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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 06/03/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups I and II do not relate to a single inventive concept and they lack the same or corresponding technical feature. Applicant’s reasoning is in error, a 371 (PCT) restriction was not made, the restriction was made under US practice. As such, the arguments dealing with lack of unity are not found persuasive.
Applicant’s second argument is that reasoning was not provided. This is also incorrect, as set forth in the requirement it was stated that the prepreg could be made by another method other than molding such as first laying up the wovens or reinforcing fibers on a release film or peel ply. Then the lay-up is placed in a vacuum bag with a vacuum pump and breather cloth. The edges are sealed and vacuumed to remove air pockets. The vacuum bagged part in an oven or hot press set to the resin's cure temperature. The heat activates the resin, and the vacuum helps consolidate the plies and reduce voids. After initial cure, the composite can be debulked (remove excess resin) by heating and pressing to squeeze out trapped resin. Once cured, trim the excess material and finish the surface. As such, the arguments dealing with lack of unity are not found persuasive.
Applicant’s last traversal on the restriction requirement is that that there would be a serious burden on the Examiner if restriction were not required. This is not found to be persuasive because: Applicant’s traversal arguing that no serious burden exists for examining Groups I and II together; The Office contends that an Examiner generally maintains a restriction requirement by focusing on the separate classification and divergent fields of search. As stated in the restriction requirement the groups are classified in different subclasses, or represent different statuses in the art, which constitutes prima facie showing of a serious burden. The prepreg would be classified in B32B while the method claims would be in B29C in various subclasses. To properly examine both Groups I and II, they would need to look in different areas, requiring different search queries and strategies, which exceeds the scope of a single, efficient examination. While a thorough search can span multiple classes, the MPEP requires that restriction is proper when the inventions are distinct and searching them together is burdensome.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) or (a2) as being anticipated by CN 113715449 issued to Yaoshan et al.
Regarding Claim 1, where Applicant seeks a prepreg comprising: a carbon fiber base material; and a thermoplastic resin with which the carbon fiber base material is impregnated, wherein the thermoplastic resin comprises a vinyl alcohol-based polymer, and the vinyl alcohol-based polymer comprises an ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer; Applicant is directed to the teachings of Yaoshan et al., who teach making a high-barrier thermoplastic unidirectional prepreg tapes, which is characterized in that the high-barrier thermoplastic unidirectional prepreg tape has a three-layer structure, the upper and lower layers are both multilayer thermoplastic composite barrier films, and the middle layer is continuous fiber reinforced thermoplastic unidirectional prepreg. At ¶ 15, the instant reference teaches that the continuous fiber can be glass fibers, carbon fibers, aramid fibers and the like. At ¶ 16, the instant reference teaches that the thermoplastic resin can comprise polypropylene-PP, nylon-PA, polyester resin-PET, polycarbonate-PC, polyphenylene sulfide-PPS, polyetherimide-PEI, polyetheretherketone-PEEK, polyvinylidene chloride-PVDC, ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer-EVOH and high-density polyethylene-HDPE.
Regarding Claim 2, where Applicant seeks that the prepreg according to claim 1, wherein the thermoplastic resin further comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a polyamide resin, a polyolefin resin, a polyester resin, and a polystyrene resin; Applicant is directed to ¶ 16 and example 2 or 3, the instant reference teaches that the thermoplastic resin can comprise polypropylene-PP, nylon-PA, polyester resin-PET, polycarbonate-PC, polyphenylene sulfide-PPS, polyetherimide-PEI, polyetheretherketone-PEEK, polyvinylidene chloride-PVDC, ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer-EVOH and high-density polyethylene-HDPE.
Regarding Claim 3, where Applicant seeks that the prepreg according to claim 2, wherein the thermoplastic resin further comprises the polyamide resin; Applicant is directed to ¶ 16 and example 2 or 3, the instant reference teaches that the thermoplastic resin can comprise polypropylene-PP, nylon-PA, polyester resin-PET, polycarbonate-PC, polyphenylene sulfide-PPS, polyetherimide-PEI, polyetheretherketone-PEEK, polyvinylidene chloride-PVDC, ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer-EVOH and high-density polyethylene-HDPE.
Regarding Claim 10, where Applicant seeks that the prepreg according to claim 1, wherein the carbon fiber base material comprises a sheet in which carbon fibers are aligned in one direction; Applicant is directed to ¶ 15, the instant reference teaches that the continuous fiber can be glass fibers, carbon fibers, aramid fibers and the like. The working examples show that the alignment of the fibers are in a parallel direction.
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.
Claim(s) 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 113715449 issued to Yaoshan et al.
Regarding Claim 4, where Applicant seeks that the prepreg according to claim 3, wherein the polyamide resin comprises polyamide 6; Yaoshan et al. teach what is set forth above but do not explicitly teach the use of PA-6. Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific choice using polyamide 6. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have considered polyamide 6 as one of the possibilities of polyamides to be used in a prepreg. One would have been motivated to choose polyamide 6, as PA6 has a strong hydrogen-bonded amide backbone, giving it high tensile strength, abrasion resistance, and impact toughness and in prepregs, this translates to composites that can withstand mechanical loads and wear without cracking or delaminating.
Regarding Claim 5, where Applicant seeks that the prepreg according to claim 4, wherein a contained amount of the polyamide 6 is 50% to 95% by mass with respect to a total mass of the thermoplastic resin; While there is no explicit disclosure of amount of the polyamide 6 is 50% to 95% by mass with respect to a total mass of the thermoplastic resin and since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific amount of the polyamide 6 polymer is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the amount or percentage is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of the polyamide 6 polymer, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of the polymer in Yaoshan et al. (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). It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, would be deemed through routine experimentation and as such is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. See also KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding Claim 6, where Applicant seeks that the prepreg according to claim 3, wherein a ratio of a mass of the vinyl alcohol-based polymer to a mass of the polyamide resin is 5% to 55% by mass; While there is no explicit disclosure of ratio of a mass of the vinyl alcohol-based polymer to a mass of the polyamide resin is 5% to 55% by mass and since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific amounts and/or the ratio of a mass of the vinyl alcohol-based polymer to a mass of the polyamide resin is 5% to 55% by mass is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the amount or percentage is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of the either polymer, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of the polymers in Yaoshan et al. (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). It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, would be deemed through routine experimentation and as such is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. See also KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding Claim 7, where Applicant seeks that the prepreg according to claim 1, wherein a contained amount of the vinyl alcohol-based polymer is 5% to 40% by mass with respect to the total mass of the thermoplastic resin; While there is no explicit disclosure of the amount of the vinyl alcohol-based polymer is 5% to 40% by mass with respect to the total mass of the thermoplastic resin and since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific amounts and/or the ratio of the amount of the vinyl alcohol-based polymer is 5% to 40% by mass with respect to the total mass of the thermoplastic resin is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the amount or percentage is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of the either polymer, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of the polymers in Yaoshan et al. (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). It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, would be deemed through routine experimentation and as such is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. See also KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding Claim 8, where Applicant seeks that the prepreg according to claim 1, wherein a contained amount of an ethylene structural unit is 25% to 50% by mole with respect to a total number of moles of structural units constituting the ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer; While there is no explicit disclosure of the amount of an ethylene structural unit is 25% to 50% by mole with respect to a total number of moles of structural units constituting the ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer and since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific amounts the ethylene structural unit is 25% to 50% by mole with respect to a total number of moles of structural units constituting the ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the amount or percentage is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of the either polymer, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of the polymers in Yaoshan et al. (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). It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, would be deemed through routine experimentation and as such is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. See also KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding Claim 9, where Applicant seeks that the prepreg according to claim 1, wherein a proportion of the carbon fiber base material in the prepreg is 40% to 80% by volume; While there is no explicit disclosure of the amount of the proportion of the carbon fiber base material in the prepreg is 40% to 80% by volume and since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific proportion of the carbon fiber base material in the prepreg is 40% to 80% by volume with respect to the total mass of the thermoplastic resin is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the amount or percentage is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of the either polymer, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of the polymers in Yaoshan et al. (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). It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, would be deemed through routine experimentation and as such is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. See also KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 113715449 issued to Yaoshan et al. in view of JP 2006316934A issued to Kuroiwa et al.
Regarding Claim 11, where Applicant seeks that a pressure container molded from the prepreg according to claim 1; Yaoshan teaches what it set forth above but does not explicitly disclose what the prepreg is molded into to.
Kuroiwa et al teach using carbon fiber reinforced prepregs as liner in a high pressure gas storage vessel storing high pressure gas. A skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the prepreg of Yaoshan as the prepreg liner of Kuroiwa et al. one would have been motivated to do for the added strength as taught by Kuroiwa et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO202415800 issued to Suzuki teaches fiber-reinforced ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer sheet having continuous fibers. The continuous fibers are oriented in an MD. The continuous fibers are at least one selected from the group consisting of carbon fibers, glass fibers, aramid fibers, wholly aromatic polyester fibers, ceramic fibers, and metal fibers. They also teach a pressure container molded from the prepreg. Suzuki also teach the weight percentages. This reference doesn’t antedate Applicant’s priority date.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arti Singh-Pandey whose telephone number is (571)272-1483. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00 and 8:00-10:00.
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, Melvin Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/Arti Singh-Pandey/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1759
asp
Prosecution Insights