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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 6447127 Takebe et al (cited by US 2021/0291487 Takebe et al).
Regarding claim 1, Takebe teaches a member for an electronic device housing (paragraph 0027) comprising:
a plate-like component 29 having a fiber-reinforced plastic A and a thermoplastic resin component B (paragraph 0061) integrated with at least a part of a peripheral edge region of the plate-like component (figure 5),
wherein the thermoplastic resin component contains reinforcing fibers A and a thermoplastic resin D (paragraph 0061), a part of the reinforcing fibers A are dispersed as single fibers, and another part of the reinforcing fibers A are not dispersed as single fibers and are arranged randomly (paragraph 0073 and figure 6) in a shape of a convergence part E formed from a plurality of single fibers (paragraphs 0073 and 0074).
Regarding claim 2, Takebe teaches that a content of the reinforcing fibers A in the thermoplastic resin component is 10 to 40% by volume (paragraph 0091). Takebe does not teach the fiber amount by mass. However, Takebe does teach that the fibers and resin may be the same material (paragraphs 0088 and 0089). When the fibers and resin are the same material, the volume% would be the same as the mass%. Therefore, in this case, the taught 10-40 vol% would be 10-40 wt%.
Regarding claim 3, Takebe teaches that a resin H different from the thermoplastic resin D is attached to surfaces of the single fibers forming the convergence part E (figure 1) at an amount of 0.1 to 30% by mass with respect to 100% by mass (figure 1, where while the figures may not be to scale, the figures show the envisioned structure and arrangement of the elements in the claim) of the reinforcing fibers A contained in the convergence part E (paragraph 0073 and 0074).
Regarding claim 4, Takebe teaches that the fiber diameter of the single fibers in the reinforcing fibers A in the thermoplastic resin component is 7 µm (paragraph 0146). Please note that while “average” is not explicitly stated, it is reasonable to expect that when a single value is disclosed, this value is the average, as a significant or desired variation would be disclosed.
Regarding claim 5, Takebe teaches that the plate-like component is a sandwich structural body comprising a core material B and a fiber-reinforced plastic A (paragraph 0061) joined to both surfaces of the core material (figure 6).
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.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 6447127 Takebe et al (cited by US 2021/0291487 Takebe et al).
Regarding claim 6, Takebe teaches that the reinforcing fibers A contain two kinds of reinforcing fibers B and reinforcing fibers C different from each other (paragraph 0088 disclosing the mixing of two types of fibers),
the reinforcing fibers B do not form the convergence part E, a part of the reinforcing fibers C disperse as single fibers, and another part of the reinforcing fibers C form the convergence part E (paragraph 0073 and 0074, where both fiber materials may be present in both single fibers and fiber bundles and “the convergence part E” refers to a single fiber bundle that may be made of fiber C).
Takebe does not disclose that the fibers have different fiber diameters. However, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (MPEP 2144.04 Section IV Part A). Therefore, without a showing of criticality, the claimed diameters do not impart patentability to the claims.
Regarding claim 7, Takebe teaches fibers B and C but does not teach the mass ratio. Takebe does, however, teach that the fibers provide different properties to the product such as weight-reducing, economical efficiency, dynamic properties, shock-absorbing and shaping properties and electroconductivity, to name a few. Therefore, it would have been obvious to choose the particular fiber materials and ratio to achieve the desired properties and property balance for the final product.
Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific mass ratio is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the physical and optical characteristics are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the method, the precise ratio would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed ratio cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the mass ratio of the reinforcing fibers B to C to obtain the desired physical characteristic (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). See MPEP 2144.05 Section II.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Megha M Gaitonde whose telephone number is (571)270-3598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am to 5 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, 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.
/MEGHA M GAITONDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights