DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Please note that the examiner assigned to the current application has been changed. The new examiner's name and contact information are stated at the end of this action. Applicant is requested to take note of the change.
Election/Restrictions
3. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on April 16, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-15, 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 16, 2026.
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.
4. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (CN110982114, based on machine translation).
5. Zhang et al discloses a method for making aramid porous aerogel film ([0011]) comprising:
1) mixing aramid fiber with a solvent, such as dimethyl sulfoxide and/or N-methyl pyrrolidone ([0061]), and a sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide ([0066], [0083], as to instant claims 2-4) to form a uniform aramid nanofiber dispersion ([0069], [0039]);
2) coating the produced dispersion on a substrate by blade coating or spin coating ([0014], [0070], as to instant claim 6);
3) transferring the product of step 2) to a coagulation bath to form a gel film through sol-gel displacement ([0014], [0050]), wherein the coagulation bath comprises ethanol, methanol ([0071], [0083], as to instant claims 7-9);
4) drying the gel film, preferably by freeze drying ([0072]),
Wherein a further solvent replacement is performed before said freeze drying, that is the gel film is first replaced with a replacement solvent before freeze drying, wherein the replacement solvent comprises water ([0072]).
6. Based on the teachings of Zhang et al, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to choose and use ethanol or methanol as the coagulation bath to form the gel film, and further choose and use water as the replacement solvent applied to the gel film before the freeze drying, since it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). Case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning, as taught by analogous prior art) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958).
7. Thus, Zhang et al explicitly teaches the use of ethanol/methanol as the coagulation bath to form the gel film, followed by replacing the used solvent with the replacement solvent including water before the freeze drying.
8. As to instant claim 11, the aerogel nanofiber film is having thickness of 10-1000 micron ([0044]).
As to instant claim 5, the concentration of the aramid nanofiber in the dispersion of step 1) is 0.1-10%wt ([0067]).
9. As to instant claim 8, as evidenced by https://www.bing.com/search?q=ethanol%20%20pKa&qs=n&form= and
https://www.bing.com/search?q=water%20%20pKa&qs=n&form:
The pKa of water at 25°C is 14.00.
Water’s pKa is derived from its autoionization equilibrium, where water molecules dissociate into hydronium (H3O+) and hydroxide (OH−) ions. The equilibrium constant for this process, Kw, is 1.0 × 10⁻¹⁴ at 25°C, and the pKa is calculated as the negative logarithm of the acid dissociation constant Ka, giving pKa = 14.00 at standard conditions (25°C)
PNG
media_image1.png
32
32
media_image1.png
Greyscale
libretexts.org+1.
The pKa of ethanol is approximately 16.
Ethanol (CH3CH2OH) is a typical aliphatic alcohol with a pKa around 16, making it slightly more acidic than water, which has a pKa of 15.7 in aqueous solution
PNG
media_image2.png
32
32
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Master Organic Chemistry. This value indicates that ethanol is a weak acid, and its conjugate base, the ethoxide ion (CH3CH2O−), is relatively strong. The acidity of ethanol is influenced by the electron-donating effect of the ethyl group, which slightly destabilizes the negative charge on the oxygen after deprotonation, keeping the pKa high
PNG
media_image2.png
32
32
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Master Organic Chemistry.
10. Since the aramid nanofiber aerogel film is produced by essentially or substantially the same process as that claimed in instant invention, and is specified as being porous aerogel, therefore, said aramid nanofiber aerogel film will intrinsically and necessarily have at least one nanopore and at least one micropore, as claimed in instant invention as well (as to instant claim 10). The above rejections were made in the sense of in re Fitzgerald (205 USPQ 594). (CAFC ) based on presumption that the properties governing the claimed aramid nanofiber film, if not taught, may be very well met by the aramid nanofiber film of Zhang et al, since the aramid nanofiber films of Zhang et al are essentially the same and made in essentially the same manner as applicants’ aramid nanofiber film, wherein the burden to show that it is not the case is shifted to applicants; or in the sense of In re Spada, 911 F 2d 705, 709 15 USPQ 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990), which settles that when the claimed compositions are not novel, they are not rendered patentable by recitation of properties, whether or not these properties are shown or suggested in prior art. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01(I). Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01.
11. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (CN110982114, based on machine translation) in view of Kotov et al (US 2019/0085139).
12. The discussion with respect to Zhang et al (CN110982114, based on machine translation) set forth in paragraphs 4-10 above, is incorporated here by reference.
13. Though Zhang et al does not explicitly teach the use of specifically water as the replacement solvent before freeze-drying,
Kotov et al discloses a method for forming aramid nanofiber aerogel comprising:
1) making a suspension of aramid nanofibers (ANF) in DMSO/KOH ([0081]);
2) making a layer of ANF suspension on a substrate ([0093]);
3) adding water to cause phase transformation and prepare a hydrogel containing water and the ANF ([0093]);
4) freeze-drying to remove water and form the aerogel ([0094], [0092]).
Thus, Kotov et al teaches the step of freeze drying performed from a hydrogel, i.e. water-based AFN nanofiber film.
14. Thus, Kotov et al explicitly teaches that before the freeze-drying step the ANF gel is transformed into a hydrogel by adding water.
15. Since both Kotov et al and Zhang et al are related to methods for forming aramid nanofiber aerogel by preparing a dispersion/suspension of aramid fibers in DMSO/KOH, followed by coating said suspension on a substrate, solvent exchanging and freeze-drying, and thereby belong to the same field of endeavor, wherein Kotov et al explicitly teaches forming hydrogel from said ANF nanofiber by treating said ANF nanofiber layer with water before freeze drying, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Zhang et al and Kotov et al, and to choose and use, or obvious to try to use water as the replacement solvent in the method of Zhang et al, so convert the aramid nanofiber gel into the hydrogel before its freeze-drying, since such step is taught in the art as shown by Kotov et al, and it would be obvious to apply such step in the method of Zhang et al as well.
Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). Case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning, as taught by analogous prior art) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). The key to supporting any rejection under 35 USC 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 USC 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that "‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’" KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141
16. Since the aramid nanofiber aerogel film of Zhang et al in view of Kotov et al is produced by essentially or substantially the same process as that claimed in instant invention, and is specified as being porous aerogel, therefore, said aramid nanofiber aerogel film of Zhang et al in view of Kotov et al will intrinsically and necessarily have at least one nanopore and at least one micropore, as claimed in instant invention as well (as to instant claim 10). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01(I). Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2013/0288050 is related to method for forming aramid nanofiber thin films.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRINA KRYLOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-7349. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm EST M-F.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
/IRINA KRYLOVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights