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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on December 19, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-18 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed towards a non-elected invention.
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.
Claims 3-6 and 8 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the natural fiber comprises at least one of a ramie fiber, a linen fiber, a cotton fiber, a jute fiber, a wool fiber, a silk fiber, or a fur fiber.” However, claim 2, upon which claim 3 depends, recites the fiber strands comprise a natural fiber or an artificial fiber.” It is unclear if claim 3 intends to require the fiber strands to comprise a natural fiber or only further limits the alternative embodiment of the fiber strand comprising a natural and is optional if the fiber strand comprises an artificial fiber. For the purpose of compact prosecution and prior art application, Examiner will interpret claim 3 as encompassing only limiting the alternative embodiment.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the natural fiber comprises a fibrous structure like human hair.” As with claim 3, it is unclear if claim 4 intends the fiber strand to comprises a natural fiber further limited by the recited structure in claim 4 or only limits an alternative embodiment and is not required if the fiber strand comprises an artificial fiber. Additionally, it is unclear how “like” human hair the fibrous structure needs to be in order to be considered “like human hair.” For the purpose of compact prosecution and prior art application, Examiner will interpret claim 4 as encompassing only limiting the alternative embodiment and wool within the scope of fibrous structure like human hair.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the artificial fiber comprises at least one of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polypropylene, polyester, nylon, Kevlar, an acrylic fiber, a metal fiber, a glass fiber, or a carbon fiber.” However, claim 2, upon which claim 5 depends, recites the fiber strands comprise a natural fiber or an artificial fiber.” It is unclear if claim 5 intends to require the fiber strands to comprise an artificial fiber or only further limits the alternative embodiment of the fiber strand comprising an artificial fiber and is optional if the fiber strand comprises a natural fiber. Claim 5 also contains the trademark/trade name “Kevlar”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a material and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. For the purpose of compact prosecution and prior art application, Examiner will interpret claim 5 as encompassing only limiting the alternative embodiment.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein the functional particle comprises at least one of a nano-material such as cellulose, graphene, carbon nanotube, and carbon black, or a particle material having a size of approximately 1 to approximately 100 micrometers, such as black rayon particle. It is unclear if the listed “such as” material are intended to further limit the nanomaterial or the particulate material or merely exemplary and not required by the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution and prior art application, Examiner will interpret claim 6 as encompassing the such as optional, preferred embodiments and not required to meet the claim limitations.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the first aspect ratio is 1 to 1000; and the second aspect ratio is 1 to 10.” However, claim 7, upon which claim 8 depends, recites the limitation “wherein a first aspect ratio of each of the fiber strands is greater than a second aspect ratio of the functional particle.” It is unclear how the first aspect ratio can be 1 as well as greater than the second aspect ratio while the second aspect ratio is within the claimed range.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2014/0023862 to Johnson in view of “Mussel-Inspired Surface Chemistry for Multifunctional Coatings” to Lee.
Regarding claims 1-9, Johnson teaches an agglomerated particle cloud network composite (fiber composite structure) comprising a plurality of agglomerated particle cloud network coated fiber bundles (plurality of fiber bundles), wherein the agglomerated particle could network coated fiber bundle comprising a bundle of fibers coated with a nanoparticle (functional particle) solution and the agglomerated nanoparticles are located in at least a portion of the void space in the bundle of fibers (Johnson, abstract, Fig. 3, para 0009-0011, 0030-0038, 0056-0062), reading on each of the fiber bundles including a plurality of fiber strands and a coating coated on the fiber strands as well as functional particles interposed between the fiber strands. Johnson teaches the nanoparticles having a surface treatment such as to provide better adhesion between the particles and the resin or the fibers (Id., para 0072), reading on an adhesive coating. Johnson teaches the fiber bundles being used in reinforced fiber composite, including resin matrix of thermoplastic and thermoset materials, such as epoxy (Id., para 0003, 0036, 0077-0085). Johnson teaches the fiber may have a thin coating of non-agglomerated nanoparticles, binders, and other coating additives (Id., para 0055), reading on an adhesive coated on the fiber strands. Johnson teaches the nanoparticles (functional particle) being any suitable nanoparticles including silica, fumed silica, alumina, carbon nanotubes (claim 6), polymeric materials and mixture thereof with at least one dimension of the nanoparticle being less than one micron (Id., para 0071-0072). Johnson teaches the fibers being formed from any type of fiberizable material known to those skilled in the art including carbon (claim 2, 5), glass (claim 2, 5), aramid, cotton (claim 2-3), cellulose and wool (claim 2-3) (Id., para 0063-0067), encompassing the functional particles including a material different from that of the fiber strands. Examiner is interpreting the use of wool to read on a fibrous structure like human hair (claim 4).
Johnson does not teach the adhesive in the coating including polydopamine.
However, Lee teaches the use of dopamine self-polymerization to form thin surface-adherent polydopamine films (Lee, abstract). Lee teaches polydopamine coating is able to form on virtually all types of material surface including noble metals, metals with native oxide surfaces, ceramics including glass, and synthetic polymers such as polyethylene, polycarbonate, PTFE, polyetheretherketone, and polyurethanes (Id., p. 427-429). Lee also teaches that through proper choice of secondary reactants, polydopamine coatings can be transformed into surface that have specific chemical properties (Id., p. 429).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the composite of Johnson, wherein the coating comprises the polydopamine of Lee, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known materials predictably suitable for coating and bonding a wide variety of materials as well as to provide the option for impart specific chemical properties to the surface.
Regarding claims 7-8, the prior art combination teaches the nanoparticles having a sphere shape (Johnson, para 0072), reading on a second aspect ratio of 1 of the functional particle. The prior art combination teaches fiber having a fiber length at least about 100 times the fiber diameter (Id., para 0062), reading on a first aspect ratio of greater than 100 of the fiber strand. While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of the first aspect ratio being 1 to 1000, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the aspect ratio of the fiber strand, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art combination teaches the separation distance between fibers within the bundle of fiber being represented by “d” and may be greater than the diameter of the average fiber diameter to 4 times the diameter of the fibers (Johnson, para 0069). The prior art combination teaches the use of fiberglass fibers having a diameter in the range between about 10-35 microns (Id., para 0066), therefore the distance between would range from 10-140 microns and read on a gap between adjacent fiber strands forming a pore that has a size of about 10-140 microns.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2014/0023862 to Johnson in view of “Polydopamine as sizing on carbon fiber surfaces for enhancement of epoxy laminated composites” to Han.
Regarding claims 1-9, Johnson teaches an agglomerated particle cloud network composite (fiber composite structure) comprising a plurality of agglomerated particle cloud network coated fiber bundles (plurality of fiber bundles), wherein the agglomerated particle could network coated fiber bundle comprising a bundle of fibers coated with a nanoparticle (functional particle) solution and the agglomerated nanoparticles are located in at least a portion of the void space in the bundle of fibers (Johnson, abstract, Fig. 3, para 0009-0011, 0030-0038, 0056-0062), reading on each of the fiber bundles including a plurality of fiber strands and a coating coated on the fiber strands as well as functional particles interposed between the fiber strands. Johnson teaches the nanoparticles having a surface treatment such as to provide better adhesion between the particles and the resin or the fibers (Id., para 0072), reading on an adhesive coating. Johnson teaches the fiber bundles being used in reinforced fiber composite, including resin matrix of thermoplastic and thermoset materials, such as epoxy (Id., para 0003, 0036, 0077-0085). Johnson teaches the fiber may have a thin coating of non-agglomerated nanoparticles, binders, and other coating additives (Id., para 0055), reading on an adhesive coated on the fiber strands. Johnson teaches the nanoparticles (functional particle) being any suitable nanoparticles including silica, fumed silica, alumina, carbon nanotubes (claim 6), polymeric materials and mixture thereof with at least one dimension of the nanoparticle being less than one micron (Id., para 0071-0072). Johnson teaches the fibers being formed from any type of fiberizable material known to those skilled in the art including carbon (claim 2, 5) (Id., para 0063-0067), encompassing the functional particles including a material different from that of the fiber strands.
Johnson does not teach the adhesive in the coating including polydopamine.
However, Han teaches it is known to use polydopamine (PDA) as a sizing on the surface of carbon fiber fabric that results in enhanced impact strength and interlaminar shear strength of PDA (Han, abstract). Han shows the polydopamine coating the carbon fiber surface (Id., Fig. 1 and 2). Han also teaches superior adhesion to various material surfaces (Id., p. 626-627).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the composite of Johnson, wherein the coating comprises polydopamine as taught by Han, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known sizing materials predictably suitable for use in carbon fiber application and to impart superior adhesion to various material surface as well as enhance impact strength and interlaminar shear strength.
Regarding claim 3-4, the limitations only further limit the alternative limitation of natural fiber. Therefore, since the reference discloses the limitation of artificial, specifically carbon fiber, the limitations of claims 3-4 are optional and rendered obvious by the prior art combination.
Regarding claims 7-8, the prior art combination teaches the nanoparticles having a sphere shape (Johnson, para 0072), reading on a second aspect ratio of 1 of the functional particle. The prior art combination teaches fiber having a fiber length at least about 100 times the fiber diameter (Id., para 0062), reading on a first aspect ratio of greater than 100 of the fiber strand. While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of the first aspect ratio being 1 to 1000, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the aspect ratio of the fiber strand, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art combination teaches the separation distance between fibers within the bundle of fiber being represented by “d” and may be greater than the diameter of the average fiber diameter to 4 times the diameter of the fibers (Johnson, para 0069). The prior art combination teaches the use of fiberglass fibers having a diameter in the range between about 10-35 microns (Id., para 0066), therefore the distance between would range from 10-140 microns and read on a gap between adjacent fiber strands forming a pore that has a size of about 10-140 microns.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2012/0263935 to Ledford in view of “Polydopamine as sizing on carbon fiber surfaces for enhancement of epoxy laminated composites” to Han.
Regarding claims 10-12, Ledford teaches an article (fiber composite structure) comprising a plurality of carbon nanotubes (CNT) yarns in a bundle (plurality of collected fiber bundles, each bundle including a plurality of fiber strands), each of the plurality of yarns of the bundle comprises a plurality of carbon nanostructures (CNSs) infused to the surface of each of the plurality of carbon nanotube yarns, the CNSs being disposed substantially radially from the surfaces of each of the plurality of CNT yarns with the plurality of CNS-infused CNT yarns impregnated with a resin in the form of a pre-preg of bundled yarns or incorporated into a bulk composite article (Ledford, abstract, para 0136-0145, 0025, 0031-0034, Fig. 12). The substantially radially disposed carbon nanostructure would read on first nano-protrusions and shown to have the shape of a nano-pillar (claim 11). Ledford teaches applying a barrier coating and CNT-forming catalyst (Id., para 0087). Ledford teaches the fiber being plasma treated to roughen the surface in which the CNT-forming catalyst can be deposited and the roughness being typically on the scale of nanometer carters or depressions (Id., para 0094). Ledford teaches the carrier coating be applied by spraying or dip coating (Id., para 0099). Ledford teaches the CNT-forming catalyst being applied to newly formed carbon fibers in the presence of other sizing agents after barrier coating (Id., para 0100), reading on an adhesive coated on the fiber and including first nano-protrusion.
Ledford does not teaching the sizing agent including polydopamine.
However, Han teaches it is known to use polydopamine (PDA) as a sizing on the surface of carbon fiber fabric that results in enhanced impact strength and interlaminar shear strength of PDA (Han, abstract). Han shows the polydopamine coating the carbon fiber surface (Id., Fig. 1 and 2). Han also teaches superior adhesion to various material surfaces (Id., p. 626-627).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the article of Ledford, wherein the sizing agent comprises polydopamine as taught by Han, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known sizing materials predictably suitable for use in carbon fiber application and to impart superior adhesion to various material surface as well as enhance impact strength and interlaminar shear strength.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art combination teaches the fiber being plasma treated to roughen the surface in which the CNT-forming catalyst can be deposited and the roughness being typically on the scale of nanometer craters or depressions (Ledford, para 0094), reading on second nano-protrusion on the surface formed by the catalyst which results in the first nano-protrusion being disposed on the second nano-protrusion and vertically overlapping the second nano-protrusion corresponding thereto respectively. Alternate mapping, the height between the nanometer craters or depression reads on the second nano-protrusion and the polydopamine sizing agent applied with the CNT-forming catalyst would coat this surface and thereby form the first nano-protrusion disposed on the second nano-protrusion and the first nano-protrusion vertically overlapping the second nano-protrusions corresponding thereto, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. “Biomimetic surface modification of UHMWPE fibers to enhance interfacial adhesion with rubber matrix via constructing polydopamine functionalization platform and then depositing zinc oxide nanoparticles” to Fang teaches an ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) fiber used to reinforced rubber composition having a biomimetric surface modification by construction polydopamine functionalization platform and depositing zinc oxide nanoparticles and teaches surface modification result in a higher pull out force.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER ANN GILLETT whose telephone number is (571)270-0556. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM- 4:30 PM EST M-H.
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 at 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.
/JENNIFER A GILLETT/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights