DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s reply, filed 15 June 2026 in response to the non-final Office action mailed 22 April 2026, has been fully considered. As per Applicant’s election (see below) of Group I, claims 1-7 are pending under examination and claims 8-16 are withdrawn. Further as per Applicant’s filed claim amendments claims 1-7 are pending wherein: claim 1 has been amended and claims 2-7 are as previously presented.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 15 June 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on 15 June 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the reference of Arruda (US PGPub 2013/0288050) fails to anticipate or render obvious the instant inventions. This is not found persuasive because the reference of Arruda was utilized in the unity of invention restriction to establish that the instant technical feature of aramid solution manufacturing methods is not a special technical feature. Arruda contains sufficient teaching to establish that the special technical feature of the claims as originally filed was not a special one. Arguments to anticipation or obviousness are not germane to a restriction on unity of invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (CN 110656393 A; using Clarivate Analytics machine translation for English language citations).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Zhang teaches methods of making aramid solutions comprising, in an air or a protective atmosphere, combining an alkali and a solvent with stirring to form an alkali solution (instant step i)), then adding aramid powder (instant step ii)) with stirring (instant step iii)) to obtain a dispersion (pg1 abstract; pg2 summary; pg3; pg4-5 examples). Zhang further teaches the relative dosage ratio of the aramid powder to alkali to solvent is 0.05g to 20g (aramid) : 0.5g to 10 g (alkali) : 100 mL (solvent) (pg2 summary; see also pg4-5 examples). Zhang teaches the alkali is selected from organic and inorganic alkali base material, wherein inorganic alkali is preferred and selected from Ca(OH)2, NaOH, and/or KOH (pg2 summary). Zhang further teaches the solvent is an organic solvent selected from DMF, DMSO, NMP, etc. and mixtures thereof (pg3 top). Zhang further teaches example 7 where the alkali solution is obtained by mixing 5g KOH, 10g triethylamine, and 60 mL of DMSO (~3.1 Mol base per L solvent).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang teaches the method as set forth above and further teaches that the alkali and the solvent are mixed to obtain an alkali dissolved solution, for a period of 30 mins (examples)(instant chemical equilibrium).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang teaches the method as set forth above and teaches that mixtures of solvents may be present but does not teach or require the presence of a ‘proton donor’ as claimed (instant at most 10 wt%, where “at most” includes zero).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang teaches the method as set forth above and teaches the aramid concentration of 0.1 to 20 % (pg3).
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (CN 112409613 A; using Clarivate Analytics machine translation for English language citations; hereafter Zhang-2).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 3, Zhang-2 teaches methods of preparing aramid fiber nano dispersion liquids comprising the steps of (1) adding aramid to a strong alkaline solution and soaking for 10-30s (instant step ii) combining), and (2) adding dimethyl sulfoxide to the solution and stirring for 5 to 20 min at 25-60 ºC with stirring (pg1 abstract; pg2; pg4-7 examples)(instant step iii) mixing and obtaining). Zhang-2 further teaches a pre-step of forming the strong alkaline solution by dissolving the strong alkali substance(s) in a solvent(s) forming a strong alkali solution (instant step i) solvent-base mixture) having a mass fraction of 4.8 to 25 wt% (pg2).
Zhang-2 teaches the strong alkali solution obtained by combing the alkali substance(s) and solvent(s) and fully dissociating the alkali in the solvent (pg4)(instant chemical equilibrium prior to combining). Zhang-2 further exemplifies alkali-solvent strong solutions which equate to a Moles base per liter solvent range from ~0.9 to ~7 Moles alkali substance(s) per 1 L solvent(s) (Examples 1-12) to which the aramid material is added, following which 50 mL of DMSO is added and the solution is mixed at speed to obtain a dispersed solution (examples).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang-2 teaches the method as set forth above and teaches that mixtures of solvents may be present but does not teach or require the presence of a ‘proton donor’ as claimed (instant at most 10 wt%, where “at most” includes zero)(see also examples where any proton donating compounds present are less than 10 wt%).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang-2 teaches the method as set forth above and teaches that the total amount of aramid is present in a the dispersion liquid in a solid-to-liquid ratio of 0.1g:50mL (pg2; examples).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 110656393 A; using Clarivate Analytics machine translation for English language citations) in view of Marumoto (JP 2006241271 A; using Clarivate Analytics machine translation for English language citations).
Regarding claims 5-6, Zhang teaches the method as set forth in claim 1 above and teaches stirring/mixing. Zhang also teaches that it is important the method be capable of being prepared on industrial/commercial production lines existing for aramid production (pg2).
Zhang does not specifically teach shearing (claim 5) and twin screw kneader or extruder (claim 6). However, Marumoto teaches it is known to utilize available apparatuses capable of shearing for producing aramid solutions including single screw extruders, twin screw extruders, and other similar mixers (pg3). Marumoto teaches such is preferable as solutions produced under shear have good solubility and are industrially preferable methods (pg3). Marumoto and Zhang are analogous art and are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely methods of obtaining aramid solutions. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize shearing via a twin screw extruder as taught by Marumoto in the stirring/mixing step of Zhang and would have been motivated to do so as Zhang is concerned with existing industrial methods of processing aramid solutions and further as Marumoto teaches shear mixing is an industrially preferable method of obtaining aramid solutions.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 112409613 A; using Clarivate Analytics machine translation for English language citations, hereafter Zhang-2) in view of Marumoto (JP 2006241271 A; using Clarivate Analytics machine translation for English language citations).
Regarding claims 5-6, Zhang-2 teaches the method as set forth in claim 1 above and teaches stirring at speed. Zhang-2 also teaches that it is important the method is realizable in large-scale industrial/commercial production (pg2).
Zhang-2 does not specifically teach shearing (claim 5) and twin screw kneader or extruder (claim 6). However, Marumoto teaches it is known to utilize available apparatuses capable of shearing for producing aramid solutions including single screw extruders, twin screw extruders, and other similar mixers (pg3). Marumoto teaches such is preferable as solutions produced under shear have good solubility and are industrially preferable methods (pg3). Marumoto and Zhang-2 are analogous art and are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely methods of obtaining aramid solutions. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize shearing via a twin screw extruder as taught by Marumoto in the stirring/mixing step of Zhang-2 and would have been motivated to do so as Zhang-2 is concerned with existing industrial methods of processing aramid solutions and further as Marumoto teaches shear mixing is an industrially preferable method of obtaining aramid solutions.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of copending Application No. 19/115925 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of both the instant and copending applications are directed to substantially similar methods of making aramid solutions comprising substantially the same steps and components, and amounts thereof.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANE L STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM to 3:30 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/JANE L STANLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights