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 § 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) 1–5 and 7–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroshi (JP 2012-021112 A) in view of Masahiko (JP 2014-133841 A).
Hiroshi teaches the formation of a prepreg, wherein the prepreg comprises a carbon fiber-reinforced composite material that include a matrix resin composition of epoxy resin, a polycarbonate resin, and a curing agent. Hiroshi abstract. The polycarbonate resin has a glass transition temperature of 80oC or higher. Id. The curing agent may comprise dicyandiamide. Id. Example 1. The matrix resin composition may preferably comprise 10–45 parts by weight of polycarbonate resin relative to 100 partis by mass of epoxy resin. Id. Description of Embodiments. The prepreg may comprise a resin composition content in the range of 15–60 weight percent. Id. As such, the prepreg also comprises 40–85 weight percent carbon fibers. Accordingly, the prepreg of Hiroshi has a mass ratio of the matrix resin composition relative to the mass of carbon fibers within the claimed range. The carbon fibers of the Hiroshi prepreg may be in the form of a unidirectional fabric, wherein the aligned fibers of the fabric are impregnated with the matrix resin composition. Id. Example 1. The prepreg may be formed by pressing the prepreg at a temperature of 150oC. Id.
Hiroshi fails to teach that the polycarbonate resin is an aliphatic polycarbonate resin.
Masahiko teaches the formation of a carbon fiber-reinforced polycarbonate-based prepreg high in resin impregnation, strength retention when exposed to high temperatures, and excellent in moldability. Masahiko abstract. The polycarbonate is preferably aliphatic and derived from a hydroxy compound and has a degree of biomass. Id. Technical Field. The dihydroxy compound is represented by the claimed structure of Formula (1) and specific examples of preferred dihydroxy compounds used to make the polycarbonate are 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol and tricyclodecanedimethanol based upon their light resistance. Id. Description of Embodiments.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have looked to Masahiko for guidance as to a suitable polycarbonate in order to successfully practice the invention of Hiroshi and provide the prepreg with light resistance. The polycarbonate resin of Masahiko is derived from a hydroxy compound containing a specific structure, such as isosorbide, which is a biomass resource with a high glass transition temperature, provides high resin impregnation into carbon fibers and retains strength at high temperatures. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected as obvious as it would be desirable to have the matrix resin composition to have a biomass degree of 5% or more as naturally-based resins have a lower carbon footprint and are renewable.
Claim(s) 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroshi and Masahiko as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of and Choi (US 2015/0166790 A1).
Hiroshi and Masahiko fail to teach the use of an imidazole compound as a curing agent.
Choi teaches the formation of an aliphatic polycarbonate and epoxy composition, wherein the composition further comprises an imidazole curing agent. Choi abstract, ¶¶ 6, 24, 45, 52.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected an imidazole-based compound as a curing agent for the combined teachings of Hiroshi and Masahiko motivated by the desire to select a curing agent that specifically used for aliphatic polycarbonate compositions.
Claim(s) 14–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroshi and Masahiko as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of and Choi (US 2015/0166790 A1).
Hiroshi teaches the formation of a prepreg, wherein the prepreg comprises a carbon fiber-reinforced composite material that include a matrix resin composition of epoxy resin, a polycarbonate resin, and a curing agent. Hiroshi abstract. The polycarbonate resin has a glass transition temperature of 80oC or higher. Id. The curing agent may comprise dicyandiamide. Id. Example 1. The matrix resin composition may preferably comprise 10–45 parts by weight of polycarbonate resin relative to 100 partis by mass of epoxy resin. Id. Description of Embodiments. The prepreg may comprise a resin composition content in the range of 15–60 weight percent. Id. As such, the prepreg also comprises 40–85 weight percent carbon fibers. Accordingly, the prepreg of Hiroshi has a mass ratio of the matrix resin composition relative to the mass of carbon fibers within the claimed range. The carbon fibers of the Hiroshi prepreg may be in the form of a unidirectional fabric, wherein the aligned fibers of the fabric are impregnated with the matrix resin composition. Id. Example 1. The prepreg may be formed by pressing the prepreg at a temperature of 150oC. Id.
Hiroshi fails to teach that the polycarbonate resin includes a structural unit derived from a dihydroxy compound represented by Formula (1).
Masahiko teaches the formation of a carbon fiber-reinforced polycarbonate-based prepreg high in resin impregnation, strength retention when exposed to high temperatures, and excellent in moldability. Masahiko abstract. The polycarbonate is preferably aliphatic and derived from a hydroxy compound and has a degree of biomass. Id. Technical Field. The dihydroxy compound is represented by the claimed structure of Formula (1) and specific examples of preferred dihydroxy compounds used to make the polycarbonate are 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol and tricyclodecanedimethanol based upon their light resistance. Id. Description of Embodiments.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have looked to Masahiko for guidance as to a suitable polycarbonate in order to successfully practice the invention of Hiroshi and provide the prepreg with light resistance.
Hiroshi and Masahiko fail to teach the use of an imidazole compound as a curing agent.
Choi teaches the formation of an aliphatic polycarbonate and epoxy composition, wherein the composition further comprises an imidazole curing agent. Choi abstract, ¶¶ 6, 24, 45, 52.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected an imidazole-based compound as a curing agent for the combined teachings of Hiroshi and Masahiko motivated by the desire to select a curing agent that specifically used for aliphatic polycarbonate compositions.
The polycarbonate resin of Masahiko is derived from a hydroxy compound containing a specific structure, such as isosorbide, which is a biomass resource with a high glass transition temperature, provides high resin impregnation into carbon fibers and retains strength at high temperatures. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected as obvious as it would be desirable to have the matrix resin composition to have a biomass degree of 5% or more as naturally-based resins have a lower carbon footprint and are renewable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D MATZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-5732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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.
/MATTHEW D MATZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights