DETAILED ACTION
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on December 2, 2025 are entered into the file. Currently claims 1 and 7 are amended and claims 12-25 are withdrawn, resulting in claims 1-11 pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yurchenko (US 2018/0023244)1 in view of Hong (US 2015/0210811).
With respect to claims 1-2, 5-8, and 10-11, Yurchenko teaches carbon fibers having an amine-functionalized polymer electro-grafted onto a surface thereof (paragraph [0001]) and reinforced composites comprising the amine functionalized fibers (paragraph [0007]). The carbon fibers have a diameter in the range of 0.5 to 30 microns, preferably from 2 to 20 microns, and more preferably from 2 to 15 microns (paragraph [0076]). The fiber lengths in the examples were approximately 30 meters (paragraph [0110]) resulting in length-to-width aspect ratio of at least 1000. The amine-functionalized polymer includes a plurality of pendant, terminal primary, secondary, or tertiary amino-groups (paragraph [0062]). The resin used in the fiber reinforced composite may be epoxy based resins (paragraph [0018], [0083]).
With respect to the surface-modified carbon fiber composition consisting of the carbon fiber and the amine-containing polymer bonded to the outer surface of the carbon fiber, Yurchenko teaches that the carbon fibers may be untreated prior to electro-grafting (paragraph [0077]), the fiber is not sized or is de-sized prior to attachment of the amine-functionalized polymer (paragraph [0078]), and after being drawn through the treatment bath the fiber is washed with deionized water and dried (paragraph [0059]). The bath solution includes the amine-functionalized polymer, is aqueous or non-aqueous, and may include one or more electrolytes (paragraph [0054]). As only the amine polymer is grafted to the carbon, the electrolyte solution and any excess amine polymer would be removed when the fiber is washed, and any remaining water would be removed during the drying step, a carbon fiber composite comprising the carbon fiber and the amine polymer grafted to the surface of the carbon fiber is provided.
Yurchenko teaches the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach the amine-functionalized polymer is in the form of a coating with a thickness of less than 2 microns (2000 nm) and up to 0.5 microns (500 nm). It is reasonable to presume that the coating specifications are inherent to Yurchenko. Support for said presumption is found in that Yurchenko teaches the same deposition process as the claimed invention.
Paragraph [0007] of the specification as filed describes applying the amine-containing polymer to the carbon fiber through an electrodeposition process wherein the uncoated (surface treated or untreated) carbon fiber is immersed in an electrolytic solution containing a dissolved amount of amine-containing polymer. After electrodeposition of the amine-containing polymer, the surface-modified carbon fiber is washed.
Similarly, Yurchenko discloses electro-grafting an amine-functionalize polymer onto a carbon fiber, wherein the carbon fiber is drawn through an electrolyte bath, washed, and dried (Yurchenko; paragraph [0059]). The bath solution comprises the amine-functionalized polymer and may include one or more electrolytes (Yurchenko; paragraph [0054]). The carbon fibers may be treated or untreated prior to electro-grafting (paragraph [0077]).
With respect to the thickness of the coating, the instant specification further discloses at paragraphs [0027]-[0028] that the thickness of the coating of the amine-containing polymer can be at least partly controlled by selection of the polymer concentration during the electrodeposition process, which ranges from 0.001-5 wt%. Paragraph [0029] of the instant specification further teaches that the thickness of the coating of the amine-containing polymer can also be controlled by selection of the period of time that the voltage is applied during the electrodeposition process, which can range from 5-120 s. Finally, paragraph [0030] of the instant specification describes that the thickness of the coating can also be controlled by selection of the electrical current applied during the electrodeposition process.
Similarly, Yurchenko teaches that the concentration of the amine-functionalized polymer in the bath may range from about 0.5 to 5 weight percent based on the total weight of the bath (Yurchenko; paragraph [0058]) and the exposure time of the carbon fiber in the bath preferably ranges from about 1 to 2 minutes, particularly about 1 minute (Yurchenko; paragraph [0060]). Yurchenko does not teach the electrical current applied, however Yurchenko does teach that the applied voltage typically ranges from about 0.1 to 10 volts with 0.5 to 5 volts being preferred (Yurchenko; paragraph [0061]). According to point 8 of the Declaration filed June 23, 2025, the volage applied in the present invention is typically very low (less than 20 volts).
Since Yurchenko teaches the same method of surface treating a carbon fiber with an amine-functionalized polymer, particularly the process parameters that are identified by the instant specification as controlling the thickness of the resulting coating, the surface-modified carbon fiber of Yurchenko is expected to have the claimed coating and coating thicknesses.
Yurchenko is silent as to the amine-containing polymer being selected from the group consisting of chitosan, polylysine, polyglycine, and poly(4-aminostyrene).
Hong teaches a carbon nanomaterial-polymer composite material (paragraph [0007]). The carbon nanomaterial may include a functionalized carbon fiber (paragraph [0012]) and the polymer matrix may include a thermosetting resin such as an epoxy resin (paragraph [0018]-[0019]). A functional molecule such as poly-4-aminostyrene may be attached to the surface of the carbon nanomaterial and is capable of coupling the polymer matrix and the carbon nanomaterial to smoothly transfer stress between the polymer matrix and the nanomaterial (paragraphs [0029], [0065]-[0066], [0079]-[0080]).
Since both Yurchenko and Hong teach carbon fibers modified by and amine-containing polymer to increase bonding between the carbon fiber and an epoxy resin matrix, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the amine-functionalized polymer of Yurchenko to be poly-4-aminostyrene in order to provide coupling between the carbon fibers and epoxy matrix which allows for the smooth transfer of stress between the materials.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yurchenko (US 2018/0023244)1 in view of Hong (US 2015/0210811) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Bowland (US 2019/0256672)2.
With respect to claim 3, Yurchenko in view of Hong teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Yurchenko in view of Hong is silent as to the carbon fiber being a chopped segment of a continuous carbon fiber, wherein said chopped segment has a length of 0.1-10 cm.
Bowland teaches a carbon fiber composite material containing (i) a carbon fiber having an outer surface, a thickness of at least 1 micron, and a length-to-width aspect ratio of at least 1000; (ii) a sizing agent coated on the outer surface of the carbon fiber, and (iii) nanoparticles (paragraph [0006]). The sizing agent may be amine-containing sizing agents (paragraph [0017]) and Bowland acknowledges that a function of the sizing agent is to increase the interfacial strength between the fiber and a polymeric matrix in which the carbon fiber is incorporated (paragraph [0017]). The carbon fiber composite may be embedded within a polymer matrix (paragraph [0049]) such as epoxy (paragraph [0062]). Bowland further teaches that carbon fiber typically has an aspect ratio of at least or greater than 1000 (paragraph [0015]). Bowland further teaches the continuous carbon fiber may be chopped into pieces having a length of at least or greater than 0.1 cm and less than 10 cm (paragraph [0015]).
Since both Yurchenko in view of Hong and Bowland teach carbon fibers surface modified with amine polymers embedded in polymeric matrices, specifically epoxy matrices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the carbon fibers of Yurchenko to be a chopped segment of continuous carbon fiber, where the chopped segment has a length of 0.1-10 cm because it is a typical size for carbon fibers and provides the predictable result of a carbon fiber coated with a sizing agent capable of being embedded in polymeric matrices. See MPEP 2143.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §103
Applicant’s arguments filed December 2, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. Applicant's arguments are all with respect to Yurchenko (US 2018/0023244) not teaching the new claim amendments, specifically the newly added structural feature wherein the amine-containing polymer is selected from the group consisting of chitosan, polylysine, polyglycine, and poly(4-aminostyrene). The newly added reference Hong (US 2015/0210811) is used in combination with Yurchenko to address the newly added limitations. The Applicant's arguments are therefore moot as they do not address the combination of references used in the rejections of the amended claims presented above.
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 Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm 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 on 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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
1 Previously presented
2 previously presented