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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 17 is separate category of invention and must be re-written into independent form. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D1 (CN 112878036 A).
Regarding claim 17, D1 teaches aramid fiber nanofibers based on deprotonation of Kevlar, comprising: stirring and preprocessing a mixed system of aramid fiber, organic solvent and alkali to obtain aramid fiber dispersion; Proton donors and/or ionic reaction assistants are added to the aramid fiber dispersion to control the degree of deprotonation, thereby obtaining the aramid nanofiber colloidal dispersion (see abstract). It is noted that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process; determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 598, 227 USPQ 954, 955 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Also see MPEP section 2113 Product-by-process [R- 1]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: regarding claim 1, the closest prior art D1 (CN 112 878 036 A) (aerospace res Inst Special Material and Process Tech) teach a process for manufacturing an aramid solution by combining components comprising a base, a proton donor, aramid and aprotic solvent wherein the base which is also named ionic reaction aid is dissolved in the proton donor to obtain a base solution, the aprotic solvent, the aramid and the base are combined to obtain an aramid-solvent-base mixture, the base mixture are combined and mixed to obtain an aramid nanofiber colloidal dispersion. However, D1 fails to teach in that the first step or aramid solvent mixture does not contain a base and that a solution is obtained and is thus novel. The specification discloses that the materials are combined in step-wise manner to obtain para-amid with high elongation at break (see page 15 lines 1-15, page 27 table 6), similarly claims are reflected.
Regarding claim 8, D2 (WO 2021/070042 A1) is the closest prior art to the subject matter of claim 8 and discloses a meta-aramid fiber having an elongation at break of at least 15% and a toughness at rupture of at least 40J/g (tables 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11). However, D2 fails to teach fiber is para-aramid and is thus novel.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2024/0337046 A1; US 2024/0183079 A1; US 2022/0073744 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAHIDA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-1925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday (8:30 AM -5:00 PM).
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
NAHIDA SULTANA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/NAHIDA SULTANA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights