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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/25/25 has been entered.
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,4, 6, 16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ren et al, WO 2019/108712.
Ren discloses PPTA fibers, (see entire document especially p. 9, lines 1-5), having diameters of 100nm -100 microns, (p. 20, lines 13-15), wherein the fibers have a Young’s Modulus of greater than about 6 GPa, (page 22, lines 25- p. 23, line 9 note that a treated PPTA fiber has a Young’s modulus of about 7.9), wherein the structures can be used to form garments wherein the inventive fiber containing layer is placed inside pockets of conventional fabrics, (p. 26, lines 13-26). The fibers can be formed into woven or nonwoven fabrics. See p. 20, lines 8-12. The fibers can have a thermal conductivity of greater than 0.04 W/mK. See page 33, lines 19-21. The fibers are also useful in forming composite materials. The fibers can be made into garments. See page 26, lines 13-30.
Ren does not clearly teach how the thermal conductivity is measured, however, it would appear that the value would be the same, regardless of the particular method of measuring, or else it would have been obvious to have formed the fibers of Ren so that they had the desired thermal conductivity.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren et al, WO 2019/108712.
Ren discloses PPTA structures as set forth above.
Ren does not clearly teach the claimed volume density of fibers.
However, it would have been obvious to have selected the volume density of the fibers which provided the desired properties to the final product.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren et al, WO 2019/108712 in view of Arruda et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20130288050 and Pardue, Jr., U.S. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0300386.
Ren discloses PPTA structures as set forth above.
Ren differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose incorporating another polymer and does not disclose the aspect ratio of the fibers.
With regard to the aspect ratio, Arruda discloses PPTA fibers having a diameter of 3-30 nm and lengths of 10 um. See paragraphs 0005-0006, paragraph 0030. The nanofibers can have a diameter of 3-100 nanometers and an aspect ratio of at least 20 times the diameter, wherein the length of the nanofibers can be 0.1-10 microns. See paragraph 0032.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have employed fibers having an aspect ratio as taught by Arruda in view of their art recognized suitability for use in forming composite materials.
With regard to employing the fibers in a composite material, Pardue teaches employing PPTA fibers in a matrix such as polyurethane or a phenolic resin to form a composite material. See entire document, especially claims 1-3.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed PPTA fibers as taught by Ren in composite materials as taught by Pardue, in view of their art recognized suitability for the purpose of forming composite materials.
Applicant's arguments 11/25/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ren is drawn to forming a ceramic polymer composite material. However, Ren discloses diverse applications for the fibers, including soft items such as garments.
Applicant argues that the reference to Young’s Modulus is to a ceramic-polymer composite, rather than a plurality of PPTA fibers. However, However, Ren discusses both PPTA fibers and fibers which are coated with ceramic. Thus, on page 22, Ren discloses a PPTA fiber which is not coated with ceramic, which has a Young’s modulus of greater than 6. See lines 27-28.
Applicant argues that Ren discloses fibers which have an alumina shells which have the claimed thermal conductivity. However, the claims do not preclude the presence of any coatings. A coated PPTA fiber is still a polymeric fiber and a plurality of such fibers are still a plurality of PPTA fibers.
Applicant argues that the direction in which the thermal conductivity is measured matters because the thermal conductivity is directionally dependent. However, even so, since Ren is disclosing the same materials, there is at least a reasonable presumption that they would have the claimed properties such as thermal conductivity, if measured in the same way.
Applicant argues that the alignment of the fibers also contributes to the value of thermal conductivity obtained. However, the claims do not recite a particular alignment of the fibers. Ren discloses various configurations of the fibers, including as woven and nonwoven fabrics and as aligned fiber arrays. Therefore, since Applicant asserts that thermal conductivity is dependent on the direction of the fibers and since Ren discloses both unidirectional and non-unidirectional fiber arrays, one of ordinary skill would have been able to select the orientation of the fibers which produced the desired thermal conductivity.
Applicant argues that Ren teaches away from low thermal conductivity PPTA fibers at page 33 by employing an alumina coating. However, as page 33, Ren teaches that PPTA fibers have a thermal conductivity than can be increased by an alumina coating. This does not constitute a teaching away and does not establish that the fibers of Ren which do not always require a coating would not have the same thermal conductivity if measured the same way, since like materials must have like properties.
Applicant argues that it is not conventional or routine to provide a volume density as claimed. However, since Ren teaches providing structures comprising a plurality of the fibers, the structures will necessarily have both a basis weight and a volume density and the person of ordinary skill would have been able to select both in view of the intended uses of the final product and by controlling the amount of fibers provided in a given volume.
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 ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 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.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights