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 .
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.
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 1-6 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “to obtain a resin composite structure including the release film and the resin layer” (ln 9-10) and “hot pressing the resin composite structure, the fiber layer and the resin composite structure from top to bottom” (ln 12-13 emphasis added). It is unclear whether “and the resin composite structure” is intended as the same resin composite structure or a second resin composite structure.
Claims 2-6 are rejected as depending from an indefinite claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US20200376715A1) in view of Chen (TWM465662U).
In reference to claim 1:
Sasaki discloses an impregnation method for a fiber prepreg (“method for producing an FRP precursor, abstract, para 0003), comprising:
providing an impregnation device (Fig. 1) including a film layer separator (Fig. 1 numeral 4), a hot pressing processor (Fig. 1 numeral 6);
providing a resin film (protection-film-attached resin film 50, para 0033, Fig. 1), wherein the resin film comprises a release film (para 0033 disclosing a protection film 52 that is laminated to “both surfaces of resin film 54”), a resin layer located on the release film (resin film 54, para 0033), and a film layer located on the resin layer (protection film 52, para 0033);
separating the film layer and the resin layer of the resin film using the film layer separator of the impregnation device to obtain a resin composite structure including the release film and the resin layer (Fig. 1);
providing a fiber layer (Fig. 2 numeral 40); and
hot pressing the resin composite structure, the fiber layer and the resin composite structure from top to bottom using the hot pressing processor of the impregnation device at a temperature higher than 90° C to obtain the fiber prepreg, wherein the resin layer of the fiber prepreg is in direct contact with the fiber layer (paras 0042, 0054, Fig. 1).
Sasaki does not disclose the hot pressing processor is disposed beneath the film layer separator in a vertical direction, and a thermal barrier disposed between the film layer separator and the hot pressing processor in the vertical direction. However, this would have been obvious in view of Chen. Chen teaches a device for laminating sheet material (pg 1 “Technical-Field”). Chen further teaches utilizing a thermal barrier comprising an insulating material to prevent heat from the hot-roller group from reaching the material feed rollers and prematurely heat the feedstock (pg 2 paragraph 3 and last paragraph continuing on pg 3) wherein a vertical projection onto a horizontal plane of the thermal barrier is coincident and larger than a projection of the hot pressing processor (Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Sasaki with the thermal barrier of Chen in order to obtain an apparatus which prevents premature heating of the feedstock.
In reference to claim 2:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Sasaki further discloses wherein during using the hot pressing processor of the impregnation device, the film layer separator of the impregnation device is used simultaneously to separate the film layer and the resin layer of the resin film (Fig. 1 showing resin film 54 as a continuous sheet such that as resin film 54 is pulled through the heating and press-adhering device 6 the film layer separator 4 is also used).
In reference to claim 3:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Sasaki does not explicitly disclose when a tack of the resin layer is in a range of from 500 grams to 2,000 grams, a separation angle of the film layer and the resin layer in the film layer separator is adjusted to be in a range of from 18° to 45°. However, the use of the term “when” renders the limitation conditional on the tack being in the range of 500g to 2000g. As such, the claim does not explicitly require the rack and angle combination listed as the claim necessarily includes scenarios where the tack is outside of the range listed.
In reference to claim 4:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Sasaki does not explicitly disclose when a tack of the resin layer is lower than 500 grams, a separation angle of the film layer and the resin layer in the film layer separator is adjusted to be lower than 18°. However, the use of the term “when” renders the limitation conditional on the tack being lower than 500g. As such, the claim does not explicitly require the rack and angle combination listed as the claim necessarily includes scenarios where the tack is outside of the range listed.
In reference to claim 5:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Sasaki does not explicitly disclose when the tack of the resin layer is from 100 grams 500 grams, a separation angle of the film layer and the resin layer in the film layer separator is adjusted to be in a range of from 13° to 18°. However, the use of the term “when” renders the limitation conditional on the tack being in the range of 100g to 500g. As such, the claim does not explicitly require the rack and angle combination listed as the claim necessarily includes scenarios where the tack is outside of the range listed.
In reference to claim 6:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Sasaki does not explicitly disclose when a tack of the resin layer is greater than 2000 grams, a separation angle of the film layer and the resin layer in the film layer separator is adjusted to be 45°. However, the use of the term “when” renders the limitation conditional on the tack being greater than 2000g. As such, the claim does not explicitly require the rack and angle combination listed as the claim necessarily includes scenarios where the tack is outside of the range listed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW L SWANSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1724. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 0800-1900 and every other Friday 0800-1600.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/ANDREW L SWANSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights