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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 08 January 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-2 and 4-16 remain pending in the application, wherein claims 1 and 4 have been amended and claims 15 and 16 are new.
Support for the amendments can be found in paragraphs 0012 and 0031 of the instant specification. No new matter has been introduced as a result of the amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1. Likewise, claim 16 is objected to as being a substantial duplicate of claim 15 because claims 15 and 16 recite the same limitations and only differ in depending upon claim 1 or claim 4. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). The only difference between instant claim 1 and instant claim 4 is the recitation of a prepreg sheet. However, there is no substantial difference between comprising a prepreg sheet formed by thermally fusing a sheet of carbon fibers with the copolymer and simply comprising a sheet of carbon fibers fused with the copolymer.
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.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 5 and 6 recite the limitation "the carbon monofilaments" in lines 3 and 4 (of claim 5) and line 3 (of claim 6). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because carbon monofilaments are not previously introduced in these claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2 and 4-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Booze (US PGPub. No. 2011/0001082, previously cited).
Claim 1: Booze teaches a composite for use in making semiconductor manufacture components (paragraph 0002), such as a semiconductor manufacturing articles including in spin, rinse, and dry modules (paragraph 0055) (i.e. a member for a semiconductor cleaning apparatus; also recited in claim 3 of Booze). The composite includes about 9-99 wt% polymer and 1-91% fibers that are compressed into a matte (i.e. a prepreg sheet) (paragraph 0016). The fibers can be aligned on average along one direction perpendicular to the z axis, and one can assign that direction to correspond to the x axis (paragraph 0024). Booze teaches generally that the polymer can be a fluoropolymer and can comprise repeat units of tetrafluoroethylene, perfluoro (alkoxy-alkane) such as perfluoro(vinyl propyl ether), or combinations thereof (copolymers) (paragraph 0035) with specific examples using tetrafluoroethylene-perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) copolymer (i.e. tetrafluoroethylene/perfluoro(alkyl vinyl ether) copolymer) (paragraph 0064). Fibers include carbon fiber, etc., which is a preferred fiber (paragraph 0040), with specific examples using carbon fibers (paragraphs 0061-0063). Since the matte is a sheet (depicted by Booze in Fig. 2A), the carbon fibers in a sheet is considered to be a sheet of carbon fibers. Booze teaches that the mattes are placed with their length directions orthogonally oriented to their one or two nearest neighbors and then heated so that the temperature is greater than 310 C while compressing along the thickness direction to consolidate the stack (paragraph 0069). The polymer can flow upon heating above the polymer melting point or can wet the fibers after softening (paragraph 0036). In the specific examples, the polymer has a melting point of approximately 305 C (paragraph 0064), and therefore this process of consolidating the stack will necessarily result in the fiber and copolymer being thermally fused with each other. Regarding the instantly claimed carbon fiber length, Booze teaches that the median length of the fibers can be longer or shorter or the same as the median height of the matte containing the fibers (paragraph 0041), and wherein the mattes may have any convenient dimensions such as more than 1 cm in height, etc. (paragraph 0030). This is considered to teach where the length of the fibers may be more than 1 cm, etc. (i.e. more than 10 mm), which overlaps the instantly claimed length. The courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap, lie inside of, or are close to ranges in the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is noted that as of the writing of this Office Action, no demonstration of a criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
While not reciting a singular example of the instantly claimed member, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the fibers to have a length of 10 mm or greater because the length of fibers taught by Booze overlaps the instantly claimed range, which the courts have held to be prima facie obvious, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 2: Booze teaches that a plurality of consolidated matte (i.e. two or more sheets of the prepreg) is stacked heightwise and then compressed and heated to a temperature above the polymer softening temperature (i.e. the sheets are combined by heat compression) to provide a consolidated composite article (paragraph 0053).
Claim 4: Booze teaches a composite for use in making semiconductor manufacture components (paragraph 0002), such as a semiconductor manufacturing articles including in spin, rinse, and dry modules (paragraph 0055) (i.e. a member for a semiconductor cleaning apparatus; also recited in claim 3 of Booze). The composite includes about 9-99 wt% polymer and 1-91% fibers that are compressed into a matte (paragraph 0016). The fibers can be aligned on average along one direction perpendicular to the z axis, and one can assign that direction to correspond to the x axis (paragraph 0024). Booze teaches generally that the polymer can be a fluoropolymer and can comprise repeat units of tetrafluoroethylene, perfluoro (alkoxy-alkane) such as perfluoro(vinyl propyl ether), or combinations thereof (copolymers) (paragraph 0035) with specific examples using tetrafluoroethylene-perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) copolymer (i.e. tetrafluoroethylene/perfluoro(alkyl vinyl ether) copolymer) (paragraph 0064). Fibers include carbon fiber, etc., which is a preferred fiber (paragraph 0040), with specific examples using carbon fibers (paragraphs 0061-0063). Since the matte is a sheet (depicted by Booze in Fig. 2A), the carbon fibers in a sheet is considered to be a sheet of carbon fibers. Booze teaches that the mattes are placed with their length directions orthogonally oriented to their one or two nearest neighbors and then heated so that the temperature is greater than 310 C while compressing along the thickness direction to consolidate the stack (paragraph 0069). The polymer can flow upon heating above the polymer melting point or can wet the fibers after softening (paragraph 0036). In the specific examples, the polymer has a melting point of approximately 305 C (paragraph 0064), and therefore this process of consolidating the stack will necessarily result in the fiber and copolymer being thermally fused with each other. Regarding the instantly claimed carbon fiber length, Booze teaches that the median length of the fibers can be longer or shorter or the same as the median height of the matte containing the fibers (paragraph 0041), and wherein the mattes may have any convenient dimensions such as more than 1 cm in height, etc. (paragraph 0030). This is considered to teach where the length of the fibers may be more than 1 cm, etc. (i.e. more than 10 mm), which overlaps the instantly claimed length. The courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap, lie inside of, or are close to ranges in the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is noted that as of the writing of this Office Action, no demonstration of a criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
While not reciting a singular example of the instantly claimed member, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the fibers to have a length of 10 mm or greater because the length of fibers taught by Booze overlaps the instantly claimed range, which the courts have held to be prima facie obvious, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 5: Booze teaches that the composite includes about 9-99 wt% polymer and 1-91% fibers that are compressed into a matte (i.e. a prepreg) (paragraph 0016) and specific examples have about 20 wt% carbon fibers and 80% polymer. The carbon fiber had a bulk density of 200 g/L (paragraph 0061) and the polymer had a specific gravity of approximately 2.15 g/ra (i.e. about 2.15 g/cm3, which is about 2150 g/L) (paragraph 0064). A matte had a basis weight of about 0.12 lb/ft2 and dimensions of about 16.75 inches by 18 inches (paragraphs 0067). Using these values, a matte having about 9 wt% carbon fiber would be about 52% by volume of carbon fiber, and the specific example of 20 wt% carbon fiber is about 73% by volume. This range overlaps the instantly claimed range and the courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap, lie inside, or are close to ranges in the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is noted that as of the writing of this Office Action, no demonstration of a criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Claim 6: Booze teaches that the matte is in a relatively unconstrained state at the edges and therefore the fibers can be moved along with the polymer (paragraph 0019), which is considered to teach the carbon fibers as being opened else they would be more constrained in potential movement.
Claims 7 and 8: Booze states that fluoropolymers are known to have the attribute of high temperature resistance and chemical resistance useful for the chemical processing industry (paragraph 0003), and further due to being made of substantially identical materials as recited in instant claim 1, is considered to be configured as claimed because a material and its properties are inseparable. See MPEP § 2112.
Claims 9-10: Booze teaches that article CA2-24 was made using CF2 carbon fibers but otherwise made as for CA1-24 (paragraph 0070). CA1-24 was made from a dry matte having a basis weight of approximately 0.12 lb/ft2 (paragraph 0067), made from about 20% by weight of CF1 (carbon fiber) (paragraph 0066), and CF2 has 3 nanomoles per gram fiber of aluminum (Al) (paragraph 0062). This equates to about 0.96 ng/cm2 of Al in the member. Since the member can only release what it has, this is considered to teach a release of ≤0.96 ng/cm2 of Al, regardless of the solvent it is immersed in. This amount lies within the instantly claimed ranges. See MPEP § 2131.03.
Claims 11-12: Booze teaches that article CA2-24 was made using CF2 carbon fibers but otherwise made as for CA1-24 (paragraph 0070). CA1-24 was made from a dry matte having a basis weight of approximately 0.12 lb/ft2 (paragraph 0067), made from about 20% by weight of CF1 (carbon fiber) (paragraph 0066), and CF2 has 10 or less nanomoles per gram fiber of calcium (Ca) (paragraph 0062). This equates to about 4.7 ng/cm2 or less of Ca in the member. Since the member can only release what it has, this is considered to teach a release of ≤4.7 ng/cm2 of Ca, regardless of the solvent it is immersed in. This amount lies within the instantly claimed ranges. See MPEP § 2131.03.
Claims 13-14: Booze teaches that the pre-consolidated matte did not undergo noticeable expansion during heating to 300 C (paragraph 0076) and a composite article can have a coefficient of thermal expansion in the XY direction of about 10 ppm/K (i.e. a temperature change of 300 K, which is about 300 C, would only have thermal expansion of about 3000 ppm, which is less than 1%), and this lies within the instantly claimed ranges. See MPEP § 2131.03.
Claims 15-16: Booze teaches that the fibers can be aligned on average along one direction perpendicular to the z axis, and one can assign that direction to correspond to the x axis (paragraph 0024). Having aligned fibers is considered to teach substantially unidirectional fibers where a plurality of carbon monofilaments are substantially paralleled in one direction (i.e. in the direction of the x axis).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 08 January 2026, regarding the prior art have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant argues, see p. 6, that Booze does not disclose an average fiber length of 10 mm or greater based on a disclosure of about 6.0 mm in paragraph 0061 of Booze. However, paragraph 0061 of Booze is for a specific example, but as outlined above, Booze also teaches more broadly a range for the length that overlaps the instantly claimed range.
Applicant further argues, see p. 7, that Booze uses a method of dispersing fluoropolymer and carbon fiber in water which would be difficult to adopt carbon fibers having an average fiber length of 10 mm or greater. However, Booze teaches a paper making process as an example process, but states that a matte can be prepared by any known technique (paragraph 0028). Regardless of the method employed (i.e. the method is not an instantly claimed feature), as outlined above, Booze teaches that the fibers can be aligned on average along one direction perpendicular to the z axis, and one can assign that direction to correspond to the x axis (paragraph 0024). Having fibers aligned in one direction such as the x axis is considered to teach substantially unidirectional fibers where a plurality of carbon monofilaments are substantially paralleled in one direction (i.e. in the direction of the x axis).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIM S HORGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached on 571-272-0604. 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.
/KIM S. HORGER/Examiner, Art Unit 1784