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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment dated 11/13/2025 has been considered and entered into the record. Claim 17 has been cancelled. Claims 1–16 and 18–20 remain pending, while claims 11–16 and 18–20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Newly amended claims 11–16 and 18–20 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Independent claims 11 and 20 each require a process of pyrolyzation of resin to create a sequentially increasing porosity from a center of the porosity gradient fibrous preform toward an outer surface of the porosity gradient fibrous preform. Independent claim 1, which is directed to a different statutory class of invention, an article of manufacture, does not require pyrolyzation of its resin. Accordingly, the article of independent claim 1 may be made using a materially different process that does not require pyrolyzation and as such is restrictable from the amended claims. Thus, the restriction is maintained.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 11–16 and 18–20 remain withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sassin (US 2020/0152989 A1).
Sassin discloses 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. Claim 6 is rejected as chemical vapors would be able to flow through the interconnected pores of the nanofoam composite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 3, 4, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sassin as applied to claims 1 and 2 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 layer than the second layer, 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 so as to successfully practice the invention of Sassin.
Claim 10 is rejected as phenolic resin is a thermoset polymer resin.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights