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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takebe et al, WO 2014103658 in view of Yang et al, CN108001018.
Takebe discloses a method of forming an integrated fiber reinforced resin sheet and molded article comprising the steps of providing a nonwoven fabric which is impregnated with a thermoplastic resin wherein a portion of one surface is not impregnated so that the fibers are exposed. See page 4 of the provided machine translation. Takebe teaches that there should be voids in the nonwoven fabric to enable impregnation with a second resin. See page 5 of the translation, first full paragraph. The voids are equated with the impregnation rate as claimed. Takebe teaches suitable thermoplastic resins include polyamide, polyarylene sulfides, polyetherketones, polyimides, polyetherimides, polyamideimide. See page 10, first paragraph on the page. A second resin is then impregnated into the other side. The fibers can be carbon fibers.
Takebe differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose that the second resin is a thermosetting resin, does not disclose employing a heat roller or the impregnation rate.
However, Yang discloses a fiber reinforced structure comprising a thermosetting portion and a thermoplastic portion. The structure is formed by providing a polymeric fiber reinforced layer, providing a felt layer on top of the polymeric layer, then providing a second polymeric fiber reinforced layer and then heat, and providing pressure with a roller so that the resins flow into the felt layer. See abstract. One of the polymeric layers can be a thermoplastic fiber reinforced layer and one of the polymeric layers can be a thermosetting fiber reinforced layer. The thermosetting layer which has not yet been cured is equated with the thermosetting prepreg claimed. The felt is equated with the impregnated region. The thermoplastic layer is equated with the thermoplastic semipreg. The heating and roller pressure are equated with the steps of heating and pressing in claim 1 and heat rolling in claim 5.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed a thermosetting resin as the second resin as taught by Yang in order to form a firmly bonded structure which includes both thermosetting and thermoplastic resin and to have used heat and pressure as taught by Yang in order to provide a fully integrated structure.
With regard to the particular impregnation rate, it would have been obvious to have selected an impregnation rate which provided the desired degree of penetration of the second resin.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Takebe is only drawn to forming a thermoplastic structure and that to combine the teachings of Takebe with the teachings of Yang would abandon the very problem that Takebe seeks to solve, namely, the bonding of thermoplastic resins. However, Takebe states that the purpose is to provide a fiber reinforced resin sheet that has strong bonding of different resins. See page 5, paragraph 5 of the translation. Yang teaches bonding thermoplastic and thermoset resins. Therefore, there would be a motivation and at least a reasonable expectation of success for one of ordinary skill to modify the invention of Takebe as taught by Yang in order to provide a fiber reinforced resin sheet that has strong bonding of different resins where one resin is a thermoplastic resin and one is a thermosetting resin.
Applicant argues that even if the two references were combined, Yang teaches a different process which includes a cured thermoset resin. However, Yang clearly teaches employing uncured thermoset resin to facilitate bonding of the thermoplastic and thermoset resin layers and selecting the uncured thermoset resin to have a Hansen solubility parameter indicating interpenetrating ability of the thermoplastic polymer and the uncured thermoset polymer. See page 5 of the machine translation. Further, the rejection does not state that it would have been obvious to have employed the process of Yang, but rather that Yang teaches employing uncured thermoset resin to bond to thermoplastic resins and selecting the thermoset resin so that it had a Hansen solubility parameter indicating interpenetrating ability of the thermoplastic polymer and that therefore it would have been obvious to have employed an uncured thermoset resin as the second resin in the invention of Takebe.
Applicant argues that Takebe does not teach continuous carbon fibers. However, fabric E includes parallel continuous reinforcing carbon fibers A.
With regard to the impregnation rate, as set forth above, since Takebe teaches leaving voids in order to facilitate bonding with a second different resin, it would have been obvious to have selected the amount of voids which produced the optimum bond. Takebe does not measure the parameters used to calculate the impregnation rate so it is not possible for a one to one comparison, however, since Takebe does explicitly teach leaving void space to allow for a second resin to penetrate and form a strong bond, one of ordinary skill would have been able to select the amount and size of voids which produced the strongest bond.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 PM.
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.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights