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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/4/2025, has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite a first solvent in line 5. There is no recitation of “a first solvent” in general to support in the original specification for this feature, as the example 1 of instant application appears citing dimethylacetamide (DMAc), however, there still no recitation in general of “a first solvent”.
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.
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 1, 5-6, 8-10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotov (US20190085139, herein Kotov), in the view of Dorade (US20070123625, herein Dorade).
Regarding Claims 1, 5, 10, 12, Kotov teaches the method of producing a polymer composite material [0015], the method comprising: the formation of the first solution including: an aramid fiber is treated with ultrasound in a solvent, in the manufacture of a nanofiber [0083], wherein, the solvent used to prepare the Suspensions of branched aramid nanofibers (ANF or ANFs) is made from DMSO as an aprotic component, water as a protic component, and KOH [0085], KOH reads on the hydroxide base, further collectively read on nanofiber dispersion in which an aramid nanofiber and a hydroxide base is dispersed in a polar aprotic solvent, wherein, the dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) reads on the polar aprotic solvent; water reads on a first solvent.
Kotov teaches the composites are described as having a polymer matrix in which branched ANFs are dispersed [0096], wherein, the polymer is polyether sulfone [0097], structure see below:
PNG
media_image1.png
133
878
media_image1.png
Greyscale
matches the chemical formula (4), which indicates the single polymer and is arylene ether-based polymer and the formation of the single polymer and aramid fiber dispersed in the solvent.
Kotov further teaches heating the mixture of nanofiber and polymer [0098]; and aerogel is prepared by removing the solvent in such a way as to maintain the 3DPN from the nanofibers. Examples include freeze drying [0094], which collectively indicate the second step of drying the first solution including aramid nanofiber and the polymer matrix, to yield the polymer composite material upon drying step.
Kotov teaches the composite material comprises a polymer matrix and ANFs dispersed in the polymer matrix [0105], but does not teach the wherein the aramid nanofiber is included at 0.01 to 2 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of a polymer forming the composite material. However, Dorade teaches the poly(arylene ether) resin-based composition comprising: poly(arylene ether) in an amount of 10 to 99.5 weight percent (wt. %) [0019] and aramid fibers as filler [0058], in an amount of 0.5 wt. % to 20 wt. % [0062], hence, the ratio between aramid fibers to poly(arylene ether) is 0.502% to 20.1%, overlaps the claimed range. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized amounts between 0.502 to 2 wt% with a reasonable expectation of success, and would have been motivated to do as Dorade discloses that such amounts are suitable for the invention. Kotov and Dorade are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, that of the formation of the aramid fiber and poly(arylene ether) based composition toward engineering plastics with improved mechanical performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add the ratio between poly(arylene ether) and aramid fibers, into the polypropylene and aramid fiber composite formation. Doing so would not only achieve improved mechanical strength as taught by Dorade, but also lead to the cost effectiveness while of the specific amount of filler selection.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding the tensile strength, the Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, Kotov and Dorade teach all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, and Kotov teaches the composition as being made by a substantially similar process as of stirring, mixing [0098]; temperature below 50° C [0084]. The original specification does not provide any disclosure on how to obtain the claimed properties outside the components of the composition itself. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. tensile strength increase rate would necessarily arise from a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, absent undue experimentation.
Regarding Claim 6, Kotov teaches the diameter of branched ANFs is in the range of 3-100 nm [0012]; the length of the ANFs includes 0.1 to 1 microns and 1 micron to 10 microns [0079], both lie in the claimed ranges.
Regarding Claim 8, Kotov and Dorade teach the method of producing a polymer composite material as set forth above in claim 1, Kotov teaches the aramid fiber is treated with ultrasound in a solvent, in the manufacture of a nanofiber [0083], wherein, the ultrasound is known as high-intensity stirring method, hence, reads on the stirring; Kotov teaches the solvent used to prepare the suspensions of branched aramid nanofibers (ANF or ANFs) is made from DMSO as an aprotic component, and KOH [0085], hence, collectively read on the solution comprising hydroxide base and the polar aprotic solvent.
Kotov further teaches the composite material comprises a polymer matrix and ANFs dispersed in the polymer matrix [0105], wherein, the polymers are chosen from aromatic polyamides [0097], which indicates the inclusion of the aromatic polyamide-based polymer also dispersed in the solution comprising aramid fiber, KOH and DMSO.
Regarding Claim 9, Kotov teaches the composites are made by simply stirring [0098] and branched ANF dispersion was prepared by stirring at room temperature [0081] lies in the claimed range, collectively read on the stirring is performed below 50°.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotov (US20190085139, herein Kotov), and Dorade (US20070123625, herein Dorade) as applied in claim 1 above, in the view of Le Corvec (US20190194404, herein Le Corvec).
Regarding Claim 13, Kotov and Dorade teach the method of producing a polymer composite material as set forth above in claim 1. Kotov teaches the polymer is polyether sulfone [0097], structure see below:
PNG
media_image1.png
133
878
media_image1.png
Greyscale
matches the chemical formula (4), which indicates the single polymer and is arylene ether-based polymer. Kotov does not explicitly teach the specific compound with the chemical formula (2). However, Le Corvec teaches the polyethersulfone aromatic polymer may be a polymer that includes: [0019], structure see below [P2; 0019], which meets the claimed formula (4).
PNG
media_image1.png
133
878
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Le Corvec further teaches the polysulfone aromatic polymer may be a polymer that includes: [0020] structure see below [P2; 0020], which meets the claimed formula (2).
PNG
media_image2.png
133
878
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Because both the polysulfone aromatic polymer and the polyethersulfone aromatic polymer [0019-20] as taught by Le Corvec and the polyether sulfone [0097] taught by Kotov are known in the art to be useful as polymeric matrix, with desirable mechanical properties, for the composite of polysulfone aromatic polymer matrix and reinforcing fibers including aramid fibers, at the time of the invention a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the polysulfone aromatic polymer [0020] with formula (2) taught by Le Corvec with the polyether sulfone [0097] with formula (4) taught by Kotov, and would have been motivated to do so because both compounds individually are known to be effective polymeric matrix with desirable mechanical properties, for the composite of polyarylene ether sulfone polymer and reinforcing fibers including aramid fibers. (see MPEP 2144.06).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zhen Liu whose telephone number is (703)756-4782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached on (571)272-1197. 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.
/Z. L./
Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights