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 Group I, in the reply filed on July 27, 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 16-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Pub. No. 2016/0303824 to Takebe in view of USPN 8,158,245 to Pratte.
Regarding claims 1, 3-7, and 9-15, Takebe teaches a sandwich laminate, including as a layer forming a core, a sheet-form intermediate substrate obtained by impregnating a mat composed of reinforcement fibers with a thermoplastic resin, and, as layers forming a skin, sheet-form intermediate substrates obtained by impregnating a mat composed of reinforcement fibers or continuous reinforcement fibers with a thermoplastic resin (Takebe, Abstract). Takebe teaches that the core layer contains voids (Id., paragraphs 0028-0049, 0183, Fig. 6). Takebe teaches that the reinforcement fibers and continuous reinforcement fibers are preferably carbon fibers, as carbon have excellent specific strength and specific rigidity (Id., paragraph 0079).
Regarding the claimed melting points, Takebe teaches that the thermoplastic resins may each be composed of resins including polyether ether ketone and polyether ketone ketone, wherein polyether ether ketone is preferably used from the standpoint of continuous use temperature (Takebe, paragraph 0080). Takebe does not appear to teach the claimed melting point difference and the resins claimed in the layers. However, Pratte teaches a similar fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite having a core composite layer including a fibrous substrate and one or more high performance polymer, and a resin-rich surface layer polymer applied to at least one surface of the core composite layer in the form of a bi-layer or tri-layer composite (Pratte, Abstract, column 5 line 64 to column 6 line 30, Fig. 1). Pratte teaches that the melting temperature (Tm) and Tprocess of the surface layer polymer is at least 10ºC less than the Tm and Tprocess of the high performance polymer of the core composite layer (Id., column 4 lines 32-61). Pratte teaches that the reinforcement fibers include carbon fibers (Id., column 5 line 64 to column 6 line 51). Pratte teaches that the high performance polymer has a melting temperature greater than or equal to 280ºC and is chosen from polymers including polyaryletherketones (PAEK) and PAEK blends, such as polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and polyetherketoneketone (PEKK) (Id., column 6 line 53 to column 7 line 53). Pratte teaches manipulating the synthesis to lower the melt temperature (Id.). Pratte teaches that the surface polymer is at least 20ºC less than the melting temperature of the high performance polymer, wherein the surface layer includes PAEK chosen from a blended PEEK or PEKK (Id., column 8 lines 1-40). Pratte teaches that the surface layer may include fiber veils (Id., column 8 line 58 to column 9 line 4). Pratte teaches that the resin-rich layer provides improved wetting and bonding of in-situ placed thermoplastic composite materials at higher lay-down speed than is possible with a typical thermoplastic prepreg composite material (Id., column 5 line 64 to column 6 line 30, column 9 lines 6-29). Pratte teaches that the lower processing temperature polymers allow for the surface coating of the lower processing temperature polymer to be melted, fused and surface smoothed to the core matrix, and provides stiffness and good impact resistance (Id., column 9 lines 6-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the fiber-reinforced laminate of Takebe, wherein the thermoplastic polymers in the core and the skin comprise polyarylether ketone comprising melting points and melting point differences, such as within the claimed ranges, as taught and suggested by Pratte, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional fiber-reinforced laminate comprising thermoplastic polymer layers known in the art to predictably provide improved wetting and bonding of in-situ placed thermoplastic composite materials at higher lay-down speed, and improved properties.
Regarding claim 3, since the prior art combination teaches similar polyarylether ketones as set forth in Applicants’ specification, including melting temperatures within the claimed range, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the claimed property naturally flows from the invention of the prior art combination. Products of identical structure cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claim 6, as set forth above and shown at at least Figs. 5 and 6 of Takebe, , the skin layer and core layer have a boundary interface.
Regarding claim 7, Takebe teaches use of the laminate in a wide range of applications including automobile interior and exteriors, and aircraft interior materials (Takebe, paragraph 0213) Takebe does not appear to teach the claimed thickness ratio. However, Pratte teaches a similar composite comprising a surface layer having a thickness of 1 to 20 microns, and a total thickness of the composite ranging from 25 to 400 microns (Pratte, column 9 lines 5-29). Pratte teaches that the thermoplastic composites may be formed into various articles including aircraft floor panels (Id., column 9 lines 53-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the fiber-reinforced laminate of Takebe, and adjusting and varying the thickness of the layers thereby resulting in the claimed thickness ratio, as taught and suggested by Pratte, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional fiber-reinforced laminate having thicknesses known in the art as being predictably suitable for similar sandwiched composites.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the prior art combination teaches that the fibers may be in the form of continuous reinforcement fiber or in the form of discontinuous reinforcement fibers having an average length of 1 to 25 mm (Takebe, paragraphs 0074-0075).
Regarding claim 11, the prior art combination teaches that the reinforcement fibers and continuous reinforcement fibers are preferably carbon fibers.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art combination teaches a sheet layer with unidirectional fibers (Takebe, paragraphs 0152-0153, Examples 10 and 28).
Regarding claim 13, the prior art combination teaches a sandwich laminate.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the prior art combination does not appear to teach the claimed bent portion. However, the prior art combination teaches a sandwich structure that can be easily molded, and used in a wide range of applications including automobile interiors, casings, structural materials of bicycles and sporting goods, aircraft interior materials and the like (Takebe, paragraph 0213).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the fiber-reinforced laminate of the prior art combination, and including a bent portion in the skin layer, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional fiber-reinforced laminate which is molded into a desirable shape based on the intended application.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Takebe in view of Pratte, as applied to claims 1, 3-7, and 9-15 above, and further in view of JP 2002-067070 to Tanisugi, as evidenced by the machine translation.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art combination does not appear to teach the claimed average surface roughness. However, Tanisugi teaches a molded article of a fiber reinforced plastic being excellent in mechanical characteristics of strength and rigidity, having a smooth surface free of indentation and exposure of fibers (Tanisugi, Abstract). Tanisugi teaches that the arithmetic mean roughness (Ra) of the surface of the molded article based on JIS B 0601 is 2µm or below (Id.). Tanisugi teaches that the fiber-reinforced plastic molded article is composed of a core layer and a skin layer, wherein the core layer and skin layer are made of a matrix resin containing reinforcing fibers made of carbon fibers, and the matrix resin should be a thermoplastic resin such as polyetherether ketone (Id., paragraphs 0018-0019). Tanisugi teaches that when Ra is within the above range, the surface of the molded product becomes smooth, and can be painted (Id., paragraphs 0024, 0028).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the fiber-reinforced laminate of the prior art combination, wherein the surface comprises an average surface roughness, as taught by Tanisugi, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional fiber-reinforced laminate having a smooth surface known in the art as being predictably suitable for painting and for the desired aesthetics.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Takebe in view of Pratte, as applied to claims 1, 3-7, and 9-15 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2020/0055276 to Katsuya.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art combination teaches that the core layer contains voids. The prior art combination does not appear to teach the claimed void fraction. However, Katsuya teaches a multilayer composite including at least one core layer and at least one skin layer, wherein the core layer includes discontinuous reinforcing fibers and a first thermoplastic resin, and the skin layer is a composite including continuous reinforcing fibers and a second thermoplastic resin (Katsuya, Abstract). Katsuya teaches that the multilayer composite has a void content in a range from 20 to 80%, wherein the core layer has a void content twice or more as high as that of the skin layer (Id., paragraphs 0022-0024). Katsuya teaches that if the void content is too low, the composite may not be sufficiently lightweight, and that if the void content is too high, the composite may have insufficient physical characteristics (Id., paragraphs 0103-0106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the fiber-reinforced laminate of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the void content of the core, such as within the claimed range, as taught by Katsuya, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional fiber-reinforced laminate having a void content known in the art to predictably provide properties including weight and physical characteristics suitable for the intended application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
