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 § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (CN 106947251).
Wu ‘251 is directed to a low dielectric polymer composite material and its preparation method and application (Title). The preparation method of the composite material comprises: (1) the polyimide porous microsphere and fully mixing the cyanate resin as base material, the polyimide fibre fabric dipped in the prepreg base material, (2) the polyimide fibre prepreg in step (1), executing temperature rising program is solidified (ABST).
Wu ‘251 teaches the purpose of the invention is to produce a low dielectric polyimide fiber/cyanate ester transparent composite material with low dielectric constant and dielectric loss and excellent mechanical property and heat resistance (page 2 of machine translation).
Wu ‘251 the tensile strength of said low dielectric polyimide fibre is 2.0-3.5GPa, preferably 80-150GPa is 2.0-3.0GPa; the tensile modulus for low dielectric polyimide fibre, preferably 80-120GPa; the elongation at break of the polyimide fibre with low dielectric is greater than 2.0%, preferably greater than 2.5%, vitrification temperature of said low dielectric polyimide fibre is more than 300 ℃, the low dielectric polyimide fibre 5wt of the thermal decomposition temperature is greater than 500 ℃;
Wu teaches the diameter of the monofilament of the low dielectric polyimide fibre is 5-15 microns which overlaps the claimed range of 10-18 microns (page 3, paragraph 3).
Wu ‘251 teaches the cyanate ester resin and polyimide porous microspheres of base content is 30-40 volume %, the content of said low dielectric polyimide fibre is 60-70 volume % (page 3, para 4) which overlaps the claimed range.
Wu ‘251 differs and does not measure the damping loss factor. As Wu ‘ 251 teaches the same materials and structure as claimed, it is reasonable to presume that the property is inherent to Wu ‘251. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
As to claims 1 and 15, Wu ‘251 teaches an a cyanurate ester or epoxy matrix and therefore exclude rubber matrix.
Wu ‘251 teaches the ranges overlap and In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claims 2, 3, 9, 16 and 17, Wu teaches polyimide fibre is a high performance organic fibre model appearing in recent years, not only has a dielectric constant (3.2-3.5) and dielectric loss (0.005-0.008) close to the quartz fibre. Wu ‘251 teaches the polyimide fiber as more excellent mechanical properties (tensile strength of larger than 3.0GPa MPa, the tensile modulus is bigger than 100GPa, the elongation ratio is bigger than 3%) and using it as the fibre reinforced body and cyanate resin preparing wave-transmission composite material will further improve the overall performance of the antenna cover material (page 3, para 2).
With regard to claim 9, Wu does not teach the direction of the tensile strength, however as tensile strength is measured in the fiber orientation direction and therefore meets the claim limitation.
With regard to claims 10 and 18, Wu ‘251 teaches the synthesizing the biphenyl polyimide of dianhydride monomer is biphenyltetracarboxlic dianhydride (BPDA), the diamine monomer is N1 - (4 phenyl) -N1-(1-pyrenyls) -1, 4-phenylene diamine (APBDA) and 1, 1 [4 - (4) - phenyl] -4 - phenyl-cyclohexane (BAPPC) pyrene ring structure-containing diamine (APBDA) and phenyl cyclohexane diamine structure (BAPPC) introduced can effectively increase the space steric hindrance between the molecular chain increase the free volume of the fibre, so as to reduce the dielectric constant and dielectric loss, and dianhydride monomer selected of biphenyltetracarboxylic dianhydride (BPDA), to ensure the mechanical property and temperature resistant performance of fibre, wherein, quantity of total substance of the three monomers, the dianhydride monomers (BPDA) and dosage of each of the diamine monomer (APBDA + BAPPC) is 50%, wherein the APBDA dosage is 20-40 %, preferably is 30-35 %, the dosage of the BAPPC is 10-30 %; preferably 15 to -20% (page 3).
As to claim 11, Wu teaches a prepreg which is a fiber reinforced product.
As to claims 12-14, Wu ‘251 teaches the composite material is used as an antenna cover material or radar antenna cover which includes a use of video device or transportation device such as robotic arm, drone or radio controlled device. Wherein Wu ‘251 does not teach uses for tennis racket or ice hockey sticks, the claims are directed to the intended use and the intended use does not distinguish the composite from prior art as Wu ‘251 is capable of forming a cover for an alternate use other than antenna covers.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (CN 106947251) in view of Thunhorst et al (US 20120309870).
As to claim 13, Wu ‘ 251 does not explicitly teach the composite material is used for tennis, badminton, squash rackets or ice hockey sticks or sports bikes.
Thunhorst is directed to a resin system comprising dispersed multimodal surface modified nanoparticles. The resin system can contain fibers such as polyimide fibers [0070]. The fibrous composites can be used for sporting goods such as rackets, hockey sticks and vehicle parts [0068].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a polyimide fiber resin composite in a sporting article such as a racket or hockey stick.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamada et al (JP H05140337) is directed to a polyimide fiber for matrix resin for molding (Title). The polyimide fiber of the present invention obtained by spinning or further drawing as described above has a single fiber denier of 1 to 4 when used as a multifilament. Which is equivalent to 10-20 micron at a density of 1.37.
Wu et al (CN 106120304) is directed to a continuous processing method of polyimide fibre (Title). Wu teaches that due to the chemical structure of polyimide and spinning technique of reason, surface rendering inert, poor wettability with the matrix resin, it reduces the performance of the composite material. Wu teaches improving the wettability of the polyimide fiber and resin matrix by surface processing of the fiber.
The prepared fiber volume in the matrix resin or epoxy resin is 30-60 volume %.
The polyimide fiber is preferably high-performance polyimide fibers tensile strength is greater than 1.5Gpa, the tensile modulus greater than 60Gpa psi, elongation at break of greater than 1%, a dielectric constant less than 4, dielectric loss is 10-3 order of magnitude; limiting oxygen index (LOI) of high-performance polyimide fibre is 38 %-70 %, the conductivity is less than 0.4W/ W/ (m K), specific heat capacity is greater than 1J//(kg K).
Meure et al (US 20160089853) is directed to a filament composite structure made from resin such as epoxies and cyanate esters [0036] and polyimide fibers [0041].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A STEELE whose telephone number is (571)272-7115. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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.
/JENNIFER A STEELE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights