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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim makes reference to the term ‘the three-dimensional fibrous network’, but there is insufficient antecedent basis for this term. Claims 2-9 are objected to on the same basis due to their dependency. Appropriate correction or explanation is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim uses the phrase ‘components spontaneous interact’. This phrase is grammatically incorrect as the word spontaneous is an adjective. It is thought that applicant intended to use the adverb spontaneously here. Claims 2-9 are objected to on the same basis due to their dependency. Appropriate correction or explanation is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim uses the term ‘foam’ in line 3 to describe the creation of a heterogenous structure. It is thought that this is a typographical error and the word ‘form’ was intended here. Appropriate correction or explanation is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim appears to have a grammatic error in line 5, wherein the claim sets forth ‘adding […] solution in the solvent to the first mixture. The solvent of the first mixture has proper antecedent basis; however, the use of the word ‘to’ seems to be a grammatic error. It is thought that the word ‘of’ should be used here as the solvent is a part of the first mixture. Alternatively, if applicant meant to set forth that ‘the solvent’ used in the PVA solution is chemically/materially of the same composition as the solvent used in the first mixture, this should be more accurately described. Claims 11-16 are objected to on the same basis due to their dependency. Appropriate correction or explanation is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim appears to have a grammatical error in line 1. The claim sets forth “wherein step of immersing the ternary mixture […] further comprises […]. It is thought that the claim is either missing the word ‘the’ prior to step or the phrase ‘step of’ could be omitted from the claim. Appropriate correction or explanation is required.
Claims 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claims make reference to ‘the plurality of aramid nanofibers’, but there is insufficient antecedent basis for this term. Appropriate correction or explanation is required.
Claims 15-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims make reference to ‘the ratio’ between two values, but there is insufficient antecedent basis for this term. Appropriate correction or explanation is required.
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
The term “a similar mechanical robustness compared to a binary magnetic composite” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a similar mechanical robustness compared to a binary magnetic composite” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim does not set forth what properties are correlated with ‘mechanical robustness’, the level of these properties that are required to be similar to a binary magnetic composite, the term or degree required by the term ‘similar’, or the composition and properties of the ‘binary magnetic composite’ that the claimed composite is being compared to. The term is indefinite because the properties of the composite are being compared to an ambiguous standard and it is unclear what properties are being compared and the level of those properties that would be necessary to meet the claim limitations as set forth. On this basis, the metes and bounds of the instant claim are unclear as the properties required are ambiguous and relative to an undefined standard.
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 2 and 12 are 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 2 depends from claim 1. Claim 12 depends from claim 10. Both claims set forth that the plurality of aramid nanofibers comprises an aramid polymer. The term aramid is a term of art that is shortened from aromatic polyamide. Those of ordinary skill in the art would expect that an aramid nanofiber necessarily contains an aramid polymer as an aramid would be understood to refer to a polymeric material as is established in the evidentiary Wikipedia article ‘Aramid’. 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, and 13-16 are allowable over the prior art, but the claims are currently objected to for the reasons set forth above.
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claimed subject matter is allowable over the prior art as the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious each and every limitation of the claims. The closest prior art is considered to be He in their 2021 publication titled “Elastic, conductive and mechanically strong hydrogels and dual-cross-linked aramid nanofiber composites” (IDS). He teaches a composite hydrogel comprising aramid nanofibers, metallic nanoparticles, and a polymer matrix. He does not teach the incorporation of magnetic components having amine or hydroxyl surface functionality or the capability for the nanoparticles to spontaneously interact with the aramid nanofibers through hydrogen bonding as claimed. Agrawal in US20240218233 is also noted. While Agrawal teaches hydrogels that may contain colorants and fillers, such as iron oxide, and various fibers (such as Kevlar), those of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to select both of these components from their respective lists and then arbitrarily provide the surface of the filler with amine and hydroxyl functional groups such that it is capable of bonding to kevlar. Finally, US11111343 is noted as also being similar prior art, teachings the creation of aramid based hydrogels that may include magnetic nanoparticles (See paragraph spanning columns 7 and 8). ‘343 does not teach that the magnetic nanoparticles are provided with hydroxyl groups and amine groups on their surface to spontaneously interact with the aramid and form hydrogen bonds. It would not have been obvious to arbitrarily alter the composite of ‘343 such that the optional magnetic powder was provided with the claimed functionality without hindsight rationale.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW E HOBAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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 E. Hoban/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
