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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
Figures 1 and 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “at three-time expansion at room temperature,” although a thickness expansion of three times or more is limited to occurring at the glass transition temperature or the melting point of the matrix resin as recited in claim 9.
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 9-11, 14-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Shimoyama (JP2020172031A, attached).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 9-11, 14-17 and 20, Shimoyama teaches a fiber-reinforced composite material containing carbon fibers and a thermoplastic resin, wherein the fiber-reinforced composite material contains 15 to 75% by weight of the carbon fibers ([0007] and Examples 1-10 from [0051]-[0061]). A plurality of curved carbon fibers are present on a half-cut face in a surface direction of the fiber-reinforced composite material ([0007]). The thermoplastic resin includes polypropylene, among others ([0014]). As a method for causing a plurality of curved carbon fibers to be present, for example, it is preferable to impart crimps to precursor fibers of the carbon fibers ([0017]). It is preferable that the crimped carbon fiber precursor fiber is cut into short fibers and formed into a web or paper ([0032]). The average fiber length of the shortened fibers is preferably from 30 to 100mm ([0032]). Shimoyama also teaches press-molding the materials, as well as generating spring back using the carbon fiber nonwoven fabric ([0041] and [0026]). Voids in the fiber-reinforced composite material can be increased to reduce the apparent density ([0015]).
With regard to the claimed expandability properties in the thickness and length directions, the examiner notes that the structure and process of Shimoyama discussed above is the same as or is substantially similar to that disclosed by applicant. Thus, it is the position of the Office that the composition of Shimoyama would have the claimed properties as the same compound necessarily has the same properties. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to expect that the claimed properties would be so provided, as the reference teaches the same materials and processes as those claimed, and as the properties cannot be separated from the materials. Therefore, the molding material taught by Shimoyama would have the claimed properties, absent an objective showing to the contrary. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 2 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimoyama (JP2020172031A, attached), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Matsumoto (US 10,196,576 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Shimoyama remains as applied above.
Shimoyama does not explicitly disclose wherein the curved portion of the discontinuous carbon fiber having the curved portion has a radius of curvature of 10 mm or less.
However, Matsumoto teaches a water lubrication type bearing material that contains 12 wt. % to 25 wt. % of a tetrafluoroethylene-perfluoroalkyl vinyl ether copolymer resin (PFA resin), 18 wt. % to 33 wt. % of a carbon fiber, and a remainder including a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin and/or a modified PTFE resin (Abstract). Further, the carbon fiber in use is not formed in a straight shape, but in a curved/twisted shape having a curvature radius in a range of 50 to 1500 µm (page 5, lines 35-43). When the curvature radius is less than 50 µm, the carbon fiber is broken in a compression molding process of the PTFE material and the proper fiber length cannot be maintained (page 5, lines 35-43). When the curvature radius is more than 1500 µm, the carbon fiber is not sufficiently entangled with the PTFE and falling of the carbon fiber cannot be prevented (page 5, lines 35-43).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the carbon fibers with a curvature radius in a range of 50 to 1500 µm in order to ensure that the carbon fibers are not broken in a compression molding process and/or in order to ensure that the fibers are sufficiently entangled with polymers such as PTFE, as suggested by Shimoyama (see the paragraphs cited above).
Regarding claims 9-11, with regard to the claimed expandability properties in the thickness and length directions, the examiner notes that the structure and process of Shimoyama in view of Matsumoto discussed above is the same as or is substantially similar to that disclosed by applicant. Thus, it is the position of the Office that the composition of Shimoyama in view of Matsumoto would have the claimed properties as the same compound necessarily has the same properties. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to expect that the claimed properties would be so provided, as the reference teaches the same materials and processes as those claimed, and as the properties cannot be separated from the materials. Therefore, the molding material taught by Shimoyama in view of Matsumoto would have the claimed properties, absent an objective showing to the contrary. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Claim(s) 3 and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimoyama (JP2020172031A, attached), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kadokura (JP2012116916A, attached).
Regarding claim 3, Shimoyama remains as applied above.
Shimoyama does not explicitly disclose wherein an overall curvature of the discontinuous carbon fiber having the curved portion is 1 to 200%.
However, Kadokura teaches wherein when a straight line length between both ends of each fiber of the carbon fibers (B) in the molded article is defined as L1, a fiber length is defined as L2, and a ratio L2 / L1 thereof is defined as a tortuosity, a weight average of the tortuosity is 1.2 or more ([0010]). As calculated by the examiner, this would be equivalent to an overall curvature of 20% or more.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the carbon fibers with a tortuosity of 1.2 or more (i.e., an overall curvature of 20% or more) and with addition of a flame retardant in order to obtain a carbon fiber reinforced polypropylene resin molded article having excellent flame retardancy, as suggested by Kadokura.
Regarding claims 9-11, with regard to the claimed expandability properties in the thickness and length directions, the examiner notes that the structure and process of Shimoyama in view of Kadokura discussed above is the same as or is substantially similar to that disclosed by applicant. In this regard, Kadokura further teaches a twist count of the fiber bundle during the carbonization step being 16 turns/m or more ([0016]). Thus, it is the position of the Office that the composition of Shimoyama in view of Kadokura would have the claimed properties as the same compound necessarily has the same properties. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to expect that the claimed properties would be so provided, as the reference teaches the same materials and processes as those claimed, and as the properties cannot be separated from the materials. Therefore, the molding material taught by Shimoyama in view of Kadokura would have the claimed properties, absent an objective showing to the contrary. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claims 12-13, Kadokura teaches that the fiber length (L2) of the carbon fibers (B) in the molded article is not particularly limited, but the weight-average fiber length is preferably 0.4 to 2.0mm ([0046]). Shimoyama teaches that the average fiber length of the shortened fibers is preferably from 30 to 100mm ([0032]). As applied above, Kadokura teaches that when a straight line length between both ends of each fiber of the carbon fibers (B) in the molded article is defined as L1, a fiber length is defined as L2, and a ratio L2 / L1 thereof is defined as a tortuosity, a weight average of the tortuosity is 1.2 or more ([0010]). Therefore, as calculated by the examiner, L1 would overlap with the claim 12 range of 2 to 10 mm (the distance between two ends of the discontinuous carbon fiber having the curved portion). The average fiber diameter of the carbon fibers is not particularly limited, but is preferably in the range of 1 to 20 μm ([0031]). Therefore, as calculated by the examiner, the aspect ratio of the carbon fibers would also overlap with the aspect ratio range of 100 to 5,000 recited in claim 13.
Claim(s) 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimoyama (JP2020172031A, attached), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Okuda (EP 3763856 A1, attached).
Regarding claim 5, Shimoyama remains as applied above.
Shimoyama does not explicitly disclose wherein a wherein an undulation width of a fiber axis of the discontinuous carbon fiber having the curved portion within a range of a linear distance of 1 mm is 10 to 1,000 μm.
However, Okuda teaches a carbon fiber that includes single fibers having lengths of 10 cm or less, the fiber axis of each single fiber having an undulation width of 2.5 μm or more when a part thereof between two points with a straight-line distance of 1 mm is observed from a lateral direction (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the carbon fibers with an undulation width of 2.5 μm or more in order to obtain carbon fibers that exhibit excellent dispersibility in a process for molding and in a final article, as suggested by Okuda (see [0017], and the paragraphs cited above).
Regarding claim 13, Okuda teaches carbon fiber that includes single fibers having lengths of 10 cm or less (Abstract). The diameter of the single fibers is preferably 3.0 μm or more, more preferably 4.5 μm or more, still more preferably 6.1 μm or more, still more preferably 6.5 μm or more, and particularly preferably 6.9 μ, or more ([0029]).
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimoyama (JP2020172031A, attached), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Tennent et al. (US Patent No. 5,691,054).
Regarding claim 6, Shimoyama remains as applied above.
Shimoyama does not explicitly disclose wherein a bulk density of an assembly of the discontinuous reinforcing fiber remaining after the molding base material is heat-treated at 500°C for 3 hours in a nitrogen atmosphere is 0.005 g/cm3 or less.
However, Tennent teaches assemblages of randomly oriented carbon fibrils having a bulk density of from 0.001 to 0.50 gm/cc (col. 1, lines 10-19)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the carbon fibers as assemblages having a bulk density of from 0.001 to 0.50 gm/cc in order to provide reinforcements suitable for use in fiber-reinforced composite structures or hybrid composite structures, such as for use in catalyst supports, electrodes, chromatographic media, etc., as suggested by Tennent (col. 1, lines 10-19, col. 2, lines 5-16, and col. 5, lines 18-39).
Regarding claim 13, Tennent teaches wherein carbon fibrils generally have diameters no greater than 0.1 micron and length to diameter ratios of at least 5 (col. 1, lines 28-39).
Claim(s) 7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimoyama (JP2020172031A, attached), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of McCullough, Jr. et al. (US Patent No. 4,844,974).
Regarding claim 7, Shimoyama remains as applied above.
Shimoyama does not explicitly disclose 50 to 99% of the discontinuous carbon fiber having the curved portion, and further comprising 1 to 50% of a linear discontinuous reinforcing fiber.
However, McCullough, Jr. teaches a light weight, nonflammable structure in the form of a batting, fluff, web or the like, comprising of a multiplicity of heat set carbonaceous fibers, wherein said fibers are nonlinear and/or linear (col. 2, lines 42-48). McCullough, Jr. teaches that the greater the percentage of coil like fibers in the structure, the greater is the resiliency of the structure (col. 3, lines 30-36). A structure containing the greater amount of the coil like fibers than sinusoidal or linear fibers provides the more effective carrier against the spread of flame fronts (col. 3, lines 56-59).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the carbon fibers as a combination of linear and non-linear fibers, with the majority of the combination being non-linear fibers, in order to obtain resilient structures and or structures that are more effective against the spread of flame fronts, as suggested by McCullough, Jr. (see the paragraphs cited above).
Regarding claim 13, McCullough, Jr. teaches a diameter of 7-20 microns (col. 3, lines 11-16 and col. 5, lines 1-5). McCullough, Jr. also teaches an example of fibers ranging from 2.5 to 6.5 cm in length (see Example 1).
Claim(s) 8, 13 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimoyama (JP2020172031A, attached), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Narimatsu et al. (US 2014/0322504 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Shimoyama remains as applied above.
Shimoyama does not explicitly disclose wherein a contact point between the discontinuous reinforcing fibers is coated with a binder component, and a glass transition temperature of the binder component is lower than the melting point of the matrix resin.
However, Narimatsu teaches that, for easily producing a web with carbon short fibers dispersed in the form of monofilaments, the form of the carbon short fiber web is preferably a form of a nonwoven fabric which is obtained by a dry method or a wet method and in which short fibers are sufficiently opened and short fibers are bonded together with a binder resin formed of an organic compound ([0059]). Narimatsu also teaches a variety of possible binders ([0091]-[0092]). The examiner notes that some of the disclosed binders (e.g., polyethylene resins) would have lower melting points than the matrix resins taught by Shimoyama.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have bonded the carbon fibers together with a binder, such as a polyethylene resin, in order to easily produce a web with carbon short fibers, to improve handling characteristics and productivity of the carbon short fiber web, and/or to ensure that the network structure of carbon short fibers in the web is satisfactorily formed, as suggested by Shimoyama (see the paragraphs cited above).
Regarding claim 13, Narimatsu teaches short carbon fibers having an average fiber length of 2-12 mm (Abstract). Preferably the carbon short fibers in the carbon short fiber web have an average fiber diameter of 1 to 20 μm ([0034]).
Regarding claims 18-19, Narimatsu teaches a carbon fiber base which comprises a continuous-carbon fiber layer constituted of continuous carbon fibers and, disposed on one or each surface of the continuous-carbon-fiber layer, a carbon short-fiber web (Abstract).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimoyama (JP2020172031A, attached), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Takebe (EP 2982504 A1, attached).
Regarding claims 18-19, Shimoyama remains as applied above.
Shimoyama does not explicitly disclose a skin-core structure comprising: the porous material according to claim 16 as a core layer; and a skin layer disposed on at least one surface of the core layer.
However, Takebe teaches a sandwich laminate, comprising: as a layer for forming a core, a sheet-form intermediate substrate obtained by impregnating a mat composed of reinforcement fibers with a thermoplastic resin; and, as layers for forming a skin, sheet-form intermediate substrates each obtained by impregnating a mat composed of reinforcement fibers or continuous reinforcement fibers with a thermoplastic resin.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the fiber-reinforced composite material of Shimoyama as a core layer with a skin, sheet-form intermediate substrate obtained by impregnating a mat composed of reinforcement fibers or continuous reinforcement fibers in order to obtain integrally molded articles that are suitably used as a mounting member in such applications as automobile members, electric/electronic device housings and aircraft members, as suggested by the disclosure of Takebe (Abstract and [0011]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hirata et al. (US 9,505,928 B2) teaches a fiber reinforced thermoplastic resin molded article comprising carbon fibers that may be straight or curved (Abstract and col. 8, lines 9-15).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Worrell whose telephone number is (571)270-7728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-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, 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.
/Kevin Worrell/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights