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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
748In 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, 2, 5-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shirahase et al. (JP 2020-023691, JPlatPat English translation, attached).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 10, Shirahase teaches a carbon fiber composite comprising layers of carbon fiber sheets which further comprise carbon fiber bundles oriented in parallel (Shirahase para 8, 55) with layer(s) of porous resin in the form of a non-woven layer of polyamide between layers of carbon fiber (Shirahase para 15-17) where the non-woven may be made by melt-blowing with a fiber diameter of 10-60 µm (Shirahase para 16) impregnated with an epoxy (Shirahase para 26-42). Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity, see MPEP 2131.03. Further, as these are the same materials as claimed, they would be expected to possess the same properties as claimed, such as a thickness direction volume resistivity of 0.05-10 Ω∙m, thickness direction conductivity of 1-40 S/m, a thickness direction opening rate of 60-95%, and openings in the porous resin sheet with diameters of 2-5 mm at intervals of 25 mm or less. 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), see MPEP 2112.01.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirahase as applied to claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 8, Shirahase teaches a carbon fiber composite as above for claim 1. Shirahase further teaches that the carbon fiber bundles contain the porous resin in an amount of 1-20% by weight of the carbon fiber bundles (Shirahase para 18). One of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the weight % taught by Shirahase overlaps with the instantly claimed weight % and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, see MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirahase as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kibayashi et al. (US 2012/0123053).
Regarding claim 4, Shirahase teaches a carbon fiber composite as above for claim 1. Shirahase further teaches that the carbon fibers formed from PAN are present in bundles of 12000-24000 filament with a tensile strength (average strand strength) of 6.0 GPa (Shirahase para 55-56, 87). ). Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity, see MPEP 2131.03.
Shirahase is silent with respect to the diameter of the carbon fiber filaments.
Shirahase and Kibayashi are related in the field of carbon fiber reinforced plastic composite laminates.
Kibayashi teaches that PAN carbon fibers may come in filament bundles of 1000-48000 with a strand strength of 5.0 GPa or greater, and a diameter of 3-8 µm from a perspective of preventing single filament breakage during production (Kibayashi para 53-54). It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select PAN carbon fibers with a filament diameter of 3-8 µm as taught by Kibayashi as the carbon fibers of Shirahase because filaments with this thickness resist single filament breakage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach that the resin layer comprise regions of differing epoxy thickness, and particularly does not teach regions of differing epoxy thickness where one region is 10 µm or greater and the other is 10 µm or less. Additionally, and separately, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest that the ‘narrowed’ thinner region of epoxy is 10-50% the full width of the resin layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA B FIGG whose telephone number is (571)272-9882. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9a-6p Mountain.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/LAURA B FIGG/Examiner, Art Unit 1781 6/27/26
Prosecution Insights