DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/24/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made to applicant’s amendment of claim 1. Claims 1-10 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5-6, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (CN 104859267 A – of record), in view of Nagakura et al. (US 2014/0370245 A1 – of record), in the alternative in view of Sekino (JP 2009160840 A).
Regarding claims 1, 10, Sun discloses a method of manufacturing a housing. The method to include fiber cloth prepreg material for preparing the shell has two or more layers and where the shell material is a carbon fiber, see page 9 paragraphs 1, 5 and 8 – (construed as providing a plurality of pieces of fiber cloth, wherein the fiber cloth is a pre-impregnated fiber cloth; and the fiber cloth is carbon fiber cloth. Also, as the reference uses housing, casing and shell interchangeably all instances thereof will be construed as a case).
While Sun discloses the use of a hot pressing technique to form the casing; it does not explicitly disclose the claimed laying and pressing steps to include having a quantity of pieces of fiber cloth with an opening is less than a quantity of pieces of fiber cloth without an opening.
Nagakura discloses a method for manufacturing a shaped product constituted by layering a plurality of prepregs including a reinforcing fiber, see [0001]. The method to include layering a plurality of prepreg layers in a specified manner. The layers constitute a P layer and a Q layer which contact with each other, and then pressing those layers in a mold to manufacture a shaped product, see [0011] – [0012]. The layering shape is not particularly limited and includes “forming an opening in a part of the plurality of pieces of fiber cloth; stacking the plurality of pieces of fiber cloth to form a stacked structure, wherein the part of the plurality of pieces of fiber cloth with the openings is arranged on top to form a concave region on an upper surface of the stacked structure;” as depicted in Fig. 2.
As to “a quantity of pieces of fiber cloth with an opening is less than a quantity of pieces of fiber cloth without an opening”: Nagakura discloses the layering scheme includes a fiber cloth stack arrangement of having more P layers than Q layers, see [0029]. It being considered and readily seen that for using four P layers and two Q layers in the orientation depicted in depiction 1-1 that “a quantity of pieces of fiber cloth with an opening (Q layer) is less than a quantity of pieces of fiber cloth without an opening (P layer)”.
And as Nagakura substantially discloses the use of a mold and pressing technique, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that for the layering orientation of depiction 1-1. Where the P layer is adjacent a “bottom or fixed” mold half with the Q layer concavity facing upwards that “pressing a mold against the stacked structure, to form a case, wherein the product/case comprises a concave structure at a position corresponding to the concave region”.
One of ordinary skill would appreciate Nagakura’s inventive stacking arrangement wherein its practice allows for using a wide variety of thermoplastic resins and having excellent productivity, see [0012].
As to “each of the pieces of fiber cloth with the opening is connected to at least one of the pieces of fiber cloth with the opening; and wherein each of the pieces of fiber cloth without the opening is connected to at least one of the pieces of fiber cloth without the opening”.
While neither Sun nor Nagakura explicitly discloses such an arrangement, the claimed arrangement is considered as merely a duplication of parts, see at least Nagakura FIG. 1 Illustration 1-1 or a rearrangement of parts, see Nagakura FIG. 1 Illustration 1-5. As it has been held that duplication or rearrangement of parts have no patentable significance when doing so does not modify the operation of the device, see MPEP 2144 (VI) (B, C).
In the alternative, Sekino discloses forming a laminate having each of the pieces of material with an opening is connected to at least one of the pieces of material with the opening; and wherein each of the pieces of material without the opening is connected to at least one of the pieces of material without the opening, see at least FIG. 7. And further disclose such a lamination technique reduces dimensional variance when heated, see at least [0004].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sun’s method to include the claimed fiber cloth stacking arrangement and mold use as taught by Nagakura and/or Sekino to provide the aforementioned benefits.
Regarding claims 5-6, modified Sun further discloses a step of stacking the plurality of pieces of fiber cloth to form the stacked structure comprises arranging the part of the fiber cloth with the opening on top of the stacked structure and aligning the openings with each other; and a quantity of the part of the plurality of pieces of fiber cloth with the opening is less than three, see at least Nagakura depiction 1-1 and [0028].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (CN 104859267 A – of record), in view of Nagakura et al. (US 2014/0370245 A1 – of record), in the alternative in view of Sekino (JP 2009160840 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sasaki et al. (US 2017/0185108 A1 – of record).
Regarding claim 2, modified Sun does not explicitly disclose the use of a mounting plate.
Sasaki discloses a laminate and integrally molded article suitable for use as a casing, see at least [0002]. And forms the molded article by layering sheets of carbon fiber cloths and bonding the stacked layers by press molding and contemplates the use of a nameplate formed in a recessed area – (construed as mounting a plate to the concave structure), see [0049]. One of ordinary skill would appreciate and envision using Sasaki’s technique as the reference suggests doing so contributes to forming an integrally molded article having reduced thickness and high rigidity and display of a nameplate with a logo depicted thereon, see [0016].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified’s Sun’s method to include the mounting a plate to the concave structure as taught by Sasaki to provide the aforementioned benefits.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (CN 104859267 A – of record), in view of Nagakura et al. (US 2014/0370245 A1 – of record), in the alternative in view of Sekino (JP 2009160840 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yin et al. (CN 201936236 U – of record).
Regarding claims 3-4, modified Sun does not explicitly disclose performing surface machining on a side wall of the recess with a milling cutter.
Yin discloses a method and equipment for forming a shell. The is formed of carbon fiber cloth, see page 13 last two paragraphs. Yin further discloses a finishing process of after forming of the shell the “waste edge” is removed by milling, see page 16 paragraph 8. One of ordinary skill would appreciate and envision using Yin’s milling cutting technique as the reference suggests doing so allows for removing of bad edges after forming of the shell.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Sun’s method to include a technique of performing surface machining on a side wall of the recess with a milling cutter as claimed and reasonably suggested by Yin to provide Sun’s method with a means for removing waste edges as taught by Yin.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (CN 104859267 A – of record), in view of Nagakura et al. (US 2014/0370245 A1 – of record), in the alternative in view of Sekino (JP 2009160840 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hass et al. (US 5,573,622 – of record).
Regarding claims 7-9, to the extent modified Sun does not explicitly disclose the claimed mold features.
Hass discloses a method of fabricating a plurality of multilayer structure having a recess. The method to include a stack of layered material 12, 14, 16, prior to lamination and assembled within a pressing unit 34, 36. A top portion of the stack has a recess and as depicted in FIGS. 2-6 the assembly is laminated by pressing to form a multilayered article having a recess on its top side, see FIG. 1. Moreover, it is readily envisioned that the mold comprises an upper part and a lower part, and the upper part comprises a protruding portion at a position corresponding to the concave region; a protruding distance of the protruding portion is less than a sum of thicknesses of the part of the plurality of pieces of fiber cloth with the opening; the lower part is planar at a position corresponding to the concave region, see at least Hass FIGS 2-6
One of ordinary skill would appreciate and envision using Hass’s process as the reference suggests doing so allows for a one step pressing method for fabricating a plurality of multilayer structures which includes at least one recess defined by a nonplanar surface, see Col 2, lines 50-53.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Sun’s method to include the claimed mold features as reasonably suggested by Hass to provide Sun’s method with a means for forming a recess in a multilayered structure as taught by Hass.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant' s Argument #1
Applicant argues that: neither Sun or Nagakura discloses “each of the pieces of fiber cloth with the opening is connected to at least one of the pieces of fiber cloth with the opening; and wherein each of the pieces of fiber cloth without the opening is connected to at least one of the pieces of fiber cloth without the opening”
Examiner's Response #1
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The test of obviousness is not express suggestion of the claimed invention in any or all references but rather what the references taken collectively would suggest to those of ordinary skill in the art presumed to be familiar with them. In re Rosselet, 347 F.2d 847, 146 USPQ 183 (CCPA 1965); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038. In particular, Nagakura depicts several embodiments of a stacked fiber cloth laminate to include an embodiment where “a quantity of the pieces of fiber cloth with the opening is less than a quantity of the pieces of the fiber cloth without the opening”, see FIG. 1 Illustration 1-5. It being considered, one of ordinary skill as a matter of routine experimentation rearrange the laminate such that “each of the pieces of fiber cloth with the opening is connected to at least one of the pieces of fiber cloth with the opening; and wherein each of the pieces of fiber cloth without the opening is connected to at least one of the pieces of fiber cloth without the opening”, it being further noted Nagakura doe not limit manipulation of the layers, see at least [0030] and as depicted throughout the figures.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571) 272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00AM--5:00 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Katelyn Smith can be reached on 571-270-5545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights