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 .
Examiner’s Note
Per applicant’s specification “monolayer” refers to a configuration in which the continuous silica fibers are arranged in a single layer – defined by applicant as “adjacent continuous silica fibers arranged longitudinal edge to longitudinal edge” (see paragraph 0067).
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 13, 2026 has been entered.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 6, 8 – 10, 12 – 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozar, et al. (US 2014/0295726 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Kozar, et al. teach a composite, comprising: a polymer layer (item 22 – figure 3; paragraph 0062); a fiber layer encapsulated within the polymer layer (figure 3; paragraph 0062), the fiber layer comprising a first monolayer of continuous glass fiber (item 60 – figure 2; paragraph 0063 and 0093) longitudinally co-aligned in a first direction, each continuous glass fiber in the first monolayer extending without discontinuity (see figure 3; examiner notes that fibers 30 make up a layer 60 of which the fibers are continuous and extend end to end in the composite panel) through the polymer layer such that opposed ends thereof are adjacent to a perimeter of the polymer layer (figure 2).
In addition, Kozar, et al. teach the presence of a second monolayer of continuous glass fiber (paragraph 0093), longitudinally co-aligned in a second direction transverse to the first direction, the second monolayer, comprising a planar offset relative to the first monolayer with each continuous glass fiber in the second monolayer extending without discontinuity through the polymer layer such that opposed ends thereof are adjacent to the perimeter of the polymer layer (figure 2, paragraph 0063 and 0067; examiner notes that the reference teaches parallel fibers within each layer; however, the layers are offset from each other as shown in figure 2).
With respect to the fibers being greater than 95% wt silica, Kozar, et al. teach that the fibers may be comprised of pure silica (paragraph 0093) and thus, the examiner contends that the fibers would comprise greater than 95% wt silica.
With respect to the claimed recitation of “wherein the composite has a dielectric loss tangent of less than or equal to about 0.0015 at 15 GHz or higher frequency, the examiner notes that this feature is a property of the composite itself and is dependent upon the structure of the composite, its composition and method of making. Applicant’s polymer layer may include low-loss polymers or copolymers to include cyclic olefins, PEEK, liquid crystal polymers, PPO, and polypropylene polymers (see paragraph 0062 of Applicant’s specification). The fiber composition of the fiber layer is silica and specifically (per Applicant’s specification) high purity silica (see paragraph 0073). The method of making the composite includes a continuous method: the first monolayer of fibers is/are positioned on a first polymer layer and wound on a spool (paragraph 0077). The method of making the actual fibers themselves are not limited and may be made via electrospinning, extrusion, etc. The diameter of the fibers ranges from 10 – 1000 micron (paragraph 0070).
Turning to Kozar, et al., as noted in paragraph 0093, the fibers may be comprised of pure silica and thus, are high purity silica fibers. In addition, the polymer(s) in the reference include equivalent polymer compositions to that of applicant (fluorocarbons, polyamides, polyethylenes, polyesters, polyetherketoneketone and polyetherimide [paragraph 0093]). Because the composition and structure of the composite in Kozar, et al. is equivalent to that claimed and disclosed in the specification, the examiner contends that the dielectric loss tangent is expected and thus, rendered obvious. Per MPEP 2112.01:
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). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Claims were directed to a titanium alloy containing 0.2-0.4% Mo and 0.6-0.9% Ni having corrosion resistance. A Russian article disclosed a titanium alloy containing 0.25% Mo and 0.75% Ni but was silent as to corrosion resistance. The Federal Circuit held that the claim was anticipated because the percentages of Mo and Ni were squarely within the claimed ranges. The court went on to say that it was immaterial what properties the alloys had or who discovered the properties because the composition is the same and thus must necessarily exhibit the properties.).
With respect to claims 2 – 4, the examiner again notes that the recited dielectric loss tangent, dielectric constant and the flexural modulus are properties of the composite. As noted above, because the composition and structure of the composite in Kozar, et al. is equivalent to that claimed and disclosed in the specification, the examiner contends that the properties are expected and thus, rendered obvious by Kozar, et al.
With respect to claim 5, Kozar, et al. teach that the continuous silica fibers are spaced uniformly in the first monolayer (paragraph 0064).
With respect to claim 6, the continuous fibers may contact one another (paragraph 0064).
With respect to claim 8, the second direction [of the monolayer] is transverse to the first direction by an angel in a range of 85 – 95 degrees (see figure 2 – the fibers in the second monolayer are oriented perpendicular from the first layer; however, other angles may be reasonably chosen [paragraph 0067, which teaches perpendicular angles but also any non-perpendicular angle]).
With respect to claim 9 and 10, the continuous silica fibers may be spaced uniformly or positioned in contact with one another (paragraph 0064).
With respect to claim 12, the continuous silica fibers do not have a coating (paragraph 0151 – Kozar, et al. teach that the fiber(s) may be coated to promote self-reactivity; however, a coating is optional.
With respect to claim 13 – 14, the continuous silica fiber(s) may have a circular cross-section (paragraph 0073); with a diameter ranging from 10 micron to 1mm (paragraph 0072 – Kozar, et al. teach a thickness of the fiber of 5 – 5,000 micron which overlaps the claimed ranged – examiner notes that with a circular cross-section, the thickness would equate to its diameter).
With respect to claims 15 – 16, Kozar, et al. teach that the continuous silica fibers may have any variety of cross-sections to include a planar, flat, rectangular and/or concave cross-section (paragraph 0072). Examiner notes that while not specifically teaching a square cross-section, the shape of the fiber is an obvious design choice dependent on the extruder die used and is a mere change in shape. Furthermore, because Kozar, et al. teach that the fiber thickness ranges from 5 – 5,000 micron, it would be obvious that the length of one side of the square section be within 10 micron and 1mm. Thus, the examiner contends that the dimension(s) of the length are also obvious depending on the application in which the composite is used.
With respect to claim 17, Kozar, et al. may be silent with respect to the thickness of the polymer layer; however, because the fiber layers are embedded within the polymer layer, examiner contends that the polymer layer would be thicker and thus, the polymer layer thickness range is rendered obvious.
With respect to claim 18, the polymer layer comprises at least one polymer selected from cyclic olefin polymers or copolymers, polystyrene polymers (PS), polyetheretherketone polymers (PEEK), polyetherimide polymers (PEI), liquid crystal polymers, polypropylene polymers, cyclic olefins, linear olefins, bi-cyclic olefin norbornene and/or ethylene, polyisobutylene, 4-methylpentene, (dimethyl) polyphenyloxide (PPO), or combination thereof (paragraph 0093).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozar, et al. in view of Gondoh, et al. (US 2007/0190879 A1).
Kozar, et al. teach the features as recited above but do not specifically teach the composite material comprising the cyclic olefin polymer and a fluoropolymer in the ratio as recited.
Gondoh, et al. teach that the resin matrix which impregnates the glass cloth may include resins in combination to include PPO, fluorine resins and mixtures thereof (paragraph 0056).
Thus because Kozar, et al. teach the matrix polymer may include combinations of thermoplastics and thermosets and Gondoh, et al. teaches the presence of a fluorine resin in the matrix material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the combination of polymers as claimed in the ratio as claimed prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of producing a dimensionally stable composite.
Claim(s) 1 – 5, 8 – 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jander (US 8,028,736) in view of Kozar, et al. (US 2014/0295726 A1).
Jander teaches a composite, comprising: a polymer layer (column 6, lines 35 – 45); a fiber layer encapsulated within the polymer layer (column 6, lines 28 – 40), the fiber layer comprising a first monolayer of continuous glass fiber (item 16 – figure 1a; column 3, lines 30 – 35) longitudinally co-aligned in a first direction figure 1a), each continuous glass fiber in the first monolayer extending without discontinuity through the polymer layer such that opposed ends thereof are adjacent to a perimeter of the polymer layer (column 1, lines 20 – 25).
In addition, Jander teaches the presence of a second monolayer of continuous glass fiber (item 14 – figure 1a), longitudinally co-aligned in a second direction transverse to the first direction, the second monolayer, comprising a planar offset relative to the first monolayer with each continuous glass fiber in the second monolayer extending without discontinuity through the polymer layer such that opposed ends thereof are adjacent to the perimeter of the polymer layer (1a; examiner notes that the fibers extend parallel to one another, end to end continuously, but offset and perpendicular to the layer 16).
Jander however, does not specifically teach that the fiber(s) are comprised of greater than 95% wt silica.
Kozar, et al. teach a fiber-reinforced composite, similarly comprised of glass fibers. Kozar, et al. further teach that the glass fibers may be comprised of pure silica (paragraph 0093). The choice of fiber type depends on the properties desired in the end product and thus, the examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use pure silica fibers at the time the invention was filed for the purpose of producing a composite with the desired properties per Kozar, et al.
With respect to the claimed recitation of “wherein the composite has a dielectric loss tangent of less than or equal to about 0.0015 at 15 GHz or higher frequency, the examiner notes that this feature is a property of the composite itself and is dependent upon the structure of the composite, its composition and method of making. Applicant’s polymer layer may include low-loss polymers or copolymers to include cyclic olefins, PEEK, liquid crystal polymers, PPO, and polypropylene polymers (see paragraph 0062 of Applicant’s specification). The fiber composition of the fiber layer is silica and specifically (per Applicant’s specification) high purity silica (see paragraph 0073). The method of making the composite includes a continuous method: the first monolayer of fibers is/are positioned on a first polymer layer and wound on a spool (paragraph 0077). The method of making the actual fibers themselves are not limited and may be made via electrospinning, extrusion, etc. The diameter of the fibers ranges from 10 – 1000 micron (paragraph 0070).
Turning to Jander combined with Kozar, et al., as noted in paragraph 0093 of Kozar, et al., the fibers may be comprised of pure silica and thus, are high purity silica fibers. In addition, the polymer(s) in the reference of Kozar, et al. include equivalent polymer compositions to that of applicant (fluorocarbons, polyamides, polyethylenes, polyesters, polyetherketoneketone and polyetherimide [paragraph 0093]). Because the composition and structure of the composite of Jander as modified by Kozar, et al. is equivalent to that claimed and disclosed in the specification, the examiner contends that the dielectric loss tangent is expected and thus, rendered obvious. Per MPEP 2112.01:
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). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Claims were directed to a titanium alloy containing 0.2-0.4% Mo and 0.6-0.9% Ni having corrosion resistance. A Russian article disclosed a titanium alloy containing 0.25% Mo and 0.75% Ni but was silent as to corrosion resistance. The Federal Circuit held that the claim was anticipated because the percentages of Mo and Ni were squarely within the claimed ranges. The court went on to say that it was immaterial what properties the alloys had or who discovered the properties because the composition is the same and thus must necessarily exhibit the properties.).
With respect to claims 2 – 4, the examiner again notes that the recited dielectric loss tangent, dielectric constant and the flexural modulus are properties of the composite. As noted above, because the composition and structure of the composite of Jander as modified by Kozar, et al. is equivalent to that claimed and disclosed in the specification, the examiner contends that the properties are expected and thus, rendered obvious by the combination of references.
With respect to claim 5, Jander teaches the continuous silica fibers are spaced apart uniformly in the first monolayer (column 3, lines 1 – 5).
With respect to claims 8 – 9, Jander teaches that the second direction is 90 degrees from the first direction (figure 1a and 1b) and the fibers are spaced apart uniformly in the second monolayer (column 5, lines 30 – 40; column 3, lines 5 – 10).
With respect to claim 12, the continuous silica fibers do not have a coating (column 5, lines 60 – 65; column 6, lines 30 – 40 – the examiner notes that the fibers may be coated with a binder or impregnated, but this is only optional; to form the preform, fiber layer 14 may be deposited onto fiber layer 16 and then impregnated with resin).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20 – 22 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of Kozar, et al. teach a method of forming a composite, wherein first continuous silica fibers are aligned in a first direction and second continuous silica fibers are longitudinally co-aligned in a second direction. In addition, Kozar, et al. teach impregnating the layer(s) of fiber with polymer matrix. However, Kozar, et al. do not teach the separate application steps of the polymer layer. In other words, Kozar, et al. do not teach or render obvious, applying a second polymer layer overtop the first polymer layer, or applying the second monolayer of continuous silica fibers on a third polymer layer and the further application of a fourth polymer layer overtop the third polymer layer, such that the first and second unified polymer layers are bonded thereto in a direction transverse to the first direction to form the composite.
In addition, the second closest prior art of Jander teaches a method of forming a composite wherein first continuous silica fibers are aligned in a first direction (item 16 – figure 1a) and a second continuous silica fiber layer is deposited onto the first layer and longitudinally aligned in a second direction (item 14 – figure 1a). In addition, Jander teaches forming a preform wherein the fiber layers are impregnated with resin; however, Jander does not teach the separate application steps of the polymer layer. In other words, Jander does not teach or render obvious, applying a second polymer layer overtop the first polymer layer, or applying the second monolayer of continuous silica fibers on a third polymer layer and the further application of a fourth polymer layer overtop the third polymer layer, such that the first and second unified polymer layers are bonded thereto in a direction transverse to the first direction to form the composite. In Jander, the fiber layers may be separately impregnated or coated and then the fiber layer 14 deposited onto layer 16; however, Jander does not teach or render obvious the additional application of second or fourth polymer layers to form first and second unified polymer layers of which the unified polymer layers are then bonded to each other.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7 – 8, with respect to the previously-cited references of Lawton, Amundson, Ward and Gondoh applied against claim 1 and its dependent claims is/are persuasive and thus, the rejection has been withdrawn. In light of the amendments to the claims however and upon an updated search, the references of Kozar, et al. and Jander have been cited. Both reference(s) teach monolayers of silica fibers which are positioned transverse to each other and then impregnated with a polymer matrix.
Arguments with respect to claim 20 and its dependent claims have also been considered and are also persuasive. In light of the amendment to claim 20 and based upon the updated search, claim 20 and its dependent claims have been indicated allowable. While Kozar, et al. and Jander may teach monolayers of silica fibers encapsulated in a polymer matrix, the specific steps to form first and second unified polymer layers which are then bonded together such that the silica fibers in the second monolayer are transverse to the first direction, is not taught or rendered obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA VERONICA EWALD whose telephone number is (571)272-8519. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri ~9am-5:30pm 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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at 571-270-7769. 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.
/MARIA V EWALD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights