heat curing (paragraph 0052).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stitch members of Yu to have their strands radially bent according to the teachings of Choi because it would improve the Z-directional strength of the carbon fiber reinforced structure (paragraph 0047).
Regarding the lengths of the protruding ends of the fibers being less than or equal to the interval between stitches, Fig 7 of Choi shows that that strands of adjacent penetrating fibers do not overlap, i.e. they are shorter than the distance between penetrating fibers, and they almost touch. Combining this with the teachings of Johnson would yield a length of strands that overlaps the claimed range. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 2, Yu and Choi teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Yu teaches that the reinforcing fiber in the carbon fiber reinforced sheets can be either polyacrylonitrile-based carbon fiber or pitch-based carbon fiber (paragraph 0049).
Regarding claim 4, Yu and Choi teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
As discussed above, Yu teaches that the carbon fiber reinforced sheets are prepreg sheets comprising carbon fibers and a polymer resin (paragraph 0018) wherein the resin is a thermosetting resin such as epoxy resin (paragraph 0051).
Regarding claim 6, Yu and Choi teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
As discussed above, Yu modified according to Choi has the strands of the stitching member bent out in a radial shape.
Claim(s) 3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu and Choi as applied above and in further view of U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2005/0025948 to Johnson et al. cited in previous Office action (herein Johnson).
Regarding claims 3 and 7, Yu and Choi teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Both Yu and Choi teaches that the stitching members/penetrating fibers are arrayed across the surface of the fiber reinforced structure (Yu paragraph 0084 and Choi paragraph 0044).
Yu and Choi are silent as to the distance between stitching members
Johnson teaches a composite laminate structure including a first face sheet having a plurality of ply layers and a second face sheet having a plurality of layers and a plurality of 3-D fibers extending from the first skin to the second skin (abstract). Johnson teaches that the 3-D fibers are spaced every 0.25 inches, or about every 6 mm (paragraph 0049). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I). Johnson also teaches that the ends of the 3-D fibers are clinched or riveted to the outside of the skins (paragraph 0049) which is similar to the bending of the penetration fibers of Choi.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stitch members of Yu to have the spacing taught by Johnson because applying a known technique to a known device has been held to be obvious. See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu and Choi as applied above and evidenced by Preparation and characterization of carbon fiber reinforced plastics (CFRPs) incorporating through-plane-stitched carbon fibers by Hong et al. cited in previous Office action (herein Hong).
Regarding claim 5, Yu and Choi teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
The inventive examples of Yu use 22 layers of USN200A prepreg (paragraph 0080). Hong shows that 22 layers of USN200A has a thickness of less than 4 mm (page 2). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu and Choi as applied above.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Yu and Choi teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Yu teaches that the structure is produced via a method comprising: i) laminating a plurality of fiber reinforced sheets; ii) penetrating the fiber reinforced sheets with stitch members; and iii) molding and curing the laminated sheets (paragraph 0063). Yu teaches that compression molding can be used (paragraph 0076), and as discussed above, Choi teaches that the radial arrangement of the ends of the penetrating fibers is achieved via compression (paragraph 0052). Yu teaches that the compression and curing may be performed at 50 to 150°C (paragraph 0077). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Response to Amendment
In view of Applicant’s amendments filed 10 June 2026, previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been updated.
In view of Applicant’s Terminal Disclaimer, the previous provisional non-statutory double patent rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 10 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Examiner used impermissible hindsight reasoning in rejecting the pending claims (Remarks, page 5). In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention is non-obvious over the prior art because the claimed structure results in enhanced in-plane thermal conductivity (Remarks, pages 5-6). Applicant has provided no showing of evidence demonstrating the criticality or unexpected results that stem from the claimed structure. Arguments of counsel do not take the place of evidence in the record where evidence is necessary. See MPEP 2145(I).
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not seek to modify Yu according to the teachings of Choi because Choi is directed to improving mechanical strength and does not teach enhancing in-plane thermal conductivity (Remarks, pages 6-7). As discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Yu according to Choi in order to improve the Z-direction strength of the laminate. The fact that this motivation is different from the benefit identified by Applicant is immaterial. See MPEP 2144(IV).
Applicant argues that Johnson was used to teach the lengths of the protruding strands of the stitch members but does not contain any such teaching (Remarks, page 7). As discussed in paragraph 22 above, Johnson was relied upon to teach the intervals between the stitch members and not the lengths of the protruding strands.
Applicant argues that relying on Figure 7 to teach a specific mathematical/dimensional limitation is improper (Remarks, pages 7-8). Figure 7 of Choi was relied upon to simply teach that the protruding fibers do not overlap which is neither a precise proportion nor a particular size. Nor is it a specific mathematical limitation. Examiner agrees that one cannot use Figure 7 to determine a specific fiber length to stitch interval ratio or a specific length of the protruding fibers; however, a simple schematic drawing is more than capable of showing an overlapping or non-overlapping relationship between the protruding fibers of adjacent stitches. Furthermore, Choi does not teach anywhere that the protruding fibers of adjacent stitches would overlap at all. If one of ordinary skill in the art were following the teachings of Choi and looked to answer the question “Do these fibers overlap?” the lack of an explicit teaching of an overlap and a schematic drawing showing no overlap would answer that question. The claimed length of the protruding fibers flows from this lack of overlap, i.e. if the fibers do not overlap, then the length of the fibers is less than the interval between the stitches.
Applicant argues that Hong does not teach preventing the reduction of in-plane thermal conductivity nor does Hong teach the claimed protruding fiber length (Remarks, page 8). Applicant is correct. However, Hong was relied upon to teach the thickness of the laminate and not preventing the reduction of in-plane thermal conductivity or does Hong teach the claimed protruding fiber length.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY M DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6957. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4:30, off 2nd Friday.
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, Maria V Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/ZACHARY M DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights