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 Groups I, claims 1-8, 20 and 21, and species (i): a carbon nanostructure polymer composite deposited in a space between the carbon fiber tows, in the reply filed on 06/04/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2014/0127490 to Islam et al. (hereinafter “Islam”).
As to claim 1, Islam discloses a composite is formed through infiltrating a nanocage structure with a thermosetting polymer (paragraph 9). The nanocage structure is composed of an aerogel comprising carbon nanotubes in contact with each other by strong van der Walls force (abstract; figures 1, 2A-2C; and paragraph 89). The thermosetting polymer is filled in voids of the nanocage structure (paragraph 12). The thermosetting polymer is cured or crosslinked in the infiltrated aerogel (claim 12). The thermosetting polymer is an epoxy resin or a silicone resin (paragraph 9). A content of the nanocage structure in the composite is 10 vol% and 25 vol% (figure 19B).
As to claims 4 and 5, Islam discloses that a content of the nanocage structure in the composite is 10 vol% and 25 vol% (figure 19B).
As to claim 7, Islam discloses that the nanocage structure is composed of an aerogel comprising carbon nanotubes in contact with each other by strong van der Walls force (abstract; figures 1, 2A-2C; and paragraph 89).
As to claim 8, Islam discloses that the polymeric material is an epoxy resin or a silicone resin (paragraph 9).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2014/0127490 to Islam et al. (hereinafter “Islam”).
As to claims 2 and 3, Islam does not explicitly disclose:
PNG
media_image1.png
247
499
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
598
536
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, it appears that the composite of Islam meets all structural limitations and chemistry required by the claims. The composite is formed through infiltrating the nanocage structure with the thermosetting polymer (paragraph 9). The nanocage structure is composed of an aerogel comprising carbon nanotubes in contact with each other by strong van der Walls force (abstract; figures 1, 2A-2C; and paragraph 89). The thermosetting polymer is filled in voids of the nanocage structure (paragraph 12). The thermosetting polymer is cured or crosslinked in the infiltrated aerogel (claim 12). The thermosetting polymer is an epoxy resin or a silicone resin (paragraph 9). A content of the nanocage structure in the composite is 10 vol% and 25 vol% (figure 19B).
Therefore, the examiner takes the position that the equations 1 and 2 would inherently be present as like material has like property.
PNG
media_image3.png
89
377
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
100
438
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This is in line with In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) which holds that if the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the claimed properties or functions will be presumed to be inherent. The burden is shifted to the applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Islam.
As shown in figure 19B, a volume fraction of SWCNT-Aerogel nanocage structure ranges from 0 to 25 vol%. There is no restriction on the content of the SWCNT-Aerogel nanocage structure in the composite material; therefore, the graph suggests that the volume fraction of SWCNT-Aerogel nanocage structure can exceed 25 vol%. This overlaps the claimed range.
In the case, where the claimed ranges overlap or touch the range disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The claim is not rendered unobvious because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Difference in the content of the SWCNT-Aerogel nanocage structure will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating that the content of the SWCNT-Aerogel nanocage structure is critical or provides unexpected results. Therefore, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a content of the SWCNT-Aerogel nanocage structure in the range instantly claimed, motivated by the desire to optimize the tensile modulus of the composite material. This is in line with In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 which holds discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Islam in view of “Ultra-thin Carbon Fiber Reinforced Carbon Nanotubes Modified Epoxy Composites with Superior Mechanical and Electrical Properties for Aerospace Field”, Zhang et al. (hereinafter “Zhang”), Composites: Part A 163 2022 107197.
As to claims 20 and 21, Islam discloses a composite is formed through infiltrating a nanocage structure with a thermosetting polymer (paragraph 9). The nanocage structure is composed of an aerogel comprising carbon nanotubes in contact with each other by strong van der Walls force (abstract; figures 1, 2A-2C; and paragraph 89). The thermosetting polymer is filled in voids of the nanocage structure (paragraph 12). The thermosetting polymer is cured or crosslinked in the infiltrated aerogel (claim 12). The thermosetting polymer is an epoxy resin or a silicone resin (paragraph 9). A content of the nanocage structure in the composite is 10 vol% and 25 vol% (figure 19B).
Islam does not explicitly disclose a hybrid composite comprising: the composite in combination with carbon fiber tows wherein the composite is disposed in a space between the carbon fiber tows.
Zhang, however, discloses a carbon fiber reinforced polymer composite comprising carbon fiber tows impregnated with a carbon nanotubes (CNTs) modified epoxy resin (figure 1 and page 2, “Modified epoxy matrices and spreading CFRP composite preparation”).
PNG
media_image5.png
449
724
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a hybrid composite comprising the composite of Islam in combination with carbon fiber tows disclosed in Zhang wherein the composite is disposed in a space between the carbon fiber tows, motivated by the desire to provide a hybrid composite having improved compressive strength, tensile strength and interlaminar shear strength while exhibiting excellent thermal conductivity, electrical and electromagnetic interference shielding effectiveness.
Claims 1, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 107099117 to Jin (hereinafter “Jin”).
Jin discloses a fiber-reinforced aerogel-polymer composite material comprising a three-dimensional nanopore structure of fiber/aerogel and a polymer impregnating into the pores of the fiber/aerogel structure (abstract, paragraph 36, and figure 1). The three-dimensional nanopore structure of fiber/aerogel reads on the claimed nanocage structure.
PNG
media_image6.png
455
548
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The aerogel has a density of 3-600 kg/m3, an average pore size of 2 to 100 nm, and a porosity of 50 to 99% (paragraph 20). The polymer is a thermosetting crosslinked polymer including an epoxy resin, unsaturated polyester resin, phenolic resin or cyanate resin (paragraphs 7 and 24).
As to claim 7, Jin discloses that the aerogel material comprises carbon aerogel and/or graphene aerogel (paragraph 42).
As to claim 8, Jin discloses that the thermosetting crosslinked polymer includes an epoxy resin, unsaturated polyester resin, phenolic resin or cyanate resin (paragraphs 7 and 24).
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin in view of “Ultra-thin Carbon Fiber Reinforced Carbon Nanotubes Modified Epoxy Composites with Superior Mechanical and Electrical Properties for Aerospace Field”, Zhang et al. (hereinafter “Zhang”), Composites: Part A 163 2022 107197.
As to claims 20 and 21, Jin discloses a fiber-reinforced aerogel-polymer composite material comprising a three-dimensional nanopore structure of fiber/aerogel and a polymer impregnating into the pores of the fiber/aerogel structure (abstract, paragraph 36, and figure 1). The three-dimensional nanopore structure of fiber/aerogel reads on the claimed nanocage structure.
PNG
media_image6.png
455
548
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The aerogel has a density of 3-600 kg/m3, an average pore size of 2 to 100 nm, and a porosity of 50 to 99% (paragraph 20). The polymer is a thermosetting crosslinked polymer including an epoxy resin, unsaturated polyester resin, phenolic resin or cyanate resin (paragraphs 7 and 24).
Jin does not explicitly disclose a hybrid composite comprising: the fiber-reinforced aerogel-polymer composite material in combination with carbon fiber tows wherein the fiber-reinforced aerogel-polymer composite material is disposed in a space between the carbon fiber tows.
Zhang, however, discloses a carbon fiber reinforced polymer composite comprising carbon fiber tows impregnated with a carbon nanotubes (CNTs) modified epoxy resin (figure 1 and page 2, “Modified epoxy matrices and spreading CFRP composite preparation”).
PNG
media_image5.png
449
724
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a hybrid composite comprising the fiber-reinforced aerogel-polymer composite material of Jin in combination with carbon fiber tows disclosed in Zhang wherein the fiber-reinforced aerogel-polymer composite material is disposed in a space between the carbon fiber tows, motivated by the desire to provide a hybrid composite having improved compressive strength, tensile strength and interlaminar shear strength while exhibiting excellent thermal conductivity, electrical and electromagnetic interference shielding effectiveness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hai Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-1485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm with every other Friday off.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/Hai Vo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights