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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2, 7-8, 11, 15-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curran (US Pat. 5,705,122).
Regarding claim 2, Curran teaches a composite fiber comprising a first fiber component material comprising a material of a semiconductor (silicon carbide made from silicon polymer) and a second fiber component member comprising a ceramic material (silicon carbide made from poly(silicon ester)) and an intermediate layer (borazine polymer which is made into ceramic) is also taught between the first fiber component member and the second fiber component member [2:45-47 and 7:22-27 and claim 13]. The first fiber component member and the second fiber component member are in contact with each other via the intermediate layer such that the first and second fiber component members form a fibrous body [2:45-47 and 7:22-27]. Curran is silent regarding the volume resistivity of the first fiber component member. However, it is noted that Applicant has claimed an extremely broad range of volume resistivity and further Curran teach the first fiber component member is ceramic which is also taught by the present specification and ceramic has a volume resistivity in the claimed range. Curran teaches the core as the reinforcing fiber which supports the core as the principal structural load bearing component. Curran also teaches internal structuring chosen to tailor final properties and therefore based upon the teachings of Curran, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the first fiber component member have a tensile strength and/or elastic modulus that is higher than that of the second fiber component member in order to have a core that is stronger for reinforcement as is known in the art.
Regarding claims 7-8 and 18, Curran are silent regarding the claimed tensile strength of the first fiber component member. However, Curran teach the first fiber component member is silicon carbide which is taught by the present specification. Given Curran teach such similar material for the first fiber component member, it is clear the tensile strength is inherently present in the first fiber component member of Curran. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed tensile strength in order to improve the tensile strength of the composite fiber and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11, Curran teaches sintering the ceramic and therefore teaches the second fiber component member is a ceramic centered body.
Regarding claim 15, in a cross-sectional view of the composite fiber, the first fiber component member is at least partially surrounded by the second fiber component member [2:45-47 and 7:22-27].
Regarding claim 16, Curran teaches multiple cores [2:42-43] and therefore teaches the first fiber component member is composed of a plurality of sub-fiber component members.
Regarding claim 20, a ceramic constituent of the ceramic material is at least one from the claimed selected group claimed in claim 20 [2:45-47 and 7:22-27 and 8:1-7].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curran (US Pat. 5,705,122) in view of Sacks et al. (US Pat. 5,792,416).
Regarding claim 19, Curran is silent regarding the claimed first fiber component member being at least partially doped. However, Sacks et al. teach an at least partially doped silicon carbide fiber in order to provide improved fiber properties including tensile strength. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the at least partially doped silicon carbide fibers in Curran in order to improve the fiber properties including tensile strength and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curran (US Pat. 5,705,122) in view of Guo et al. (CN 103898632).
Regarding claim 13, Curran is silent regarding the claimed specific ceramic material. However, Guo et al. teach ceramic material is barium titanate in order to provide piezoelectric properties. It would have been obvious to use the apatite of Guo et al. in Curran in order to provide piezoelectric properties and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curran (US Pat. 5,705,122).
Regarding claim 17, Curran is silent regarding in a cross-sectional view of the composite fiber, the plurality of sub-fiber component members are disposed within a contour region of the second fiber component fiber. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to dispose the plurality of sub-fiber component members are disposed within a contour region of the second fiber component fiber given the limited number of options and also in order to provide improved strength and consistent properties across the fiber and arrive at the claimed invention.
Art Not Used But Relevant
PG Pub. 2015/0004393 teaches a multilayer ceramic fiber.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Curran does not teach the claimed first fiber component having a tensile strength and/or elastic modulus greater than that of the second fiber component. Curran teaches the core as the reinforcing fiber which supports the core as the principal structural load bearing component. Curran also teaches internal structuring chosen to tailor final properties and therefore based upon the teachings of Curran, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the first fiber component member have a tensile strength and/or elastic modulus that is higher than that of the second fiber component member in order to have a core that is stronger for reinforcement as is known in the art.
Applicant is advised to amend the claim language over the cited art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm 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, 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789