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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 12 November 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 5909309 B1 with a machine translation (concurrently submitted) (hereinafter “Takashi”) being used as the English language equivalent translation.Regarding claim 1 Takashi teaches a laminated structure comprising molten resin applied in a plurality of layers (paragraph [0003] and Figures 6-14). Takashi teaches the molten resin includes a plurality of types of resin R1, R2, including a first resin R1 and a second resin R2 (paragraphs [0027] and [0028]; and Figures 6-14). Takashi teaches each layer comprises the plurality of types of resin R1, R2 having a linear shape, where a plurality of each type of resin R1 and R2 are present in a single layer and are parallel relative to each other (paragraphs [0029] and [0037]; and Figures 6-14), which corresponds to each of the layers comprise a plurality of linear resins arranged in parallel. Takashi teaches embodiments where the shape of either the first resin R1 or the second resin R2 within the same layer is elliptical, and the first type of resin R1 and the second type of resin R2 are alternatively disposed within the same layer (Figures 13-14). Takashi illustrates the longer axis of the elliptical shape extends parallel to the distance between two adjacent linear resins in the same layer (d), and the shorter axis of the elliptical shape extends parallel to the thickness (t) (lamination direction) of the layer, and results in a distance (d) between adjacent linear resins R1 or R2 in the same layer being greater than the thickness (t) of the linear resins R1 or R2 in a lamination direction (Figures 13-14, including Annotated Figure 14, shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
352
503
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3 In addition, Takashi illustrates the laminated structure includes a first layer, a second layer, and a third layer, the second layer is a layer formed on the first layer, the third layer is a layer formed on the second layer, a linear resin R2 constituting the first layer and a linear resin R2 constituting the third layer extend parallel to each other, the linear resin R2 constituting the third layer is disposed directly above the linear resin R2 constituting the first layer, and the linear resin R2 constituting the first layer and a linear resin R2 constituting the second layer extend in different directions (Figures 7 and 13, including Annotated Figure 13, shown below).
PNG
media_image2.png
259
323
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takashi as applied to claim 1 above, as further evidenced by an article titled “Polypropylene Properties & Polypropylene Characteristics Explained” by Purvis King (hereinafter “King”).Regarding claim 11 The limitations for claim 1 have been set forth above. In addition, Takashi teaches polypropylene (material forming the linear resin) is used as the resin material R1 (paragraph [0056]). The elongation at break of polypropylene is well known, and ranges from 200-700%, as evidenced by King (page 2), which falls within the claimed range.
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 (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 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.
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 2, 4-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi as applied to claim 1 above.Regarding claim 2 The limitations for claim 1 have been set forth above. In addition, Takashi teaches the first resin material R1 is a high strength material, and the second material R2 is a high flexibility material, where by forming a parallel cross section structure using the high strength resin material R1 and the high flexibility resin material R2, a high strength and high flexibility resin material is formed, and by changing the composition ratio of the resin material R1 and the resin material R2, the strength and the flexibility of the formed object can be freely changed (paragraph [0046]). Takashi teaches in one layer a plurality of resin materials R1 and R2 are formed to have a predetermined blending ratio, where a composition or compounding ratio is changed by adding more resin material R1 or R2 along its width in a given thickness (paragraphs [0024], [0028], [0033] and [0034]; and Figures 6, 7 and 9-12), which corresponds to changing the distance (d) between two adjacent linear resins in the same layer. Takashi does not explicitly teach a ratio of the distance (d) between two adjacent linear resins in the same layer to a thickness (t) of the linear resins in a lamination direction ranges from greater than 1 to less than or equal to 6. Absent a showing of criticality with respect to the d/t ratio (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate content of the resin materials R1 and R2 (corresponding to the distance (d) between each of the resin materials R1 and R2, and affects the ratio of d/t determined therefrom) through routine experimentation in order to achieve a desired balance between strength and the flexibility of the formed object. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B).Regarding claims 4-6 In addition, Takashi teaches the resin materials R1 and R2 have a linear shape extending in a direction orthogonal to each other (crossing angle 90 degrees). However, to increase the bonding area between the same resin materials between layers, and improve the strength of the object S, the angle between these materials R1 and R2 may be an angle other than 90° (paragraph [0037]). Takashi does not explicitly teach each of the layers is laminated so that an angle between extension directions of the linear resins of the layers adjacent to each other is substantially 60°. Absent a showing of criticality with respect to the angle between extension directions of adjacent layers (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate extension angle between adjacent layers through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired increased strength of the formed object via the increased bonding area between the same resin materials between adjacent layers. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B). The resulting structure from such a modification results in a first layer (k-th layer) having an extension angle of 0° relative to a reference direction, a second layer ((k+b)-th layer) having an extension angle of 60° relative to the reference direction (the (k+b)-th layer having an extension direction which does not coincide with the k-th layer), a third layer having an extension angle of 120° in the reference direction, another first layer ((k+a)-th layer) having the same extension angle of 0° relative to the reference direction (the (k+a)-th layer having an extension direction which coincides with the k-th layer), and so on. This structure corresponds to the plurality of layers include a total of n layers, k = 1, a = 3, and b = 1, which satisfies each of: 1<k<k+a<n; a>3; a=3; and 1<b<a-1.Regarding claim 10 In addition, Takashi teaches an embodiment where the resin material R2 (linear resins) is a material having low rigidity but high flexibility, such as an elastomer (paragraph [0065]). Takashi does not explicitly teach the Shore A hardness of the resin material R2 (linear resins) is 50 or less. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate Shore A hardness of the resin material R2 of Takashi using nothing more than routine experimentation to yield a resin material R2 which exhibits the low rigidity and high flexibility desired by Takashi. It has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art unless such a range is shown to be critical. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi.Regarding claims 7-9 Takashi teaches a laminated structure comprising molten resin applied in a plurality of layers (n layers) (paragraph [0003] and Figures 6-14). Takashi teaches the molten resin includes a plurality of types of resin R1, R2, including a first resin R1 and a second resin R2 (paragraphs [0027] and [0028]; and Figures 6-14). Takashi teaches each layer comprises the plurality of types of resin R1, R2 having a linear shape, where a plurality of each type of resin R1 and/or R2 are present in a single layer and are parallel relative to each other (paragraphs [0029] and [0037]; and Figures 6-14), which corresponds to each of the layers comprise a plurality of linear resins arranged in parallel. Takashi teaches the resin materials R1 and R2 have a linear shape extending in a direction orthogonal to each other (crossing angle 90 degrees). However, to increase the bonding area between the same resin materials between layers, and improve the strength of the object S, the angle between these materials R1 and R2 may be an angle other than 90° (paragraph [0037]). Takashi does not explicitly teach each of the layers is laminated so that an angle between extension directions of the linear resins of the layers adjacent to each other is substantially 60°. Absent a showing of criticality with respect to the angle between extension directions of adjacent layers (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate extension angle between adjacent layers through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired increased strength of the formed object via the increased bonding area between the same resin materials between adjacent layers. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B). The resulting structure from such a modification results in a first layer (k-th layer) having an extension angle of 0° relative to a reference direction, a second layer ((k+b)-th layer) having an extension angle of 60° relative to the reference direction (the (k+b)-th layer having an extension direction which does not coincide with the k-th layer), a third layer having an extension angle of 120° in the reference direction, another first layer ((k+a)-th layer) having the same extension angle of 0° relative to the reference direction (the (k+a)-th layer having an extension direction which coincides with the k-th layer), and so on. This structure corresponds to the plurality of layers include a total of n layers, k = 1, a = 3, and b = 1, which satisfies each of: 1<k<k+a<n; a>3; a=3; and 1<b<a-1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN HANDVILLE whose telephone number is (571)272-5074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, from 9 am to 4 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, Veronica 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.
/BRIAN HANDVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783