DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group V, claims 17-20, cancelled claims 1-16, and added claims 21 to 36 in the reply filed on March 16, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.03(a)).
Newly submitted claims 27-36 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The subject matter of aforementioned claims is “ceramic-polymer composite comprising wherein the polymer fibers on the outer surface of the bundle are at least partially fused”, which is a distinct species form the “ceramic-polymer composite comprising a ceramic shell disposed over the outer surface of the bundle" as recited in the currently amended claims.
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 Accordingly, claims 27-36 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 17 the term “fused” is at least defined as joined or blended to form a single entity such as by physically or chemically. In view of Ditionally.com. In addition, the phase "a ceramic shell disposed over at least a portion of the outer surface of the bundle" can at least be interpreted as ceramic shell or material and the polymer material fibers are mixing together or touch each other.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17-22 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sigmund et al. (US 2017/0174928 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Sigmund teaches a ceramic-polymer composite (Abstract, claim 1, [0007]), comprising a polymer-titania-silica fibers which comprises polymer material with polymer fibers forming a combination or bundle with outer surfaces, and the fibers are combined or mixed together reads on the fibers are at least partially fused or mixing or touching each other ([0022], [0023]); and the polymer matrix or fibers and dispersed or mixed with ceramic or ceramic-polymer particles reads on ceramic particle material disposed over at least a portion of the outer surface of the polymer material fibers (claim 1, ([0022], [0023]).
Regarding claim 18, Sigmund teaches wherein the polymer can be a poly(tetrafluoroethylene-alt-alkyl vinyl ether) (FEVE) (polyolefin) for example ([0021]).
Regarding claim 19, Sigmund teaches wherein the ceramic shell comprises a ceramic selected from the group consisting of alumina and silica ([0018]).
Regarding claim 20, Sigmund teaches wherein the ceramic-polymer composite is more resistant to degradation than the polymer material because its superhydrophobic and oleophobic properties event after abrasion stokes a significant proportion of the features were retained (Abstract, [0025], [0026])
Regarding claim 21, Sigmund teaches wherein the polymer fibers on the outer surface of the bundle are completely fused or completely connected or mixed (([0022], [0023]).
Regarding claim 22, Sigmund teaches wherein the ceramic shell is disposed over the entire surface of the bundle because the ceramic particles can be 1:500 in ratio of polymer matrix : ceramic particles and the ceramic particles size is very small such as 1 nm, there for it can read on the ceramic shell is disposed over the entire surface of the bundle (claim 1, [0017]).
Regarding claim 25, Sigmund teaches the ceramic-polymer composite has high stress to strain ratio properties because event after abrasion stokes a significant proportion of the features were retained which reads on wherein the ceramic-polymer composite has a Young's modulus (the elastic modulus the ratio of stress to strain) that is higher than the Young's modulus of the polymer material (Abstract, [0025], [0026]).
Regarding claim 26, Sigmund teaches the ceramic-polymer composite hardness properties event after abrasion stokes a significant proportion of the features were retained which reads on wherein the ceramic-polymer composition has a hardness that is higher than the hardness of the polymer material (Abstract, [0025], [0026]).
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 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sigmund et al. (US 2017/0174928 A1) as applied to claims 17-22 and 25-26.
Regarding claim 23, Sigmund recognizes the thickness uniformity is adjusted by changing the particles size and the amount of ceramic particles ([0017]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the thickness uniformity to yield a desired product in better result and appearance (abstract). Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in know process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding claim 24, Sigmund recognizes the thickness is adjusted by changing the the amount of ceramic particles ([0017]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the thickness to yield a desired product in better result and appearance (abstract). Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in know process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAI YAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7181. The examiner can normally be reached on MTTHF.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DAH-WEI YUAN can be reached on 5712721295. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAI Y ZHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights