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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 17 (depended on claim 16) recites the limitations "the space between the second mold and the composite material" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear which or where the item (the space) is pointed out. The claim 17 is indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 16, 17, 19, 21, 24, 25, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Hiroyuki (JP2002137249, English translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, Hiroyuki discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, a method for manufacturing a molded body integrally molded by a composite material containing reinforcing fibers (e.g., item 12, Fig. 7 (page 1, [0002]; page 5, [0039]); ) dispersed in an in-plane direction and a molding material (e.g., item 11, Fig. 10 or 11 (i.e., the molten resin M spreads in the product cavities C of the upper and lower molds 30 and 40, as shown in Fig. 10, the molded body 11 is molded into a required shape (page 5, [0044], lines 279-281))) having fluidity higher than that of the composite material, the method comprising the following steps (1) to (3) (page 1, [0001], lines 10-14; page 2, [0011]):
(1) fixing the composite material to a first mold (item 40, Fig. 3 or 7 (i.e., the lower mold 40 ([0039]))) by a plurality of fixing members (i.e., page 5, [0040], lines 256-257 (e.g., the clamping mechanism(s) 60)) provided in the first mold having a cavity having an area larger than that of the composite material in a plan view (item C, Fig. 10 (page 5, [0044], lines 279-281));
(2) moving a second mold (item 30, Fig. 3 or 7 or 10 (i.e., the upper mold 30 ([0043]))) toward the composite material fixed to the first mold and bringing the second mold into contact with the composite material (as shown in Fig. 10); and
(3) pressing the composite material and the molding material by the first mold and the second mold to integrally mold same (as shown in Fig. 10; page 5, [0043]).
Regarding claim 2, Hiroyuki discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 4, 8, 11, the lowering operation of the clamp piece 61 removes the mounting ear piece 12a of the outer skin 12 from the groove 64 (page 5, [0046], lines 288-289). Thus, Hiroyuki discloses a step of releasing the fixing of the composite material by the fixing member.
Regarding claim 4, Hiroyuki discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 4, 8, 11, the composite material is fixed to the first mold so that the molding material comes into contact with the first mold in the step (1).
Regarding claim 5, Hiroyuki discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 10, the composite material is fixed to the first mold so that the molding material is disposed on a side opposite to the first mold in the step (1) (i.e., at least, partially, some molding material 11 is disposed with the direction contact with the upper mold 30 (as shown in Fig. 10)).
Regarding claim 7, Hiroyuki discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 10, the molding material is an injection molding material (page 5, [0044], lines 277-278), and
the method comprises a step of injecting the molding material into a space between the first mold and the second mold after the step (2) and before the step (3) (it is noticed that, after the molding material is injected into the cavity C of the mold (as shown in Fig. 10), the pressing pressure on the mold has to be maintained for a period time for cooling/solidifying).
Regarding claim 8, Hiroyuki discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 9, 10, 12, the molding material is an injection molding material (page 5, [0044], lines 277-278), and
the method comprises a step of injecting the molding material into a space between the first mold and the second mold after the step (2) (e.g., as shown in 10) and before the step of releasing the fixing of the composite material by the fixing members (e.g., as shown in Fig. 14(b), the clamp float pin 80 is still on the surface of the outer skin 12 after the molding material 11 is injected).
Regarding claim 9, Hiroyuki discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 10, 11, 12, the molding material (i.e., item 11 in Fig. 10 or 11 or 12) is injected into a space between the first mold (i.e., item 40 in Fig. 10 or 11 or 12) and the composite material (i.e., item 12 in Fig. 10 or 11 or 12).
Regarding claim 16, Hiroyuki discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 7, 10, the first mold (e.g., item 40 in Fig. 7 or 10) and the second mold (e.g., item 30 in Fig. 7 or 10) are a pair of male and female molds,
the first mold is a fixed mold (as shown in Figs. 7 and 10),
the second mold is a movable mold (as shown from Fig. 7 to Fig. 10),
the molding material is an injection molding material (e.g., item 50 in Fig. 7 or 10),
the method comprises a step of injecting the injection molding material into a space between the first mold and the second mold after the step (2) and before the step (3) (it is noticed that, as illustrated in Fig. 10, after the molding material 11 is injected, the pressing pressure on the mold has to be maintained for cooling down), and
injection is performed from the first mold (as shown in Fig. 7 or 10).
Regarding claim 17, Hiroyuki discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 7, 10, a design surface is formed by the second mold (e.g., as shown in Fig. 7 or 10), and a space between the second mold and the composite material is filled with the injection molding material (it is noticed that, the melted resin M (page 6, [0052]) will be filled into the gap/space between the second mold 30 and the composite material 12).
Regarding claim 19, Hiroyuki discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 7, 10, the first mold has a first (central) gate (item 42 in Fig. 7 or 10 (page 4, [0031], line 205)) for injecting the injection molding material into a mold in a region in which the composite material is disposed in a plan view (as shown in Fig. 7 or 10).
Regarding claim 21, Hiroyuki discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, 10, the peripheral edge of the skin (cloth) 12 is inserted into the wood grain groove 11 a formed in the resin molded body 11 (page 4, [0027], lines 186-187). Thus, Hiroyuki discloses that, the design surface has a grain shape formed by the second mold.
Regarding claim 24, Hiroyuki discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 13-16, without forming ear pieces 12a on the outer skin 12, so that the trim cut operation of the outer skin 12 can be performed efficiently (page 6, [0057], lines 351-353).
Regarding claim 25, Hiroyuki discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 3, 4, a skin setting area A (indicated by diagonal lines in Fig. 4) is set at a portion covering the gate 42 (page 4, [0031], lines 207-208). It is noticed that, as illustrated in Fig. 4, three gates 42 are disposed in the first mold 40. The central gate 42 can be considered as the first gate and other two gates 42 can be considered as the second gate. Thus, Hiroyuki discloses that, the second gate for injecting the injection molding material is provided in a region of the first mold other than a region in which the composite material is disposed in a plan view, and the number n1 of the first gates and the number n2 of the second gates satisfy 0 <n1< n2.
Regarding claim 26, Hiroyuki discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 3, 4, the central gate 42 (i.e., the first gate) is covering the region which is smaller than the region covered by the two other gates 42 (i.e. the second gate). Thus, Hiroyuki discloses that, the first mold has a second gate for injecting the injection molding material in a region other than a region in which the composite material is disposed in a plan view, and a discharge amount V1 of the injection molding material from the first gate and a discharge amount V2 of the injection molding material from the second gate satisfy 0 < V1< V2.
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.
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 3, 6, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyuki (JP2002137249, English translation provided) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Takashi (JPH0315509, English translation provided).
Regarding claim 3, Hiroyuki does not explicitly disclose that, a step of stacking the molding material on the composite material before the step (1).
In the same field of endeavor, composite materials, Takashi discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 6, a glass mat 2 for reinforcement is set in a female mold 1 for foam molding as well. A metallic clip mounting seat 4 is attracted and held by the magnetic piece 5 embedded in the male mold 3. After foamable resin limbs such as a hard urethane resin liquid are injected into the female die 1, the male and female molds 1 and 3 are clamped (page 1, lines 19-23).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Hiroyuki to have the method for integrating the composite material with the molding material as Takashi teaches that it is known to have the step of stacking the molding material on the composite material prior to fixing it. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 6, Hiroyuki does not explicitly disclose that, a step of stacking the molding material on the composite material after the step (1) and before the step (2).
Takashi discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 4, a glass mat 14 formed into a desired shape is set on the mold surface of the foam molding upper mold 31. At this time, the installation position of the magnetic piece 33 embedded in the foam molding upper mold 31. The glass mat 14 is fixed in the die 31 with the clip mounting seat 15. When the setting of the glass mat is completed, the foamable resin liquid 35 is injected into the mold 30 (page 2, lines 80-87).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Hiroyuki to have the method for integrating the composite material with the molding material as Takashi teaches that it is known to have the step of stacking the molding material on the composite material after the step (1) and before the step (2). It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 20, Hiroyuki discloses a design surface is formed by the second mold (e.g., as shown in Fig, 7). However, Hiroyuki does not explicitly disclose that, a resin sheet is disposed between the second mold and the composite material.
Takashi discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 6, a glass mat 2 for reinforcement is set in a female mold 1 (i.e., the first mold) for foam molding as well. A metallic clip mounting seat 4 is attracted and held by the magnetic piece 5 embedded in the male mold 3 (i.e., the second mold). After foamable resin limbs such as a hard urethane resin liquid are injected into the female die 1, the male and female molds 1 and 3 are clamped (page 1, lines 19-23).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Hiroyuki to have the method for integrating the composite material with the molding material as Takashi teaches that it is known to have the resin sheet is disposed between the second mold and the composite material.. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Claims 10, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyuki (JP2002137249, English translation provided) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Cho et al. (US 2018/0117808).
Regarding claim 10, Hiroyuki does not explicitly disclose that, the molding material is injected into a space between the second mold and the composite material.
In the same field of endeavor, composite materials, Cho discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 2, after the fiber-reinforced composite material 10 is heated, the composite material is put into a lower mold 100 for injection molding ([0036], [0037]). Here, the lower mold 100 is considered as the first mold and the upper mold 200 is considered as the second mold. Thus, Cho discloses that, the molding material is injected into a space between the second mold and the composite material.
It would have been obvious to use the method of Hiroyuki to have the method for integrating the composite material with the molding material as Cho teaches that it is known to have the molding material is injected into a space between the second mold and the composite material. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 14, Hiroyuki does not explicitly disclose that, the fixing member is a hole forming member for forming a hole in the molded body.
Cho discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 4, the method of fixing the fiber-reinforced composite material 10 that is the insert in the insert injection molding method ([0045]). As illustrated in Fig. 4, the support groove 14 formed on the fiber-reinforced composite material 10 is formed as the through hole, and the support protrusion 130 is formed in multiple stages ([0046]). Here, the support protrusion 130 is considered as the fixing member.
It would have been obvious to use the method of Hiroyuki to have the method for integrating the composite material with the molding material as Cho teaches that it is known to have the fixing member is a hole forming member for forming a hole in the molded body. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Claims 15, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyuki (JP2002137249, English translation provided) as applied to claim 1/17 above, further in view of Hamlyn et al. (US 2019/0224925).
Regarding claim 15, Hiroyuki does not explicitly disclose the reinforcing fibers are randomly dispersed in a two-dimensional direction in an in-plane direction of the composite material.
In the same field of endeavor, composite material parts, Hamlyn discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 3, after producing the dry preform 101, a felt 4 of nonwoven filaments or fibers 40 is applied to a first main face 11 of the dry preform ([0060], lines 1-3). The felts used may be isotropic, with randomly oriented filaments ([0023], lines 3-4).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Hiroyuki to have the method for integrating the composite material with the molding material as Hamlyn teaches that it is known to have the reinforcing fibers are randomly dispersed in a two-dimensional direction in an in-plane direction of the composite material. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 18, Hiroyuki does not explicitly disclose that, one or more flow holes for allowing the injection molding material to pass through the composite material are provided.
Hamlyn discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, the preform provided with needled filaments, called reinforced preform 201, is then transferred to a press for the forming operation, also called stamping operation (as illustrated in Fig. 8). Here, the needle device 5 (as shown in Fig. 3) is facilitated to penetrate the dry preform 101 to allow the filaments emerging on the second main face 112 ([0062]).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Hiroyuki to have the method for integrating the composite material with the molding material as Hamlyn teaches that it is known to have one or more flow holes for allowing the injection molding material to pass through the composite material are provided. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIBIN LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached on 571 270 7001. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights