Extruded Ceramic Nanofibers and Derived Materials

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 July 30, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently claims 12-13 and 15 are amended and claims 1-11 are cancelled, resulting in claims 12-20 pending for examination. 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. 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) 12-14 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 107653518)1,2 in view of Komura (US 2009/0208744). With respect to claims 12-13, Liu teaches an ultrafine/nano alumina-based ceramic fiber bundle with an orientation degree of 89% and a fiber diameter between 430 and 610 nm (paragraph [0065]). Liu teaches another example of an ultrafine/nano alumina-based fiber bundle with an orientation degree of 80% and a fiber diameter between 330 and 490 nm (paragraph [0073]). The orientation degree is determined by the number of fibers with an angle that is within 0-5o of a reference line (paragraph [0009]). Since the reference line is parallel to 50% of the fibers in an SEM image (paragraph [0009]), the reference line will be oriented in the length direction of the fiber bundle, which is the extrusion direction. See e.g., Figs. 2-4 in the original CN 107653518 reference. Liu is silent as to the fibers having a length of 180-360, preferably 200-360, microns. Komura teaches ceramic fibers having an average fiber diameter of 500-1000 nm, a fiber length of 100 microns or more, and a BET specific surface area of from 0.1 to 10 m2/g (paragraph [0025]). Specific ceramic fibers include Al2O3 (paragraphs [0026]-[0027]). When a fiber length of the ceramic fiber is less than 100 microns, the mechanical strength of a ceramic fiber aggregate obtained by the ceramic fiber becomes insufficient (paragraph [0033]). The fiber length is preferably 150 microns or more, preferably 1 mm or more (paragraph [0033]). The fiber length range of Komura substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claims 12 and 13. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Komura, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. Since both Liu and Komura teach alumina fibers of similar size, 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 alumina fibers of Liu to have a length of 100 microns or more in order to provide the fiber bundle of Liu with sufficient mechanical strength. With respect to claims 14 and 18-20, Liu in view of Komura teaches all the limitations of claim 12 above. Liu further teaches highly oriented continuous ultrafine/nano alumina-based ceramic fiber bundle material (paragraph [0002]). The orientation degree of the bundle is greater than or equal to 80%, preferably greater than or equal to 85%, more preferably 85-93% (paragraphs [0008], [0032]). The diameter of a single fiber is 290-680 nm (paragraph [0010]). The orientation degree is determined by the number of fibers with an angle that is within 0-5o of a reference line (paragraph [0009]). Since the reference line is parallel to 50% of the fibers in an SEM image (paragraph [0009]), the reference line will be oriented in the length direction of the fiber bundle, which is the extrusion direction. See e.g., Figs. 2-4 in the original CN 107653518 reference. The orientation and diameter ranges of Liu substantially overlap the claimed range in the instant claims 14 and 18-20. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Liu, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 107653518)3,4 in view of Komura (US 2009/0208744) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Zhang (US 2008/0170982). With respect to claims 15-17, Liu in view of Komura teaches all the limitations of claim 12 above. Liu further teaches highly oriented continuous ultrafine/nano alumina-based ceramic fiber bundle material (paragraph [0002]). The orientation degree of the bundle is greater than or equal to 80%, preferably greater than or equal to 85%, more preferably 85-93% (paragraphs [0008], [0032]). The diameter of a single fiber is 290-680 nm (paragraph [0010]). The orientation degree is determined by the number of fibers with an angle that is within 0-5o of a reference line (paragraph [0009]). Since the reference line is parallel to 50% of the fibers in an SEM image (paragraph [0009]), the reference line will be oriented in the length direction of the fiber bundle, which is the extrusion direction. See e.g., Figs. 2-4 in the original CN 107653518 reference. The orientation and diameter ranges of Liu substantially overlap the claimed range in the instant claims 15-17. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Liu, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. Liu in view of Komura is silent as to the fiber bundle further comprising epoxy between the ceramic fibers. Zhang teaches spinning yarns comprising nanofibers and shaped articles, composites, and applications for these yarns (paragraph [0003]). Zhang further teaches that polymer additives may be added to the yarns to make yarn composites (paragraph [0349]). A preferred polymer is epoxy (paragraph [0349]). The infiltration of yarn with a polymer is especially useful for providing strength enhancements (paragraph [0359]). Since both Liu in view of Komura and Zhang teach bundles of nanofibers, 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 bundles of Liu in view of Kimura to include a polymer such as epoxy in order to provide a composite with enhanced strength. Response to Arguments Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §102 and 103 Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 12-20 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 Liu (CN 107653518) not teaching the new claim amendments, specifically the newly added structural feature wherein the fiber has a length of 180-360 microns in claim 12, wherein the fiber has a length of 200-360 microns in claim 13, and wherein the fiber bundle further comprises an epoxy between the ceramic fibers. The newly added references Komura (US 2009/0208744) and Zhang (US 2008/0170982) are used in combination with Liu 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 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. LARISSA ROWE EMRICH Examiner Art Unit 1789 /LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789 1 Machine translation used as reference 2 Previously presented 3 Machine translation used as reference 4 Previously presented