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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/26/2026 has been entered.
PTAB Decision
On 5/16/2024 the examiner issued a Final Rejection. On 8/28/2024 the applicant filed a Notice of Appeal. On 11/26/2024 the applicant filed an Appeal Brief signed by Matthew L. Koziarz. On 12/13/2024 the Appeal Brief was found defective. On 1/6/2025 the applicant filed a corrected Appeal Brief. The applicant argued claims 1, 3, 8, 9, 10 and 11 separately. On 1/30/2025 the examiner issued an Examiner’s Answer. On 3/31/2025 the applicant further argued by filing a Reply Brief signed by Matthew L. Koziarz. On 11/25/2025 the PTAB found ALL of applicant’s arguments to be unpersuasive. The arguments against the rejection of claim 1 were found unpersuasive. The arguments against the rejection of claim 3 were found unpersuasive. The arguments against the rejection of claim 8 were found unpersuasive. The arguments against the rejection of claim 9 were found unpersuasive. The arguments against the rejection of claim 10 were found unpersuasive. The arguments against the rejection of claim 11 were found unpersuasive. The examiner was AFFIRMED on ALL grounds of rejection. The appellant also appealed in the parent application (14/628,600) and the examiner was also AFFIRMED.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over USPAP 2015/0375490 to Balachandra in view of USPAP 2012/0148789 to Hallander and further in view of (when necessary) USPAP 2002/0019306 to Petrak, USPAP 2011/0259518 to Tojo, USPAP 2015/0376064 to Chung, and/or USPAP 2014/0287641 to Steiner.
Claim 1, Balachandra discloses a method of forming a component, comprising: depositing nanofibers directly onto a surface of at least one of first and second layers, the first and second layers each including ceramic-based fibers arranged in a ceramic-based matrix material; forming a prepreg by laying up the first and second layer such that the nanofibers are arranged exclusively between the first and second layers and do not infiltrate the first and second layers; and curing the prepreg to bond the first and second layers and the nanofibers together to form a component (see entire document including [0010], [0013], [0027], [0029], [0041]-[0045] and the Examples). In addition, Petrak discloses that it is known in the ceramic-based fibers arranged in a ceramic-based matrix art to induce curing to prevent delamination (see entire document including [0018] and [0029]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to cure the prepreg to bond the first and second layers and the nanofibers together to prevent delamination.
Balachandra does not appear to mention the nanofibers having a unidirectional orientation along the surface but Hallander discloses that it is known in the art to unidirectionally orient nanofibers along a surface so that strength properties are optimal in one direction and that it is also known to include both unidirectional and randomly oriented nanofibers (see entire document including [0002], [0016], [0028]-[0033], [0045], [0046], [0070] and [0083] ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to arrange at least some of the nanofibers unidirectionally, as claimed, based on the intended use and the desired/required optimized strength.
Balachandra does not appear to specifically mention the depositing step including electrospinning but Tojo discloses that it is known in the art to deposit a nanofiber layer on a substrate by electrospinning (see entire document including [0002]-[0011], [0013], [0021], [0040], [0046], [0062], [0084] and [0087]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to deposit the nanofibers by any suitable method, such as electrospinning, because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known deposition method on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 2, Balachandra discloses arranging the first and second layers in an alternating manner with the nanofibers [0029].
Claim 3, subsequent the depositing step, the nanofibers cover greater than approximately 20% of a surface area of the first or second layers (Figure 1).
Claim 6, the depositing step includes forming a fibrous mat of nanofibers independent of the first and second layers and applying the mat to at least one of the first and second layers [0029].
Claim 7, Balachandra does not appear to specifically mention densifying the component but Chung discloses that it is known in the art to densify a component by chemical vapor infiltration to reduce porosity (see entire document including [0017] and [0018]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to densify the component, as claimed, to reduce the component porosity.
Claims 8 and 9, Balachandra does not appear to mention the volume percentage ratio of ceramic-based fibers in the first and second layers to nanofibers but Petrak discloses that it is known in the ceramic-based fibers arranged in a ceramic-based matrix art to vary the volume percentage of ceramic-based fibers over a wide range depending on the desired use (see entire document including [0001] and [0031]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the amount of ceramic-based fibers, such as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 10 and 11, Balachandra does not appear to specifically mention the nanofiber material being silicon carbide but Steiner discloses that it is known in the art to use a variety of fibrous material including silicon carbide (see entire document including [0008], [0009] and [0065]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the nanofibers of Balachandra from any suitable fibrous material, such as silicon carbide, because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 12, Balachandra does not appear to specifically mention forming the fibrous mat of nanofibers on a release substrate but Tojo discloses that it is known in the art to deposit a fibrous mat of nanofibers on a release substrate, and then release the fibrous mat from the release substrate, to improve the handling properties (e.g. more manageable) of the nanofiber mat ([0032]-[0036]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to deposit the fibrous mat of nanofibers of Balachandra on a release substrate, and then release the fibrous mat from the release substrate upon application to the first and second layers, to improve the handling properties of the nanofiber mat (i.e. make the nanofiber mat more manageable).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant asserts that the applied prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed nanofiber electrospinning or centrifugal spinning deposition step. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Balachandra does not appear to specifically mention the depositing step including electrospinning but Tojo discloses that it is known in the art to deposit a nanofiber layer on a substrate by electrospinning (see entire document including [0002]-[0011], [0013], [0021], [0040], [0046], [0062], [0084] and [0087]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to deposit the nanofibers by any suitable method, such as electrospinning, because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known deposition method on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
In response, the applicant asserts that “one or more of the other combined prior art references” requires high-temperature processing and that Tojo is “directed primarily to low-temperature processing.” Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the applicant fails to cite any specific portion(s) of any of the references. It is well-established that unsupported attorney arguments do not constitute evidence necessary to resolve a disputed question of fact. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”); Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Attorney argument is not evidence” and cannot rebut other admitted evidence.); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965) (“Argument in the brief does not take the place of evidence in the record.”’).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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 T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights