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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/2/26 has been entered via RCE on 6/23/26. Claims 1, 3, 6, 10, 12, 16, and 27-44 are pending examination, claims 4-5, 7-9, 13-15, and 17-26 have been canceled by Applicant.
Claim Interpretation
At pg 9 lines 22-23 of Applicant’s Specification it recites: “’B-staging’” is a process to remove at least some of the solvent from an adhesive”. For purposes of examination, the examiner accepts this special definition.
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.
Claim 33, and 38-44 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 33 recites the limitation "wherein the applying of the pressure includes". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as nowhere prior in 33, or its parent claim (32) is a step of “applying a pressure” being recited. For purposes of examination this limitation will be interpreted as at least inclusive of requiring applying a pressure, further vacuum at some point in the method of claim 32.
Claims 38, at line 9, recites the limitation "from the injection tool”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as nowhere prior in 38, is “an injection tool” explicitly recited. The only “tool” previously recited is “a resin transfer molding tool”, but it is indefinite as to if “the injection tool” is intending to draw basis from the “resin transfer molding tool” or some other tool completely. For purposes of examination this limitation will be interpreted as at least inclusive of any such scenario. The examiner further notes that “the injection tool” is additionally recited at lines 12 and 13 of claim 38, and in claim 39.
The other dependent claims do not cure the defects of the claims from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 27-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Podgorski et al (US 2017/0341263; hereafter Podgorski) in view of DiChiara, JR (US 2004/0096619; hereafter DiChiara).
Claims 1 and 32: Podgorski a teaches a method of making a ceramic matrix composite (See, for example, abstract, [0001]), comprising:
Performing a densification cycle on a three-dimensional woven or braided fiber preform (10) in an injection tool (tooling 100) (See, for example, Fig 1-4, abstract, [0010], [0020], [0033-0039], [0048] [0056])
The densification cycle comprises:
Injecting into the injection tool, a slurry comprising a solvent, matrix binder (such as polyvinyl alcohol), and solid particles, to cause slurry to infiltrate interstitial spaces of the preform (See, for example, abstract, Fig 2-4, [0046-49]).
removing at least some evaporated solvent from the injection tool by:
heating the injection tool to a temperature greater than the boiling point of the solvent to evaporate the solvent and less than a curing temperature of the matrix binder to evaporate the solvent without curing the matrix binder (see, for example, [0046], [0052], wherein the heating is taught for evaporation of solvent, and retained green state after drying thus not fully cured).
and applying a pressure (such a compressive and / or via vacuum) to the injection tool to remove at least some of the evaporated solvent from the injection tool (see, for example, [0046-0052],
Podgorski further is concerned with achieving desired matrix/ fiber volume fraction, density / porosity (very small content of macropores), and uniform distribution of the matrix through the fiber reinforcement (see, for example, [0010], [0020], [0033-0039], [0048] [0056]), but does not explicitly teach determining if a desired characteristic of the preform is present; and if the desired characteristic is not present, repeating injecting the slurry into the injection tool and removing at least some evaporated solvent from the injection tool; and when the desired characteristic of the preform is determined to be present, curing the matrix binder. DiChiara teaches a method of making a ceramic matrix composite comprising infiltrating a fibrous preform with a slurry having a solvent, matrix binder, and solid particles (see, for example, abstract, [0010-0011]). DiChiara further teaches wherein desired volume fraction (amount of matrix impregnated relative to the fiber preform) and density can be predictably controlled by a process of infiltrating, drying, and determination, either singular or iterative; but not curing the binder (see, for example, [0012-0013], [0043] further as the final produced CMC naturally possess a finite density, porosity, and fiber volume fraction such a produced characteristic can be interpreted as desired; the alternating of impregnation and drying processes of DiChiara is taught to proceed till the targeted density of 0.45 g/in2, further there exists a recurring step within each iteration of varying the formulation (increasing the viscosity) (as it is increased it involves a determination step, otherwise the step itself, and / or the degree of increase would not have occurred / been known). Similarly the recurring step of determining density must be present in the teaching of DiChiara otherwise there would be no way to know when the repetition of these steps would be ceased. Alternatively, per DiChiara, at the point at which the dried preform proceeds onto to subsequent processing, such as curing, (see, for example [0012-0013], [0043]) the article formed therein would have been determined to possess such a desired density characteristic, otherwise it would have received further infiltration / removing, and the immediate performed steps of injecting and removing up to and including this determination would read on the present claims (the claim as a whole is satisfied as the limitation beginning with “if” is only conditional, the immediate cycle resulting in the value satisfies the claim). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated performing the densification cycle with determining, and repeating it if the desired characteristic (volume fraction / density / porosity) of the preform is not present since such an iterative process would improve the control over the articles volume fraction / density / porosity thus enhancing control of its resulting physical / mechanical properties.
By combination, the teaching of DiChiara that the binder is present to cure following the injection and removing stages (see, for example, [0012-0013]) would require that the system does not experience a temperature where the binder would be removed / boil, and as described above wherein interpreting PVA as the binder, its boiling point (228oC) is well above the temperature range disclosed. And Podgorski has taught a variety of solvents and binders, and wherein the temperature of the chamber can be elevated to facilitate exhausting the solvent from the slip by evaporation, such as at a temperature of 80-105oC (see, for example, [0046], [0052]), Although such a range is not explicitly a temperature greater than the boiling point of the solvent and less than the curing point of the binder, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a temperature additionally greater than that of the boiling point of the solvent and less than the curing point of binder since 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. (MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Further, with respect to the recently amended limitation of curing the matrix binder after achieving the desired characteristic, Podgorski and DiChiara further teaches curing the slurry after the desired characteristic is achieved (See, for example, abstract, [0011], [0046], [0056], of Podgorski and [0011-14] of DiChiara). Further Podgorski explicitly teaches wherein the binder serves to ensure that the green preform holds together after drying and before sintering (See, for example, [0046], [0056]) further consider for example exemplary polyvinyl alcohol which during thermal treatment to ultimate sintering (at 1000-1200oC) would naturally pass through temperatures curing this binder, thus the binder experiences curing during such thermal treatment). Further DiChiara has taught that curing occurs following completion of the densification cycles and while in contact with a molding surface during curing to maintain orientation and surface conformity (smoothness) (see, for example, [0011-0013]). So if already not anticipated, by the teaching of Podgorski, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed curing the matrix binder after the performing the densification cycle since it would predictably ensure suitable strength and retention of shape / orientation and surface smoothness.
Claims 3 and 33: Podgorski in view of DiChiara teaches the method of claim 1 (above) and Podgorski further teaches wherein the applying of pressure includes a vacuum (see, for example, Fig 4, [0051-0052]).
Claim 27: Podgorski in view of DiChiara teach the method of claim 1 above, and Podgorski further teaches wherein the injecting of the slurry comprises injecting the slurry through an inlet (injection port 114) of the injection tool, and the applying of the pressure comprises applying the pressure to an outlet (112) of the injection tool (see, for example, Fig 2-4, [0046], [0051])
Claim 28: Podgorski in view of DiChiara teach the method of claim 27 above, and Podgorski further teaches wherein the pressure is a first pressure, and the injecting of the slurry comprises injecting the slurry while applying a second pressure to the outlet of the injection tool to distribute the slurry through the preform (See, for example, Fig 2-4, and [0046-0052]).
Claim 29: Podgorski in view of DiChiara teach the method of claim 27 above, and Podgorski further teaches wherein the injecting of the slurry comprises injecting the slurry through the inlet while a valve is opened, and the applying of the pressure comprises applying the pressure to the outlet of the injection tool while the valve is closed (See, for example, [0046-0049] wherein the valve is closed prior to compaction and subsequent removing operations).
Claim 30: Podgorski in view of DiChiara teach the method of claim 1 above, and Podgorski further teaches allowing the injection tool to cool after applying the pressure to the injection tool (see, for example, [0051-0056]; wherein the heat increase is conducted for a finite period of time, thus upon cessation of such treatment the tool would inherently be allowed to cool, such as during periods of removal, handling, while not in operation, while inserting and / or injecting subsequent samples, etc.).
Claim 31: Podgorski in view of DiChiara teach the method of claim 1 above, and Podgorski further teaches wherein the drying is accelerated by performing a combination of heating the injection tool to the temperature and applying a vacuum pressure, but is not specific with respect to the order of instituting these conditions (see, for example, [0051]). Although Podgorski in view of DiChiara do not explicitly teach applying of the pressure comprises applying the pressure to the injection tool after heating the injection tool to the temperature, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the claimed order of these beneficial treatments since the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new of unexpected results (In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946)), and since such a sequence is instantly envisioned as there are only three unique orders to institute these two processes (a) simultaneously, b) heating first, or c) pressure first) (A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681(CCPA 1962)).
Claim(s) 6, 10, 12, and 34-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Podgorski in view of DiChiara as applied to claim 1/32 above, and further in view of Jung et al (US 2013/0221554; hereafter Jung).
Claims 6 and 34: Podgorski in view of DiChiara teaches the method of claim 1/32 (above) and Podgorski further teaches the composition as comprising a solvent as water, ethanol, and any other liquid in combination with the binder but does not explicitly teach isopropyl alcohol or acetone; and an oxide ceramic (see, for example, (See, for example, abstract, Fig 2-4, [0046-49]). DiChiara further teaches wherein acetone can predictably be used as an alternative solvent to alcohol in combination with CMC slurries (see, for example, claim 11, [0011])). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated acetone as the solvent since such a solvent would perform predictably with aluminum silicate in a slurry intended for CMC impregnation, and since where two known alternatives are interchangeable for a desired function, an express suggestion to substitute one for the other is not needed to render a substitution obvious. In re Foot, 675 F.2d 297,301 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 568 (CCPA 1967). Podgorski explicitly teaches wherein the binder, such as polyvinyl alcohol, serves to ensure that the green preform holds together after drying and before sintering (See, for example, [0046]), but does not explicitly teach the binder as aluminum silicate or a silane. Jung teaches a method of preparing ceramic composites by forming operations (see, for example, abstract, Fig 1, [0008], [0083]). Jung further teaches wherein binders such as polyvinyl alcohol and TEOS (tetraethoxysilane) serve predictably to retain the shape of green bodies after forming. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated tetraethoxysilane as the binder in the method of Podgorski as it would predictably ensure that the green preform holds together after drying and before sintering and since where two known alternatives are interchangeable for a desired function, an express suggestion to substitute one for the other is not needed to render a substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297,301 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 568 (CCPA 1967).
Claims 10 and 35: Podgorski in view of DiChiara, and Jung teaches the method of claim 6/34 (above) and Podgorski further teaches the oxide as alumina or zirconia (see, for example, [0047]).
Claims 12 and 36: Refer to the rejections of claim 1 &6 / 32 & 34 above. Podgorski further teaches the composition as comprising a solvent as water, in combination with silica (see, for example, [0046-47]); and Jung has taught the binder as silane (tetraethoxysilane) (see rejection of claim 6).
Claim(s) 16 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Podgorski in view of DiChiara and Jung as applied to claims 6, 10, 12, and 34-36 above, and further in view of Szweda (US 2014/0200130; hereafter Szweda).
Claims 16 and 37: Refer to the rejections of claim 12 / 36 over Podgorski in view of DiChiara and Jung (above). Podgorski further teaches the solid particles are an oxide ceramic material, further silica, and has taught the oxide particles as possessing and average size of D50 of 100 to 300 nm (see, for example, [0026], [0047]). It is silent as to the “size distribution” of such particles, so it does not explicitly teach the claimed range. Szweda teaches a method of forming ceramic matrix composite structures by impregnating a fiber preform with a pre-ceramic matrix slurry (See, for example, abstract). Szweda further teaches wherein a predictable silica source for CMC fibrous preform is a silica sol comprising colloidal silica with a desired particle size distribution within a range of 20 to 1000 nm (See, for example, [0030]). As both Podgorski and Szweda are directed to method of forming ceramic matrix composite structures by impregnating a fiber preform with a pre-ceramic matrix slurry comprising silica, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a particle size distribution 20-1000 nm as such a form is taught to achieve the predictable result of impregnating fibrous preforms and converting upon sintering to achieve CMC formation with a matrix comprising silica, and since when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference.
Podgorski further teaches the solid particles are an oxide ceramic material, further silica, and has taught the oxide particles as possessing and average size of D50 of 100 to 300 nm (see, for example, [0026], [0047]). As described in the rejection (above), Szweda has taught wherein a predictable silica source for CMC fibrous preform is a silica sol comprising colloidal silica with a desired particle size distribution within a range of 20 to 1000 nm (See, for example, [0030]). As both Podgorski and Szweda are directed to method of forming ceramic matrix composite structures by impregnating a fiber preform with a pre-ceramic matrix slurry comprising silica, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a colloidal silica with a particle size distribution 20-1000 nm as such a silica material form is taught to achieve the predictable result of impregnating fibrous preforms and converting upon sintering to achieve CMC formation with a matrix comprising silica, and since when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference.
Claims 1, 3, and 27-33 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Podgorski in view of DiChiara as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lespade et al (US 5,126,087; hereafter Lespade).
Claims 1 and 33: Podgorski in view of DiChiara teaches the method of claim 1 (above) wherein DiChiara has taught repeating the infiltrating and removing the solvent until a desired characteristic of the preform is achieved, further wherein such repetition involves determination / varying of slurry formulation (See, for example, [0012-0013], [0043] and above). DiChiara does not explicitly teach wherein the repeated process is based on the fiber volume fraction of the preform. Lespade teaches a method of repeated infiltration and drying to form composite articles (See, for example, abstract, col 2 lines 45-55, claim 9). Lespade teaches wherein it well known in the art that achieving desired take up values can be achieved by repetition of the impregnation cycles until a desired fiber volume fraction is achieved (see, for example, col 2 lines 45-55, claim 9). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the determination of desired fiber volume fraction as basing the endpoint of an impregnation process by such a dried characteristic of the pregreg is well known in the art to predictably aid in achieving the desired target takeup.
Claims 3, 27-31, and 33: refer to the rejection of claim 1/32 over Podgorski in view of DiChiara, and Lespade above, and the rejections of claims 3, 27-31, and 33 over Podgorski in view of DiChiara above.
Claim(s) 6, 10, 12, and 34-36 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Podgorski in view of DiChiara, and Jung as applied to claims 6, 10, 12, and 34-36 above, and further in view of Lespade.
Claims 6, 10, 12, and 34-36: refer to the rejection of claim 1/32 over Podgorski in view of DiChiara, and Lespade above, and the rejection of claims 6, 10, 12, and 34-36 over Podgorski in view of DiChiara, and Jung above.
Claim(s) 16 and 37 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Podgorski in view of DiChiara, Jung, and Szweda as applied to claim 16 and 37 above, and further in view of Lespade.
Claims 16 and 37: refer to the rejection of claim 1/32 over Podgorski in view of DiChiara, and Lespade above, and the rejection of claims 16 and 37 over Podgorski in view of DiChiara, Jung, and Szweda above.
Claim(s) 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiChiara in view of Matsumoto et al (US 2017/0320785; hereafter Matsumoto).
Claim 32: DiChiara teaches a method of making a ceramic matrix composite (See, for example, abstract), comprising:
infiltrating a preform with slurry having a solvent, matrix binder, and solid particles (See, for example, abstract, [0010-0011];
removing at least some of the solvent without curing the matrix binder (See, for example, [0012-0013], [0043], wherein the infiltration is accompanied by solvent evaporation and taught to be performed multiply prior to curing, and target slurry densities are disclosed),
wherein the desired characteristic is at least density (see, for example, [0043], further as the final produced CMC naturally possess a finite density, porosity, and fiber volume fraction such a produced characteristic can be interpreted as desired).
Determining if a desired characteristic (such as density) of the perform is present, and if not, repeating infiltrating and removing steps. (See, for example, [0012-0013], [0043]; the alternation of impregnation and drying processes of DiChiara is taught to proceed to a targeted density of 0.45 g/in2, further there exists a recurring step within each iteration of varying the formulation (increasing the viscosity) (as it is increased it involves a determination step, otherwise the step itself, and / or the degree of increase would not have occurred / been known). Similarly the recurring step of determining density must be present in the teaching of DiChiara otherwise there would be no way to know when the repetition of these steps would be ceased). Alternatively, at the point at which the dried preform proceeds onto to subsequent processing, such as curing, (see, for example [0012-0013], [0043]) the article formed therein would have been determined to possess such a desired density characteristic, otherwise it would have received further infiltration / removing. Thus the steps of infiltrating and removing immediately preceding and up to including such a determination would read on the claim as presently drafted (the claim as a whole is satisfied as the repeating limitation is only conditional as it is recited in optional “if” language).
The teaching of DiChiara that the binder is present to cure following the infiltration and solvent evaporation stages (see, for example, [0012-0013]) would require that the system does not experience a temperature where the binder would be removed / boil. With respect to drawing off the evaporated solvent, if not inherent as the vaporized solvent diffuses through the surrounding atmosphere, DiChiara further teaches subsequently placing the article in vacuum, which would draw off any / all surrounding atmosphere including any remaining evaporated solvent (See, for example Fig 7, [0045]); but it does not explicitly teach heating the preform to a temperature greater than the boiling point of the solvent. Matsumoto teaches a method for forming CMCs (See, for example, abstract). Matsumoto further teaches that when removing solvent from slurry impregnated prepreg, such a process can be hastened by drying the pieces at elevated temperature below the temperature at which firing and ceramic conversion occur (See, for example, [0039]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated heating the preform at a temperature less than the boiling point of the matrix binder during solvent evaporation as such a heat treatment would predictably hasten evaporation. Although such a range is not explicitly a temperature greater than the boiling point of the solvent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a temperature additionally greater than that of the boiling point of the solvent since 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. (MPEP 2144.05 II A), and since such a temperature would be well appreciated by one of ordinary skill in the art to predictably vaporize the solvent.
Claim 33: DiChiara further teaches placing the impregnated article in vacuum, which would draw off any / all surrounding atmosphere including any remaining evaporated solvent (See, for example Fig 7, [0045]);
Claim 34: DiChiara further teaches wherein the solvent is acetone, and wherein the matrix is aluminum silicate, alumina, silica, mullite, codierite, silicon carbide, silicon nitride and black glass (see, for example, claim 11, [0011]; the examiner interprets the aluminum silicate present in the slurry as the claimed matrix binder, and the alumina or silica as the claimed solid particles of an oxide ceramic material).
Alternatively, as no exemplary embodiment is provided explicitly mixing aluminum silicate with alumina or silica, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a mixture of aluminum silicate and alumina and / or silica since "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). The examiner interprets the aluminum silicate present in the slurry as the claimed matrix binder, and the alumina or silica as the claimed solid particles of an oxide ceramic material.
Claim 35: DiChiara has further taught the solid particles as aluminum oxide (alumina) (See, for example, [0011]).
Claims 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiChiara in view of Matsumoto as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Szweda.
Claim 36-37: DiChiara in view of Matsumoto teaches the method of claim 32 (described above) and DiChiara further teaches wherein the matrix is aluminum silicate, alumina, silica, mullite, codierite, silicon carbide, silicon nitride and black glass (see, for example, claim 11, [0011]; the examiner interprets the aluminum silicate present in the slurry as the claimed matrix binder, and the silica as the claimed solid particles of silicon dioxide).
Alternatively, as no exemplary embodiment is provided explicitly mixing aluminum silicate with alumina or silica, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a mixture of aluminum silicate and alumina and / or silica since "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). The examiner interprets the aluminum silicate present in the slurry as the claimed matrix binder, and the silica as the claimed solid particles of silicon dioxide.
DiChiara is silent as to the form of silicon dioxide, so it does not explicitly teach the silica as colloidal silica (for claim 16 further addressed below) and the solvent as water. Szweda teaches a method of forming ceramic matrix composite structures by impregnating a fiber preform with a pre-ceramic matrix slurry (See, for example, abstract). Szweda further teaches wherein a predictable silica source for CMC fibrous preform is a silica sol comprising colloidal silica in water (See, for example, [0030]). As both DiChiara and Szweda are directed to method of forming ceramic matrix composite structures by impregnating a fiber preform with a pre-ceramic matrix slurry comprising silica, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated colloidal silica in water as the silica and solvent in the method of DiChiara as such a silica form, and associated solvent, are taught to achieve the predictable result of impregnating fibrous preforms and converting upon sintering to achieve CMC formation with a matrix comprising silica.
Claims 32-35 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiChiara in view of Matsumoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lespade.
Claim 32: DiChiara in view of Matsumoto teaches the method of claim 1 (above) wherein DiChiara has taught repeating the infiltrating and removing the solvent until a desired characteristic of the preform is achieved, further wherein such repetition involves determination / varying of slurry formulation (See, for example, [0012-0013], [0043] and above). DiChiara does not explicitly teach wherein the repeated process is based on the fiber volume fraction of the preform. Lespade teaches a method of repeated infiltration and drying to form composite articles (See, for example, abstract, col 2 lines 45-55, claim 9). Lespade teaches wherein it well known in the art that achieving desired takeup values can be achieved by repetition of the impregnation cycles until a desired fiber volume fraction is achieved (see, for example, col 2 lines 45-55, claim 9). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the determination of desired fiber volume fraction as basing the endpoint of an impregnation process by such a dried characteristic of the pregreg is well known in the art to predictably aid in achieving the desired target takeup.
Claims 33-35: refer to the rejection of claim 32 over DiChiara in view of Matsumoto and Lespade above, and the rejections of claims 33-35 over DiChiara in view of Matsumoto above.
Claims 36-37 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiChiara in view of Matsumoto and Lespade as applied to claim 32 above and further in view of Szweda.
Claims 36-37: refer to the rejection of claim 32 over DiChiara in view of Matsumoto and Lespade above, and the rejections of claims 36-37 over DiChiara in view of Matsumoto and Szweda above.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 27-28, 30-32, 33, and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Billotte Cabre et al (US 2017/0369382; hereafter Billotte) in view of DiChiara.
Claim 1, 3, 32, 33, 38 and 40: Billotte a teaches a method of making a ceramic matrix composite (See, for example, abstract, [0001]), comprising:
Providing an RTM injection tool with a cavity therein, wherein the RTM tool comprises at least two parts (such as mold 3, or 3+5, and counter mold 4) (See, for example, Fig 1-2, [0020-22], [0069])
Disposing a preform (1) in the cavity of the RTM injection tool (Fig 1-2, abstract, [0069])
Wherein the at least two parts of the resin transfer molding tool together form a cavity having a shape complementary to the preform (see, for example, Fig 1-2, [0069], [0077]).
infiltrating the preform within the cavity of the RTM with slurry having a solvent, matrix binder (such as polyvinyl alcohol), and solid particles (See, for example, abstract, Fig 2, [0082])
removing at least some evaporated solvent from the RTM tool by heating the RTM injection tool to a temperature greater than the boiling point of the solvent to evaporate the solvent and by drawing off the evaporated solvent (such as at 80 to 105oC), where such a temperature is taught to evaporate the solvent, but is below the curing and boiling point of the binder, which further is taught to be present after drying and before sintering to improve the ability of the green preform to hold together (such as wherein polyvinyl alcohol (boiling point 228oC) is interpreted as the binder) (See, for example, [0016], [0046-0047], [0087]),
Billotte further teaches the removing of at least some of the evaporated solvent includes applying a pressure, further a vacuum (see, for example, [0086]).
Billotte further is concerned with achieving desired matrix/ fiber volume fraction and uniform distribution of the matrix through the fiber reinforcement (see, for example, [0019], [0047], [0091]) and further teaches wherein the injection can be performed more than once (see, for example, [0023], but does not explicitly teach determining if a desired characteristic of the preform is present; and if the desired characteristic is not present, repeating infiltrating the slurry within the cavity of the RTM tool and removing at least some evaporated solvent from the cavity; and when the desired characteristic of the preform is determined to be present, curing the matrix binder. DiChiara teaches a method of making a ceramic matrix composite comprising infiltrating a fibrous preform with a slurry having a solvent, matrix binder, and solid particles (see, for example, abstract, [0010-0011]). DiChiara further teaches wherein desired volume fraction (amount of matrix impregnated relative to the fiber preform) and density can be predictably controlled by an iterative process of infiltrating, drying, and determination, but not curing the binder (see, for example, [0012-0013], [0043] further as the final produced CMC naturally possess a finite density, porosity, and fiber volume fraction such a produced characteristic can be interpreted as desired; the alternation of impregnation and drying processes of DiChiara is taught to proceed to a targeted density of 0.45 g/in2, further there exists a recurring step within each iteration of varying the formulation (increasing the viscosity) (as it is increased it involves a determination step, otherwise the step itself, and / or the degree of increase would not have occurred / been known). Similarly the recurring step of determining density must be present in the teaching of DiChiara otherwise there would be no way to know when the repetition of these steps would be ceased). Alternatively, per DiChiara, at the point at which the dried preform proceeds onto to subsequent processing, such as curing, (see, for example [0012-0013], [0043]) the article formed therein would have been determined to possess such a desired density characteristic, otherwise it would have received further infiltration / removing; and the immediate performed steps of infiltrating and removing up to and including this determination would read on the present claims (the claim as a whole is satisfied as the limitation beginning with “if” is only conditional, the immediate cycle resulting in the value satisfies the claim). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a repeating the process of infiltrating, drying, and determination of volume fraction / density / porosity prior to curing the binder as such an iterative process could improve the control over the articles volume fraction / density / porosity thus enhancing control of its resulting physical / mechanical properties.
By combination, both Billotte and DiChiara teaches that the binder is present to cure following the infiltration and solvent evaporation stages (see, for example, [0046-0047] of Billotte and [0012-0013] of DiChiara) would require that the system does not experience a temperature where the binder would be removed / boil, such as described above wherein interpreting PVA as the binder, its boiling point (228oC) is well above the temperature range disclosed. And Billotte has taught wherein the temperature of the tool can be elevated to facilitate exhausting the solvent from the slip by evaporation, such as at a temperature of 80-105oC (see, for example, [0087]), Although such a range is not explicitly a temperature greater than the boiling point of the solvent and less than the boiling point of the binder, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a temperature additionally greater than that of the boiling point of the solvent and less than the boiling point of binder since 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. (MPEP 2144.05 II A).
With respect to the limitation of curing the matrix binder after the determination of the desired characteristic; Billotte and DiChiara further teaches curing the slurry after the desired characteristic is achieved (See, for example, abstract, [0013-0016], [0053], [0087], of Billotte and [0011-14] of DiChiara). Further Billotte explicitly teaches wherein the binder serves to ensure that the green preform holds together after drying and before sintering (See, for example, [0047]). Further DiChiara has taught that the article should be contact with a rigid molding surface during curing to maintain orientation and surface conformity (smoothness) (see, for example, [0013]). So if not already anticipated, by the teaching of Billotte, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed fully curing the matrix binder in the injection tool after the desired characteristic is achieved by heating the injection tool and preform to a temperature sufficient to fully cure the matrix binder in the preform such that the matrix binder is no longer B-staged since it would predictably ensure suitable strength and maintain shape / orientation and surface smoothness.
Claim 27: Billotte in view of Dichiara teach the method of claim 1 above, and Billette further teaches wherein the injecting of the slurry comprises injecting the slurry through an inlet (injection port) of the tool, and the applying of the pressure comprises applying the pressure to an outlet (outlet vent) of the injection tool (see, for example, Fig 1-5, [0020])
Claim 28: Billette in view of DiChiara teach the method of claim 27 above, and Billette further teaches wherein the pressure is a first pressure, and the injecting of the slurry comprises injecting the slurry while applying a second pressure to the outlet of the injection tool to distribute the slurry through the preform (See, for example, Fig 1-5, and [0020] and [0086]).
Claim 30: Billette in view of DiChiara teach the method of claim 1 above, and Billette further teaches allowing the injection tool to cool after applying the pressure to the injection tool (see, for example, [0084-90]; wherein the heat increase is conducted for a finite period of time, thus upon cessation of such treatment the tool would inherently be allowed to cool, such as during periods of removal, handling, while not in operation, while inserting and / or injecting subsequent samples, etc.).
Claim 31: Billette in view of DiChiara teach the method of claim 1 above, and Billette further teaches wherein the impregnation is accelerated by performing a combination of heating the injection tool to the temperature and applying a vacuum pressure, but is not specific with respect to the order of instituting these conditions (see, for example, [0030], [0085-0090]). Although Billettei in view of DiChiara do not explicitly teach applying of the pressure comprises applying the pressure to the injection tool after heating the injection tool to the temperature, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the claimed order of these beneficial treatments since the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new of unexpected results (In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946)), and since such a sequence is instantly envisioned as there are only three unique orders to institute these two processes (a) simultaneously, b) heating first, or c) pressure first) (A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681(CCPA 1962)).
Claim 39: Billotte further teaches wherein the matrix is B-stage cured (upon removal of solvent via evaporation such as at 80-105C) after removal of at least some of the evaporated solvent from the RTM tool (See, for example, [0087]),
Claim(s) 6, 10, 12, 34-36, and 41-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Billotte in view of DiChiara as applied to claim 38 above, and further in view of Jung.
Claim 6, 34, and 41: Billotte in view of DiChiara teaches the method of claim 1/32/38 (above) and Billotte further teaches the composition as comprising an oxide ceramic and solvent as water, and/ or an alcohol, further ethanol, with the binder (see, for example, [0080-83]), but does not explicitly teach isopropyl alcohol or acetone. DiChiara further teaches wherein acetone can predictably be used as an alternative solvent to alcohol in combination with CMC slurries (see, for example, claim 11, [0011])). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated acetone as the solvent since such a solvent would perform predictably with aluminum silicate in a slurry intended for CMC impregnation, and since where two known alternatives are interchangeable for a desired function, an express suggestion to substitute one for the other is not needed to render a substitution obvious. In re Foot, 675 F.2d 297,301 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 568 (CCPA 1967). Billotte explicitly teaches wherein the binder, such as polyvinyl alcohol, serves to ensure that the green preform holds together after drying and before sintering (See, for example, [0047]), but does not explicitly teach the binder as aluminum silicate or a silane. Jung teaches a method of preparing ceramic composites by forming operations (see, for example, abstract, Fig 1, [0008], [0083]). Jung further teaches wherein binders such as polyvinyl alcohol and TEOS (tetraethoxysilane) serve predictably to retain the shape of green bodies after forming. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated tetraethoxysilane as the binder in the method of Billotte as it would predictably ensure that the green preform holds together after drying and before sintering and since where two known alternatives are interchangeable for a desired function, an express suggestion to substitute one for the other is not needed to render a substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297,301 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 568 (CCPA 1967).
Claims 10, 35, and 42: Billotte in view of DiChiara, and Jung teaches the method of claim 6/34/41 (above) and Billotte further teaches the oxide as alumina or zirconia (see, for example, [0082]).
Claim 12, 36, and 43: Refer to the rejections of claim 1/34/41 above. Billotte further teaches the composition as comprising a solvent as water, in combination with and silica (see, for example, [0082-83]); and Jung has taught the binder as silane (tetraethoxysilane) (see rejection of claim 34).
Claim(s) 16, 37, and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Billotte in view of DiChiara and Jung as applied to claim 12/36/41 above, and further in view of Szweda (US 2014/0200130; hereafter Szweda).
Claims 16, 37, and 44: Refer to the rejections of claim 12/36/43 over Billotte in view of DiChiara and Jung (above). Billotte further teaches the solid particles are an oxide ceramic material, further silica, and has taught the oxide particles as possessing and average size of D50 of 100 to 300 nm (see, for example, [0081-0082]). But it does not explicitly teach the silica as colloidal silica. Szweda teaches a method of forming ceramic matrix composite structures by impregnating a fiber preform with a pre-ceramic matrix slurry (See, for example, abstract). Szweda further teaches wherein a predictable silica source for CMC fibrous preform is a silica sol comprising colloidal silica with a desired particle size distribution within a range of 20 to 1000 nm (See, for example, [0030]). As both Billette and Szweda are directed to method of forming ceramic matrix composite structures by impregnating a fiber preform with a pre-ceramic matrix slurry comprising silica, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a colloidal silica with a particle size distribution 20-1000 nm as such a silica material form is taught to achieve the predictable result of impregnating fibrous preforms and converting upon sintering to achieve CMC formation with a matrix comprising silica, and since when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference.
Claims 1, 3, 27-28, 30-32, 33, and 38-40 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Billotte in view of DiChiara as applied to claim 1, 3, 27-28, 30-32, 33, and 38-40 above, and further in view of Lespade.
Claims 1, 3, 27-28, 30-32, 33, and 38-40: Billotte in view of DiChiara teaches the method of claims 1, 3, 27-28, 30-32, 33, and 38-40 (above) wherein DiChiara has taught repeating the infiltrating and removing the solvent until a desired characteristic of the preform is achieved, further wherein such repetition involves determination / varying of slurry formulation (See, for example, [0012-0013], [0043] and above). DiChiara does not explicitly teach wherein the repeated process is based on the fiber volume fraction of the preform. Lespade teaches a method of repeated infiltration and drying to form composite articles (See, for example, abstract, col 2 lines 45-55, claim 9). Lespade teaches wherein it well known in the art that achieving desired take up values can be achieved by repetition of the impregnation cycles until a desired fiber volume fraction is achieved (see, for example, col 2 lines 45-55, claim 9). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the determination of desired fiber volume fraction as basing the endpoint of an impregnation process by such a dried characteristic of the pregreg is well known in the art to predictably aid in achieving the desired target takeup.
Claim(s) 6, 10, 12, 34-36, and 41-43 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Billotte in view of DiChiara and Jung as applied to claims 6, 10, 12, 34-36, and 41-43 above, and further in view of Lespade.
Claims 6, 10, 12, 34-36, and 41-43: refer to the rejection of claims 1/32/38 over Billotte in view of DiChiara and Lespade above, and the rejection of claims 6, 10, 12, 34-36, and 41-43 over Billotte in view of DiChiara and Jung above.
Claim(s) 16, 37, and 44 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Billotte in view of DiChiara, Szweda and Jung as applied to claims 16/37/44 above, and further in view of Lespade.
Claims 44: refer to the rejection of claims 1/32/38 over Billotte in view of DiChiara, and Lespade above, and the rejection of claim 16/37/44 over Billotte in view of DiChiara, Szweda and Jung above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/2/26 (and entered via RCE on 6/23/26) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments (pg 10-11) against the references individually (DiChiara does not teach a preform, thus teaches away from Podgorski), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, “[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Primary reference Podgorski teaches a preform, thus DiChiara is not necessarily responsible to additionally teach a preform. For sake of argument, contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the examiner disagrees that DiChiara does not teach a preform. Merriam -Webster defines preform as “any of various objects of manufacture or handicraft after preliminary shaping”. The intermediately formed structure of DiChiara thus reads on a preform. Further DiChiara, like Podgorski, teaches a method of making a ceramic matrix composite comprising infiltrating a fibrous preform structure with a slurry having a solvent, matrix binder, and solid particles, thus it does not teach away. Further the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The article being impregnated is that of the primary reference, DiChiara is relied upon for performing the densification cycles with determination to a target and is not relied upon for particularly of its article / substrate receiving said impregnation. Therefore the examiner maintains the combination is apt.
With respect to the rejection of the claims over DiChiara, Applicant argues (pg 11-13) that DiChiara fails to teach the claim “determining” step; asserting that “A method which recites ‘repeating application of a slurry until a target concentration / characteristic is reached’ can theoretically be carried out in two ways: 1) where the target concentration/characteristic is known and where the total number of repeated applications needed to reach the target is already previously known from the beginning OR 2) where the target concentration/characteristic is known at the start but where the total number of repeated applications needed is NOT known, a measuring step to assess progress to target is performed after one or more of the slurry applications.” Applicant appears to assert that A): “1)” would not read on the claimed method, while “2)” would, and as DiChiara does not explicitly disclose any particulate “intermediate measuring” it would most likely align with “1)” and not read on the claim, or alternatively, B) the lack of DiChiara delineating if it performs “1)” or “2)” would undermine the examiner’s position that DiChiara teaches “determining” as claimed (as again the Applicant’s position A) that “1)” does not teach the requisite “determining”. The examiner disagrees, first, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., DiChiara does not explicitly disclose any particulate “intermediate measuring”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim explicitly states “determining” it does not state “measuring”, therefore the prior art is not required to explicitly recite or state “measuring”. The examiner maintains that with the process the alternating of impregnation and drying processes of DiChiara ([0012-0013]) it is taught to proceed to a targeted density of 0.45 g/in2 [0043]), the recurring step of determining density must therefore be present in the teaching of DiChiara otherwise there would be no way to know when the repetition of these steps would be ceased. Alternatively / further, at the point at which the dried preform proceeds onto to subsequent processing, such as curing, (see, for example [0012-0013], [0043]) the article formed therein would have been determined to possess such a desired density characteristic, otherwise it would have received further infiltration / solvent removing / slurry varying. As the article in DiChiara is actually forwarded to subsequent processing, the density target must have been reached / “determining” limitation of claim 1 must have been “achieved”, as such the claim as a whole is satisfied as the remaining limitations are only conditional as they are recited in optional “if” language. In the latter, the at least final performed steps of injecting and removing up to and including this final determination would read on the present claims (as single / or the last cycle resulting in the value satisfies the claim as the desired characteristic is met, and the claim no longer requires “repeatedly” performing the cycle (per applicant’s most recent amendment)).
Additionally with respect to argued mode “1)” being unable to meet the “determining” condition, the examiner again asserts that determining does not equate to measuring. Per Merriam-Webster Dictionary, to “determine” is “to find out or come to a decision about by investigation, reasoning, or calculation”. As such even if following mode 1), the operator or controller performing the injecting and removing operation(s) further preforms one of a) determining to stop the cycle as the value of repetition is at the point corresponding to achieving the desired characteristic, or b) determines that it has not performed the requisite number associated with the desired characteristic and thus triggers the next iteration. Either of which determination steps are attributed to the desired characteristic, making such a step a determining step as claimed. Alternatively, as the target is reached to pass it onto to further processing (such as curing and firing) the “determining” limitation of claim 1 must have been “achieved”, thus the at least final performed steps of injecting and removing up to and including this final determination would read on the present claims (the last cycle results in the value, thus satisfies the claim as the desired characteristic is met, and the claim no longer requires “repeatedly” performing the cycle).
Further, in response to Applicant’s argument that the prior does not disclose the “determining steps”. The examiner notes that Applicants explicit statement :“‘repeating application of a slurry until a target concentration / characteristic is reached’ can theoretically be carried out in two ways” establishes that the teaching of the prior art at the very least achieves the cycling process within one of these two stated ways. As such, performing the sequence per iteration “2)” would be instantly envisioned as there are only two unique modes to institute the process (per applicants own argument: “1)” or “2)”). Therefore the teaching of DiChiara would read on the claimed “determining, since a reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681(CCPA 1962)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN H EMPIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30AM - 4 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/NATHAN H EMPIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights