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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment dated 2/20/2026 has been considered and entered into the record. Claim 1 has been amended to overcome the previous prior art rejections. Additionally, new claims 21–25 have been added. Claims 1, 3–7, 9–12, 14–16, 18, 19, and 21–25 are pending, while claims 11, 12, 14–16, 18, and 19 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1, 3–7, 9, 10, and 21–25 are examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 1, 3–7, 9–10, and 21–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, from which all other examined claims depend, it is not clear what is meant by the first, second, and third resins “are configured to be pyrolyzed” to generate first, second, and third porosities, respectively. In particular, it is not clear whether the claimed porosity gradient fibrous preform contains first, second, and third porosities, or are that the three resins are simply capable of generating the required porosities because the claim is directed to a “preform.” Additionally, it is not clear how a configured resin differs structurally or chemically from the same resin which has not been “configured.” Accordingly, the scope of the claims is unclear.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 22 requires that the second resin composition to be different from the composition of the first resin. This limitation is required by amended claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1, 5, 6, and 21–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sassin (US 2020/0152989 A1).
Sassin teaches a carbon nanofoam composite comprising a gradient pore structure, wherein the composite includes two or more layers each comprising differing polymer resins and carbon fiber paper. Sassin abstract, ¶¶ 25–26, 30–32, Figs. 1–2. As shown in the figures, the composite comprises second and optionally third layers, wherein the second and third layers are positioned outward from a center of the porosity gradient fibrous preform than a first layer and have increasing porosities. See id. Figs. 1–3.
The polymer resins are pyrolyzed to generate the carbon fiber paper nanofoams to produce at least first and second nanofoam layers, wherein the porosity of a second layer is greater than the first layer and the pores of the foam are interconnected. Id. ¶¶ 26, 29–32.
Sassin fails to teach a second outer fabric-resin layer being positioned outward from a central fabric-resin layer in a second direction opposite a first direction; wherein a porosity of the central fabric-resin layer is lower than the porosity of the second outer fabric-resin layer. However, Sassin does teach the creation of an electrochemical cell incorporating two laminated articles, wherein the laminate articles comprise first layers laminated together to form a central layer with a first porosity and the second and third outer layers positioned outward from the central layer facing opposing directions such that porosity increases from the central layer toward each of the outer layers. See id. ¶¶ 11, 27, Fig. 4.
PNG
media_image1.png
522
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected different polymers to make the layers having different porosities of the electrochemical cell because the artisan is merely selecting from a finite list of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (i.e., using the same polymers for each porosity, or different polymers). KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
Claim 6 is rejected as chemical vapors would be able to flow through the interconnected pores of the nanofoam composite. Claim 21 is rejected as the claim is a product-by-process claim and the laminated layers comprise fibers pre-impregnated by polymer resin. See Sassin ¶¶ 20–22; In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim(s) 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sassin as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Erdemir (WO 00/35669 A1).
Sassin fails to teach mixing carbon powder with first and second resins prior to pyrolyzation.
Erdemir teaches the formation of a carbon fiber and carbon foam composite, wherein the composite has a matrix resin char content of 0 to about 20 volume percent, a carbon black (i.e., powder) content of about 0 to about 10 volume percent. Erdemir at 3:8–20. The carbon black is added along with impregnating phenolic resin to provide reinforcement and additional carbon precursor prior to pyrolyzation. See id. at 3:22–4:9. The carbon fibers constitute from 30 to 70 volume percent of the carbon foam composite. Id. at 3:8–20.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to have used the phenolic resin containing carbon black to impregnate the carbon paper of Sassin to form a carbon nanofoam composite motivated by the desire to select a particular resin that is beneficially reinforced by carbon black in order successfully practice the invention.
When the carbon fiber, resin, and carbon black composites of the prior art composites are heated, non-carbon materials are removed once their temperature reaches the point of pyrolyzation. As such, layers with higher char yields would be less porous than those with lower levels of char because lower levels of char connotate more non-carbon material being removed. Accordingly, claim 7 is rejected because the char yield is obviously higher in the first, central layer than the outer layers, because that first layer has a lower porosity than the second.
Claim 9 is rejected as it would have been obvious to use the same fiber volume for each layer of the composite motivated by the desire to have consistent reinforcement throughout the entire composite. Additionally, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have looked to Erdemir for guidance as to suitable fiber volume percentages to successfully practice the invention of Sassin.
Claim 10 is rejected as phenolic resin is a thermoset polymer resin.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Sassin fails to anticipate the claimed invention. As set forth above, the anticipatory rejection based upon Sassin is withdrawn, but replaced with a finding that the claimed invention is obvious in view of Sassin.
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Sassin and Erdemir fail to teach the claimed porosity gradient. Applicant then argues that Erdemir fails to teach varying carbon powder content across layers to produce a center-outward porosity gradient. As shown above, the electrochemical cell of Sassin teaches the claimed porosity gradient.
Applicant next argues that neither prior art references teaches char yield differences between the layers having different porosities. Applicant also argues that Sassin fails to teach uniform fiber volume across layers. When the carbon fiber, resin, and carbon black composites of the prior art composites are heated, non-carbon materials are removed once their temperature reaches the point of pyrolyzation. As such, layers with higher char yields would be less porous than those with lower levels of char because lower levels of char connotate more non-carbon material being removed. Accordingly, claim 7 is rejected because the char yield is obviously higher in the first, central layer than the outer layers, because that first layer has a lower porosity than the second. Claim 9 is rejected as it would have been obvious to use the same fiber volume for each layer of the composite motivated by the desire to have consistent reinforcement throughout the entire composite. Additionally, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have looked to Erdemir for guidance as to suitable fiber volume percentages to successfully practice the invention of Sassin.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D MATZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-5732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571.272.7783. 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.
/MATTHEW D MATZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
