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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-10 and 12-15 are pending and presented for examination. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks dated 12 February 2026 (hereinafter, “Remarks at __”) are acknowledged and entered.
The rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Huang is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment requiring the fiber be hollow as it is not in Huang.
The rejection of claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/103 over Yue is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment requiring the fiber be hollow as it is not in Yue.
The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/103 over Zhou is MAINTAINED and updated below to reflect the instant amendment.
The traversal is that Zhou does not disclose the presence of a hollow fiber structure and no interconnected structure within a wall of the hollow fiber structure (Remarks at 11). This is not persuasive as Zhou discloses that the porosity within the walls are hierarchical (see the attached article entitled Hierarchical Porosity → Area → Sustainability which defines such as being interconnected pores of many sizes) and that the material is an open matrix and is hollow (“Fig. 1”).
The rejection of claims 1 and 3-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Meng in view of Liu is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment requiring a hierarchical pore structure which Meng does not have, nor an interconnected pore structure.
The rejection of claims 12, 13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Ramos is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment requiring a hierarchical pore structure and interconnected pores. As is the dependent rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over the same in further view of Li as the base rejection was withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou.
Regarding claim 15, Zhou discloses a graphite nanofiber (Zhou at 14066 L col) which has a hollow structure (open matrix, “Fig. 1”), has a plurality of mesopores (as its mesoporous ad the size is 2-10 nm, Id.) and it has an interconnected structure (as it is hierarchical as defined above, Id.) within a wall fo the hollow fiber structure (“Fig. 1”). The claim further states that the nanofiber is made by the method of claim 10 but this is a product-by-process limitation which is examined on the merits of the product not how it is made. While the product is claimed as dependent upon the process made, there is nothing to suggest that the instant product would have different properties, structure or aspects than that in the prior art, absent evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, at minimal one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that prior art product and the instant product would have the same product aspects as that instantly claimed. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) also MPEP 2113, et seq. As shown supra the product is known.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Carbon hollow fibers with tunable hierarchical structure as self-standing supercapacitor electrode” to Liu et al. (hereinafter, “Liu at __”).
Regarding claim 10, Liu discloses a porous carbon material (Liu at “Title”) which has a hollow fiber structure 2 L col), having an interconnected structure within a wall of the hollow fiber structure of the porous carbon material (“Fig. 1” and again it is hierarchical) and the mesopore diameter is 2-6 nm (“Fig. 4”). While the claim states that the porous carbon material must be made by the method of claim 1, this renders the claim that of a product-by-process type and is thusly examined on the merits of the product not how it is made. While the product is claimed as dependent upon the process made, there is nothing to suggest that the instant product would have different properties, structure or aspects than that in the prior art, absent evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, at minimal one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that prior art product and the instant product would have the same product aspects as that instantly claimed. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) also MPEP 2113, et seq. As shown supra the product is known.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Tailored Hollow Core/Mesoporous Shell Carbon Nanofibers as Highly Efficient and Durable Cathode Catalyst Supports for Polymer Electrolyte Fuel Cells” to Karuppanan et al. (hereinafter, “Karuppanan at __”).
Regarding claim 10, Karuppananan discloses a hollow mesoporous carbon nanofiber (Karuppananan at “Abstract”) which has an interconnected porous structure in the wall of the structure and has a pore diameter of 2-50 nm (2034 L col). While the claim states that the porous carbon material must be made by the method of claim 1, this renders the claim that of a product-by-process type and is thusly examined on the merits of the product not how it is made. While the product is claimed as dependent upon the process made, there is nothing to suggest that the instant product would have different properties, structure or aspects than that in the prior art, absent evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, at minimal one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that prior art product and the instant product would have the same product aspects as that instantly claimed. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) also MPEP 2113, et seq. As shown supra the product is known.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 and 12-14 allowed.
As to claim 1 (and those dependent thereon), none of the cited prior art, either alone or in combination, discloses or reasonably suggests a method of making a porous carbon fiber structure comprising coating with a metal compound a polymer template structure which is a hollow fiber having an interconnected structure within a wall of the hollow fiber structure and then heating the structure to carbonize the material and etching away the coating layer to yield a porous carbon composite material with a hierarchical structure. Newly cited “Mesoporous TiO2/WO3 hollow fibers with interior interconnected nanotubes for photocatalytic application” to Liu et al., discloses coating a porous polymer template with an interconnected structure with titania and tungsten oxide and heats it but removes the carbon material not the metal oxide as it wants to retain the metal oxide. Zhou does not disclose the coating and metal removing aspect. In Karuppanan the metal coating is done after the carbon fiber is formed and the metal is not removed therefrom.
As to claim 12 (and those dependent thereon), graphitizing the carbon fiber of claim 10 is not taught or suggested either alone or in combination by the prior art. While Zhou discloses graphite nanofiber production it is not from a carbonized nanofiber which meets claim 10.
Conclusion
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected. Claims 1-9 and 12-14 are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD M RUMP whose telephone number is (571)270-5848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 06:45 AM to 04:45 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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
RICHARD M. RUMP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/RICHARD M RUMP/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759