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 Interpretation
Claim 4 cites a method for opening fiber bundles is ‘stroking with a round stick’. It is uncertain why this language was used, because a ‘stick’ is commonly defined as a thin piece of wood fallen or cut from a tree. A stick has an unfinished surface, and each is uniquely shaped.
The instant specification does not define the phrase, but directs to prior art – “for example, see JP01-282362A” [0015]; however, JP01-282362A teaches fiber bundles are “opened while sequentially coming into contact with two or more round bars 2 which are arranged by a comb 4 and vibrated in the axial direction by ultrasonic waves”.
If a stick is rounded (into a cylinder) by machining, it should be referred to as a rod or bar.
The claim 4 method step for opening fiber bundles of ‘stroking with a round stick’ will be interpreted by the Examiner as ‘contacting and directing the bundle across a rod or bar’ to open the bundle.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: dissimilar claim language.
On lines 9 & 12, the term ‘them’ is used. It is understood by the Examiner that ‘them’ refers to ‘two or more prepregs’ in both instances.
For clarity, ‘them’ should be replaced by ‘two or more prepregs’ in lines 9 & 12.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claims 1 & 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Fujiura (CN107614579A). Claim elements are presented in italics.
1. A method for producing a prepreg, comprising the following steps: (1) an opening step of opening glass fiber bundles to form plural glass fiber filaments, and (2) a step of aligning the plural glass fiber filaments formed in the previous opening step, on a thermosetting resin composition-coated surface of a carrier material so as to make the filaments run nearly parallel to each other in one direction thereon to form a prepreg.
With respect to claim 1, the prior art of Fujiura teaches a method for producing a prepreg, comprising the following steps: (1) an opening step of opening glass fiber bundles [P. 13, ¶ 10-11] to form plural glass fiber filaments [P. 9, ¶ 2-4]. Fujiura teaches (2) a step of aligning the plural glass fiber filaments formed in the previous opening step, on a thermosetting resin [P. 8, ¶ 4, 8] composition-coated surface of a carrier material to make the filaments run nearly parallel to each other in one direction thereon to form a prepreg [Claim 1].
3. The method for producing a prepreg according to claim 1, wherein the thermosetting resin composition does not contain elastomer.
With respect to claim 3, Fujiura teaches the thermosetting resin composition embodiment [P. 8, ¶ 8-9], which does not contain elastomer.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 2 & 4-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiura (CN107614579A). Claim elements are presented in italics.
2. The method for producing a prepreg according to claim 1, wherein the prepreg does not contain a glass fiber bundle of 50 or more glass fiber filaments bundled, or contains such glass fiber bundles, but the content thereof is 10% by volume or less relative to the total amount of the glass fibers in the prepreg.
With respect to claim 2, Fujira teaches a single bundle can be used for making the prepreg, and a tow as small as 12,000 filaments can be used [P. 9, ¶ 3].
Fujiura is silent on whether the prepreg contains bundles of 50 or more glass fiber filaments after the splitting/opening step.
However, Fujiura teaches selecting the number of splitting rollers / guide rods [P. 9, ¶ 5], fiber tension [P. 9, ¶ 5-7], and travel rate [P. 9, ¶ 8] for the optimal dispersion degree and orientation of the fibers [P. 9, ¶ 3, 5-7]. Fujiura teaches fiber orientation can range from over 0.8 up to 1 [P. 7, ¶ 2], which approaches full splitting of the bundle. Fujiura teaches the prepreg fibers are ‘oriented along one direction’ [P. 13, ¶ 8; Claim 1]. Fujiura teaches the prepreg is conductive in the direction of the fibers, but there is no conductivity in the other direction [P. 13, ¶ 5].
Fujiura is also silent on any non-separated or bundled fibers present in the prepreg product.
Based on these teachings of Fujiura, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that the prepreg may not contain a glass fiber bundle of 50 or more glass fiber filaments bundled, or contain such glass fiber bundles, but the content thereof is 10% by volume or less relative to the total amount of the glass fibers in the prepreg.
4. The method for producing a prepreg according to claim 1, wherein the opening step comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of (a) a method of stroking with a round stick, (b) a method of giving vibration, and (c) a method of applying a fluid.
With respect to claim 4, Fujiura prima facie obviously teaches the opening step comprises (a) a method of stroking with a round stick, as Fujiura teaches the opening step runs the bundle across a rotating splitting roller and guide rods [P. 9, ¶ 2, 5].
5. The method for producing a prepreg according to claim 1, wherein an opening magnification, which is an index that indicates how much the glass fiber bundles are opened, is 1.2 to 5.0 times.
With respect to claim 5, Fujiura teaches a fractal dimension, or dispersion degree (D) [P. 15, ¶ 4-5; P. 6, ¶ 9 – P. 7, ¶ 1]; (Figs. 3A-3C)], which is understood by the Examiner to be equivalent to an index that indicates how much the glass fiber bundles are opened, and ranges between 0.4 and 1.5.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists that Fujiura teaches the claim 5 opening magnification range, as the Fujiura dispersion degree range of between 0.4 and 1.5 partially overlaps the claimed range of 1.2 to 5.0. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
6. The method for producing a prepreg according to claim 1, wherein a content of the glass fibers is 50 to 75% by volume relative to the entire prepreg.
With respect to claim 6, Fujiura teaches the content of the glass fibers is 30-60% by volume relative to the entire prepreg [P. 4, ‘Prepreg’ section].
A prima facie case of obviousness exists that Fujiura teaches the claimed glass fiber content by volume range relative to the entire prepreg, as the Fujiura range of 30-60% partially overlaps the claimed range of 50 to 75%.
7. The method for producing a prepreg according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the prepreg is 100µm or less.
With respect to claim 7, Fujiura teaches the thickness of the prepreg is 50-150 µm [Claim 1].
A prima facie case of obviousness exists that Fujiura teaches the claim 7 prepreg thickness range, as the Fujiura prepreg thickness range of 50-150 µm partially overlaps the claimed range of 100µm or less. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
8. A method for producing a laminate, comprising the following steps:(1) an opening step of opening glass fiber bundles to form plural glass fiber filaments, (2) a step of aligning the plural glass fiber filaments formed in the previous opening step, on a thermosetting resin composition-coated surface of a carrier material so as to make the filaments run nearly parallel to each other in one direction thereon to form a prepreg, and (3) a step of preparing two or more prepregs formed in the previous step (2), laminating them in such a manner that, in at least one pair of prepregs, the running direction of the plural glass fiber filaments in one prepreg differs from the running direction of the plural glass fiber filaments in the other prepreg, and heating and pressing them.
With respect to claim 8, the prior art of Fujiura teaches a method for producing a laminate, comprising the following steps: (1) an opening step of opening glass fiber bundles [P. 13, ¶ 10-11] to form plural glass fiber filaments [P. 9, ¶ 2-4]. Fujiura teaches (2) a step of aligning the plural glass fiber filaments formed in the previous opening step, on a thermosetting resin [P. 8, ¶ 4, 8] composition-coated surface of a carrier material to make the filaments run nearly parallel to each other in one direction thereon to form a prepreg [Claim 1]. Fujiura teaches stacking between 4-100 prepreg layers to form a laminated body [Claim 1, P. 12, ¶ 2-4].
Fujiura teaches the stack can form a ‘quasi-isotropic’ laminate, with an improved strength of the load from all directions due to the fiber orientation [P. 12, ¶ 4], this prima facie obviously teaches a step of preparing two or more prepregs formed in the previous step, where the unidirectional fiber prepregs are laminated in such a manner that, in at least one pair of prepregs, the running direction of the plural glass fiber filaments in one prepreg differs from the running direction of the plural glass fiber filaments in the other prepreg [P. 12, ¶ 2-4]; and heating and pressing them [P. 12, ¶ 5-6].
9. The method for producing a laminate according to claim 8, wherein the prepreg does not contain a glass fiber bundle of 50 or more glass fiber filaments bundled, or contains such glass fiber bundles, but the content thereof is 10% by volume or less relative to the total amount of the glass fibers in the prepreg.
With respect to claim 9, Fujira teaches a single bundle can be used for making the prepreg, and a tow as small as 12,000 filaments can be used [P. 9, ¶ 3].
Fujiura is silent on whether the prepreg contains bundles of 50 or more glass fiber filaments after the splitting/opening step.
However, Fujiura teaches selecting the number of splitting rollers / guide rods [P. 9, ¶ 5], fiber tension [P. 9, ¶ 5-7], and travel rate [P. 9, ¶ 8] for the optimal dispersion degree and orientation of the fibers [P. 9, ¶ 3, 5-7]. Fujiura teaches fiber orientation can range from over 0.8 up to 1 [P. 7, ¶ 2], which approaches full splitting of the bundle. Fujiura teaches the prepreg fibers are ‘oriented along one direction’ [P. 13, ¶ 8; Claim 1]. Fujiura teaches the prepreg is conductive in the direction of the fibers, but there is no conductivity in the other direction [P. 13, ¶ 5].
Fujiura is also silent on any non-separated or bundled fibers present in the prepreg product.
Based on these teachings of Fujiura, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that the prepreg may not contain a glass fiber bundle of 50 or more glass fiber filaments bundled, or contain such glass fiber bundles, but the content thereof is 10% by volume or less relative to the total amount of the glass fibers in the prepreg.
10. The method for producing a laminate according to claim 8, wherein the thermosetting resin composition does not contain elastomer.
With respect to claim 10, Fujiura teaches the thermosetting resin composition embodiment [P. 8, ¶ 8-9], which does not contain elastomer.
11. The method for producing a laminate according to claim 8, wherein the opening step comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of (a) a method of stroking with a round stick, (b) a method of giving vibration, and (c) a method of applying a fluid.
With respect to claim 11, Fujiura prima facie obviously teaches the opening step comprises (a) a method of stroking with a round stick, as Fujiura teaches the opening step runs the bundle across a rotating splitting roller and guide rods [P. 9, ¶ 2, 5].
12. The method for producing a laminate according to claim 8, wherein an opening magnification, which is an index that indicates how much the glass fiber bundles are opened, is 1.2 to 5.0 times.
With respect to claim 12, Fujiura teaches a fractal dimension, or dispersion degree (D) [P. 15, ¶ 4-5; P. 6, ¶ 9 – P. 7, ¶ 1]; (Figs. 3A-3C)], which is understood by the Examiner to be equivalent to an index that indicates how much the glass fiber bundles are opened, and ranges between 0.4 and 1.5.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists that Fujiura teaches the claim 12 opening magnification range, as the Fujiura dispersion degree range of between 0.4 and 1.5 partially overlaps the claimed range of 1.2 to 5.0.
13. The method for producing a laminate according to claim 8, wherein the content of the glass fibers is 50 to 75% by volume relative to the entire prepreg.
With respect to claim 13, Fujiura teaches the content of the glass fibers is 30-60% by volume relative to the entire prepreg [P. 4, ‘Prepreg’ section].
A prima facie case of obviousness exists that Fujiura teaches the claimed glass fiber content by volume range relative to the entire prepreg, as the Fujiura range of 30-60% partially overlaps the claimed range of 50 to 75%.
14. The method for producing a laminate according to claim 8, wherein a thickness of the prepreg is 100µm or less.
With respect to claim 14, Fujiura teaches the thickness of the prepreg is 50-150 µm [Claim 1].
A prima facie case of obviousness exists that Fujiura teaches the claim 14 prepreg thickness range, as the Fujiura prepreg thickness range of 50-150 µm partially overlaps the claimed range of 100µm or less. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
15. The method for producing a laminate according to claim 8, wherein a running direction of the plural glass fiber filaments in one prepreg crosses a running direction of the plural glass fiber filaments in the other prepreg nearly perpendicularly to each other.
With respect to claim 15, Fujiura teaches stacking of between 4-100 prepreg layers to form a laminated body [P. 12, ¶ 2-4], but does not explicitly teach the fiber orientations between adjacent layers.
Fujiura teaches the stack can form a ‘quasi-isotropic’ laminate, with an improved strength of the load from all directions due to the fiber orientation [P. 12, ¶ 4].
It would have been known to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that the most common ‘quasi-isotropic’ stacks formed from unidirectional prepregs are laid in repeating sequences of either 0°-60°-120° or 0°-90°-45°-135°.
It would have been known to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to try the 0°-90°-45°-135° layer sequence to form a ‘quasi-isotropic’ stack, from a limited number of options, which teaches a running direction of the plural glass fiber filaments in one prepreg crosses a running direction of the plural glass fiber filaments in the other prepreg nearly perpendicularly, to each other.
16. The method for producing a laminate according to claim 8, wherein the laminate has a bending elastic modulus at 25°C of 35GPa or more.
With respect to claim 16, Fujiura teaches the laminate of good quality has a bending elastic modulus of 25GP, with a standard deviation of 4 or less [P. 16, ¶ 7]. The laminates were prima facie obviously tested at a 25°C standard temperature because no test temperature was provided.
These results teach that for 95% of good laminate stacks, the bending elastic modulus range is expected to lie within 17-33 GPa (±2 std dev).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close and expected to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05(I). In the instant case Fujiura teaches that the bending elastic modulus range for a good stack is expected to lie within 17-33 GPa, which is close to the claimed bending elastic modulus range of 35 GPa or more, and would be expected to have substantially the same properties.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure – Li (US4916000A), [Col. 13, lines 4-26; Col. 18, lines 19-45].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY C GROSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-1363. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM - 5PM.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached on 571-270-7457. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
GREGORY C. GROSSO
Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/GREGORY C. GROSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights