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 .
Response to Amendment
In view of the amendment filed 08/19/2025:
Claims 1-21 are pending.
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 (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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 1-6, 8-11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Harris (US20160279744), and further in view of Grossnickle et al.
(US20160102966), Heng et al. (US9545774), and Shim et al. (US20170313629).
Regarding claim 1, Harris teaches a method of producing a ceramic matrix composite
(CMC) component (Abstract” method for repairing a ceramic matrix composite (CMC) article),
the method comprising steps of:
forming a non-infiltrated fiber preform comprising a plurality of ceramic fiber plies
([0033] green CMC article approximately 1.5 inches×1.5 inches×approximately 0.2 inches was
fabricated using the aforementioned process by stacking 2-D woven cloth plys and pressing to
form a fiber preform);
wherein each of the ceramic fiber plies occupies a predetermined position in the fiber
preform ([0033] stacking 2-D woven cloth plys and pressing);
rigidizing the non-infiltrated fiber preform with a fiber interphase coating to form a
rigidized non-infiltrated fiber preform ([0033] coating the preform with a Boron Nitride fiber
coating and rigidizing with Silicon Carbide using Chemical Vapor Infiltration);
infiltrating a ceramic slurry into the rigidized non-infiltrated fiber preform to form a
green body ([0033] rigidized porous body was infiltrated with an aqueous trimodal Silicon
Carbide slurry containing a pre-gellant material); and
infiltrating the green body with a molten silicon or silicon alloy to form the CMC
component ([0034] Silicon was introduced in the form of large granules and the part was
continuously heated until the molten metal was observed to infiltrate into the porous body
which took an additional 5-10 seconds). While Harris teaches that observed defects can include
ply delamination ([0024]), Harris only discusses reworking defects such as cracks, fissures or
apertures by locally heating the damaged portion of the CMC article ([0025]).
While Harris teaches inspecting the CMC component to identify one or more defects in
the part ([0023]), Harris is silent on the inspection occurring before infiltration such that the
rigidized non-infiltrated fiber preforms are inspected. Further, Harris teaches continuous fiber
lay-ups and/or woven fiber performs can be used as reinforcing materials ([0012]), prompting one of ordinary skill to look to related art of fiber lay-ups and/or woven fiber performs for
inspecting composite components to identify one or more defects.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to manufacturing composite components,
Grossnickle teaches inspecting non-infiltrated fiber preforms (Abstract: inspecting uncured
fiber-reinforced composite components by non-contact 3D measurements of the component).
Detecting defects such as delamination during the lay-up process before infiltration ensures
that defects are identified early in the manufacturing process, and prevents defects from
persisting through the manufacturing process that can result in deleterious effects on the
overall structural performance of the part ([0005] inter-laminal voids are a delamination defect
that may lead to weakness in the cured composite part. Hence, there is a need to detect and
repair inter-laminal voids, preferably before curing a composite part).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the inspection of Harris be conducted on the
rigidized non-infiltrated fiber preforms, as taught by Grossnickle, since one of ordinary skill
would be motivated to detect and remove defects early in the manufacturing process before
they persist throughout the manufacturing process and potentially result in deleterious effects
on the overall structural performance of the part.
While Grossnickle teaches when a defect is detected it is flagged for rework ([0037]
Remedial actions may be performed to repair a defect in the uncured fiber-reinforced
composite component (such as a delamination defect)), Grossnickle fails to explicitly teach
wherein reworking the partially or fully delaminated plies comprises the steps of: applying a
rework slurry to each at least one delaminated ply to form a reworked ply; rejoining each reworked ply to the predetermined position in the rigidized non- infiltrated fiber preform after
applying the rework slurry; and holding the reworked ply only after the rejoining in the
predetermined position until dry.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to forming ceramic matrix composite materials,
Heng teaches wherein reworking the partially or fully delaminated plies comprises the steps of:
applying a rework slurry to each at least one delaminated ply to form a reworked ply;
rejoining each reworked ply to the predetermined position in the fibers after applying
the rework slurry (col 8 line 24-27 and col 20 line 56-66); and
holding the reworked ply only after the rejoining in the predetermined position until dry
(col 20 line 66 - col 21 line 3 and col 15 line 2-18).
Applying a rework slurry directly to the rework the partially or fully delaminated plies
avoids the time-consuming replacement of costly parts in comparison to repair methods that
replace a portion of a part with an inconsistency with a new portion (col 2 line 17-30).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the reworking of the partially or fully delaminated
plies in the rigidized non-infiltrated fiber preform of Harris modified with Grossnickle comprise
the steps of applying a rework slurry to each at least one delaminated ply to form a reworked
ply; rejoining each reworked ply to the predetermined position in the rigidized non- infiltrated
fiber preform after applying the rework slurry; and holding the reworked ply only after the
rejoining in the predetermined position until dry, as taught by Heng. The rework steps of Heng
have a known benefit of avoiding the time-consuming replacement of costly parts in ceramics
matrix composites.
Further, Heng teaches that reworking the ceramic structure may include a number of
heating operations, such as initial heating operations and sintering operations (col 13 line 55-
58), where initial heating may occur at temperatures up to 500 °F (col 14 line 6-9, converts to
260 °C). However, Heng fails to explicitly teach drying the reworked ply at an ambient
temperature for a first period of time of at least 8 hours followed by drying at an elevated temperature for a second period of time of at least 1 hour until dry.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to applying slurries to ceramic matrix
composites, Shim teaches after infiltrating a silicon carbide fiber preform with a slurry, the slurry is dried overnight at room temperature followed by oven drying at approximately 150 degrees Celsius ([0066] After infiltration of the first slurry, the slurry was allowed to dry overnight at room temperature followed by oven drying at approximately 150° C. for approximately 2 hours. The drying of the first slurry infiltrated the SiC fiber preform with SiC particles from the first slurry).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the reworked ply of Harris modified with Grossnickle and Heng dried at an ambient temperature for a first period of time of at least 8 hours followed by drying at an elevated temperature for a second period of time of at least 1 hour, as taught by Shim, to achieve the predictable result of removing or evaporating the solvent forming the slurry until the reworked ply is dry. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success for the reworked ply of Harris modified with Grossnickle and Heng to dry, since Heng and Him teach similar slurry drying temperatures. Heng teaches initial heating of the reworked ply with the slurry to temperatures up to 260 °C, and Shim teaches heating to evaporate the solvent at temperatures within the range of Heng (i.e. 150 °C). Further, Shim teaches such the drying steps occur to a preform before melt infiltration ([0067]).
Regarding claim 2, Harris modified with Grossnickle, Heng, and Shim teaches the
method according to claim 1. However, Harris fails to teach wherein the rework slurry consists
of a plurality of solid particulate fillers, one or more reactive additives, a solvent, and optionally,
one or more dispersants, binders, and/or gelation polymers.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to forming ceramic matrix composite materials,
Heng teaches wherein the rework slurry consists of a plurality of solid particulate fillers (col 15
line 8-11). The slurry provides rigidity and retains loose and broken fibers of the defect (col 15
line 11-13).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the rework slurry of Harris modified with
Grossnickle, Heng, and Shim consist of a plurality of solid particulate fillers, taught by Heng. The
plurality of solid particulate fillers has a known benefit of providing rigidity and retaining loose and broken fibers of the defect.
Regarding claim 3, Harris modified with Grossnickle, Heng, and Shim teaches the
method according to claim 2. However, Harris fails to teach wherein the solid particulate fillers
in the rework slurry comprise silicon carbide (SiC), silicon nitride (Si3N4), or a mixture thereof.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to forming ceramic matrix composite materials,
Heng teaches wherein the solid particulate fillers in the rework slurry comprise silicon carbide
(SiC) or silicon nitride (Si3N4) (col 12 line 21-28).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the solid particulate fillers in the rework slurry of
Harris modified with Grossnickle, Heng, and Shim comprise silicon carbide (SiC) or silicon nitride
(Si3N4), as taught by Heng. The plurality of solid particulate fillers has a known benefit of
providing rigidity and retaining loose and broken fibers of the defect.
Regarding claim 4, Harris modified with Grossnickle, Heng, and Shim teaches the
method according to claim 2. However, Harris fails to teach wherein the rework slurry includes
one or more reactive additives that includes at least one of graphite, diamond, carbon black,
molybdenum (Mo), and tungsten (W).
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to method of producing a ceramic matrix
composite (CMC) component, Shim teaches wherein the rework slurry includes
one or more reactive additives that includes diamond ([0036] Second slurry 28 may also include a plurality of diamond particles 34. Diamond particles 34 may provide a reactive carbon source in second solid particles 16 that can be converted to a metal carbide during subsequent melt infiltration processing). Diamond additives provide a reactive carbon source for slurry particles to be converted to a metal carbide during subsequent melt infiltration processing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the rework slurry of Harris modified with Grossnickle, Heng, and Shim include diamond additives, as taught by Shim, for the benefit of promoting reactions with the molten material such that unreacted silicon metal on the surface is reduced or eliminated.
Regarding claim 5, Harris modified with Grossnickle, Heng, and Shim teaches the
method according to claim 2. However, Harris fails to teach wherein the rework slurry
comprises a solid loading in the range of about 10 vol.% to about 70 vol.% relative to the overall
volume of the rework slurry.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to method of producing a ceramic matrix
composite (CMC) component, Shim teaches wherein the rework slurry comprises a solid loading of about 40 vol% to about 70 vol % ([0031] second slurry 28 may include about 30 percent by volume (vol. %) to about 60 vol. % carrier material 36 and about 70 vol. % to about 40 vol. % solid materials (e.g., second solid particles 16) and [0016] The first slurry and the second slurry may be formulated with the same or different compositions). The solid loading range of Shim allows for a high solid loading content of particle, which may reduce the amount of molten metal infiltrant used during subsequent infiltration, while still maintaining a workable viscosity ([0038] The relative amount of second solid particles 16 in second slurry 28 may be selected to provide a relatively high solid loading content of second solid particles 16 (e.g., up to about 70 vol. %) compared to other materials yet still maintain a workable viscosity (e.g., less than about 1000 centipoise (cP)). Reducing the amount of molten metal infiltrant used during subsequent infiltration may reduce an amount of excess metal infiltrant left in the final CMC article ([0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the rework slurry of Harris modified with Grossnickle, Heng, and Shim comprise a solid loading of about 40 vol% to about 70 vol %, as taught by Shim, for the benefit of reducing an amount of excess metal infiltrant left in the final CMC article.
Regarding claim 6, Harris modified with Grossnickle, Heng, and Shim teaches the
method according to claim 2. However, Harris fails to teach wherein the solvent in the rework
slurry is either water or an organic solvent.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to method of producing a ceramic matrix
composite (CMC) component, Shim teaches wherein the solvent in the rework slurry is either
water or an organic solvent ([0024] In some examples, the carrier material may include at least one compatible solvent, including, for example, water, ethanol, isopropyl alcohol, methyl ethyl ketone, toluene, or the like). Water or organic solvents are compatible with the solid particles and allow for drying at room or nominal temperatures ([0066] After infiltration of the first slurry, the slurry was allowed to dry overnight at room temperature followed by oven drying at approximately 150° C. for approximately 2 hours).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the solvent in the rework slurry of Harris modified
with Grossnickle, Heng, and Shim be either water or an organic solvent, as taught by Shim, for
the benefit of drying the surface slurry at room or nominal temperatures.
Regarding claim 8, Harris modified with Grossnickle, Heng, and Shim teaches the
method according to claim 1. However, Harris fails to teach the method further comprising:
performing rework slurry touch-up on the reworked ply, and/or conducting one or more
secondary operations on the green body.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to forming ceramic matrix composite materials,
Heng teaches conducting one or more secondary operations on the green body (col 4 line 65-
col 5 line 3). Heating the green body ensures that the surface of the reworked component is
substantially restored to its original condition before the inconsistency occurred.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the method of Harris modified with Grossnickle,
Heng, and Shim further comprise the step of conducting one or more secondary operations on
the green body, as taught by Heng, since once of ordinary skill would be motivated to ensure
that the surface of the reworked component is substantially restored to its original condition
before the inconsistency occurred.
Regarding claim 9, Harris modified with Grossnickle, Heng, and Shim teaches the
method according to claim 1. Harris teaches the rework slurry can be cured and sintered, but
fails to teach wherein the rework slurry is thermally cured at a temperature range of about
100°C to about 200°C prior to melt infiltration of the silicon or silicon alloy.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to method of producing a ceramic matrix
composite (CMC) component, Shim teaches wherein the rework slurry is thermally cured at a temperature range of about 100°C to about 200°C ([0066] The first slurry was applied to the CMC substrate via vacuum assisted infiltration. After infiltration of the first slurry, the slurry was allowed to dry overnight at room temperature followed by oven drying at approximately 150° C. for approximately 2 hours) prior to melt infiltration of the silicon or silicon alloy ([0067]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to thermally cure the rework slurry of Harris modified
with Grossnickle, Heng, and Shim at a temperature range of about 50°C to about 150°C prior to
melt infiltration of a silicon or silicon alloy, as taught by Shim, to ensure the rework slurry is fully dried before continuing with further processing steps.
Regarding claim 10, Harris modified with Grossnickle, Heng, and Shim teaches the
method according to claim 1. However, Harris fails to teach wherein applying the rework slurry
to each at least one delaminated ply to form the reworked ply comprises one or more of
applying the rework slurry directly to the delaminated ply; applying the rework slurry directly to
the ply in the rigidized non-infiltrated fiber preform to which the delaminated ply should be
attached; or applying the rework slurry between the delaminated ply and the ply in the
rigidized non- infiltrated fiber preform to which the delaminated ply should be attached.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to forming ceramic matrix composite materials, Heng teaches wherein applying the rework slurry to each at least one delaminated ply to form
the reworked ply comprises one or more of applying the rework slurry directly to the
delaminated ply (col 20 line 64-66).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the rework slurry of Harris modified with
Grossnickle, Heng, and Shim directly to the delaminated ply, as taught by Heng, for the benefit of avoiding the time-consuming replacement of costly parts in ceramics matrix composites, as
noted in the rejection of claim1 above.
Regarding claim 11, Harris modified with Grossnickle, Heng, and Shim teaches the
method according to claim 10. However, Harris fails to teach wherein the rework slurry is
applied by spraying, dipping, pouring, flowing, or brushing.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to forming ceramic matrix composite materials,
Heng teaches wherein the rework slurry is applied by spraying, brushing, or other application
methods (col 13 line 38-42).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the rework slurry of Harris modified with
Grossnickle, Heng, and Shim be is applied by spraying, brushing, or other application methods,
a taught by Heng, since one of ordinary skill would need an application method to achieve the
predictable result of applying the rework slurry to the delaminated plies. There would have
been a reasonable expectation of success to use the application methods of spraying or
brushing to apply the rework slurry, since both Harris and Heng are directed to forming ceramic
matrix composite components.
Regarding claim 13, Harris modified with Grossnickle, Heng, and Shim teaches the
method according to claim 1. Further, Harris teaches wherein rigidizing the rigidized non-
infiltrated fiber preform with a fiber interphase coating uses a chemical vapor infiltration (CVI)
process ([0033] coating the preform with a Boron Nitride fiber coating and rigidizing with Silicon
Carbide using Chemical Vapor Infiltration).
Regarding claim 14, Harris modified with Grossnickle, Heng, and Shim teaches the
method according to claim 1. Further, Harris teaches wherein the fiber preform comprises
fibers that include one or more of silicon carbide (SiC), silicon nitride (Si3N4), or a mixture
thereof ([0008] wherein the reinforcing material includes fibers selected from the group
consisting of… silicon carbide (SiC), silicon carbon nitride, silicon nitride), and
wherein a fiber interphase coating on the fibers comprises silicon carbide (SiC), silicon
nitride (Si3N4), or a mixture thereof ([0015] In some embodiments, the inorganic fibers in the
preform may be treated by applying a coating or coatings to, for example, provide a compliant
layer at an interface between the fibers and the matrix… coatings include, but are not limited
to, carbon, aluminum nitride, boron nitride, silicon nitride, silicon carbide, boron carbide).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris (US
20160279744), Grossnickle et al. (US20160102966), Heng et al. (US9545774), and Shim et al.
(US20170313629), and further in view of Harris et al. (US10227264- herein referred to as
Harris2).
Regarding claim 7, Harris modified with Grossnickle, Heng, and Shim teaches the
method according to claim 6. However, Harris fails to teach wherein the solvent in the rework slurry comprises a carbonaceous resin and/or wherein the solvent in the rework slurry
comprises a phenolic resin and furfuryl alcohol.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to method of producing a ceramic matrix
composite (CMC) component, Harris2 teaches wherein the solvent in the rework slurry
comprises a carbonaceous resin and/or wherein the solvent in the rework slurry comprises a
phenolic resin and furfuryl alcohol (col 7 line 21-24). Phenolic resin and furfuryl alcohol are high
char-yielding components that produce carbon when pyrolyzed, and react with a metal or allow
to form a metal carbide (col 2 line 10-24) such that an amount of residual metal in the finished
product is reduced (col 6 line 56-61).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the solvent in the rework slurry of Harris modified
with Grossnickle, Heng, and Shim comprise a phenolic resin and furfuryl alcohol, as taught by
Harris2, for the benefit of forming metal carbides from the slurry after pyrolyzing such that the
amount of residual metal in the finished product is reduced.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris (US
20160279744), Grossnickle et al. (US20160102966), Heng et al. (US9545774), and Shim et al.
(US20170313629), and further in view of Heng et al. (herein referred to as Heng2-
US20110003077).
Regarding claim 12, Harris modified with Grossnickle, Heng, and Shim teaches the
method according to claim 1. However, Harris fails to teach wherein a composition of the
rework slurry is the same as a composition of the ceramic slurry.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to reworking ceramic structures, Heng2 teaches
wherein a composition of the rework slurry is the same as a composition of the ceramic slurry
([0131] The ceramic bonding material may take a number of different forms. For example, the
ceramic bonding material may be selected based on the type of ceramic matrix composite
material in the ceramic structure. For example, if the ceramic matrix composite material is an
oxide, the ceramic bonding material may be, for example, silica, alumina-silica, alumina-mullite,
alumina, and/or mullite in a colloidal or powder slurry form).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have a composition of the rework slurry of Harris
modified with Grossnickle, Heng, and Shim be the same as a composition of the ceramic slurry,
as taught by Heng2, for the benefit of reducing or eliminating the need for new costly parts,
and for allowing for applications using the composites to continue operating quickly without
having to wait for replacement parts.
Claim(s) 15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Heng et al. (US9545774), and further in view of Shim et al. (US20170313629), Grossnickle et al.
(US20160102966), and Harris (US20160279744).
Regarding claim 15, Heng teaches a method of reworking a fiber preform after the
production of a CMC component, wherein at least one delaminated ply of a plurality of plies in
the fiber preform exhibits partial or full delamination from a predetermined position in the
fiber preform; the method comprising the steps of:
applying a rework slurry to each at least one delaminated ply in the fiber preform to
form a reworked ply;
rejoining each reworked ply to the predetermined position in the fiber preform after
applying the rework slurry (col 8 line 24-27 and col 20 line 56-66);
holding the reworked ply only after the rejoining in the predetermined position until dry
(col 20 line 66 - col 21 line 3 and col 15 line 2-18).
Further, Heng teaches that reworking the ceramic structure may include a number of
heating operations, such as initial heating operations and sintering operations (col 13 line 55-
58), where initial heating may occur at temperatures up to 500 °F (col 14 line 6-9, converts to 260 °C). However, Heng fails to explicitly teach drying the reworked ply at an ambient
temperature for a first period of time of at least 8 hours followed by drying at an elevated temperature for a second period of time of at least 1 hour until dry.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to applying slurries to ceramic matrix
composites, Shim teaches after infiltrating a silicon carbide fiber preform with a slurry, the slurry is dried overnight at room temperature followed by oven drying at approximately 150 degrees Celsius ([0066] After infiltration of the first slurry, the slurry was allowed to dry overnight at room temperature followed by oven drying at approximately 150° C. for approximately 2 hours. The drying of the first slurry infiltrated the SiC fiber preform with SiC particles from the first slurry).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the reworked ply of Heng dried at an ambient temperature for a first period of time of at least 8 hours followed by drying at an elevated temperature for a second period of time of at least 1 hour, as taught by Shim, to achieve the predictable result of removing or evaporating the solvent forming the slurry until the reworked ply is dry. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success for the reworked ply of Heng to dry, since Heng teaches initial heating of the reworked ply with the slurry to temperatures up to 260 °C, and Shim teaches heating to evaporate the solvent at temperatures within the range of Heng (i.e. 150 °C). Further, Shim teaches such the drying steps occur to a preform before melt infiltration ([0067]).
While Heng fails to teach the reworking occurs during the production of a CMC
component and prior to infiltration such that the fiber preform is a non-infiltrated fiber
perform, Heng does teach that inconsistencies such as delamination may occur during the
manufacturing of CMC components, and that these inconsistencies may require reworking to
restore a structure to a desired level of operation (col 2 line 7-15), prompting one of ordinary
skill to look to related art of composite manufacturing for when reworking occurs during
manufacturing.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to manufacturing composite components,
Grossnickle teaches inspecting non-infiltrated fiber preforms (Abstract: inspecting uncured
fiber-reinforced composite components by non-contact 3D measurements of the component)
and repairing non-infiltrated fiber deforms before curing of a composite part. Detecting defects
such as delamination during the lay-up process before infiltration ensures that defects are
identified early in the manufacturing process, and prevents defects from persisting through the
manufacturing process that can result in deleterious effects on the overall structural
performance of the part ([0005] inter-laminal voids are a delamination defect that may lead to
weakness in the cured composite part. Hence, there is a need to detect and repair inter-laminal voids, preferably before curing a composite part).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the reworking of Heng modified with Shim occur
during the production of a CMC component and prior to infiltration such that the fiber preform
is a non-infiltrated fiber perform, as taught by Grossnickle, since one of ordinary skill would be
motivated to detect and remove defects early in the manufacturing process before they persist
throughout the manufacturing process and potentially result in deleterious effects on the
overall structural performance of the part.
However, the method of Heng modified with Shim and Grossnickle fails to teach
rigidizing the non-infiltrated fibers and infiltrating the rigidized non-infiltrated fiber preform
comprising the reworked ply with a molten silicon or silicon alloy to form an infiltrated fiber
preform.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to manufacturing ceramic matrix components,
Harris teaches non-infiltrated fiber preform is rigidized ([0033] coating the preform with a
Boron Nitride fiber coating and rigidizing with Silicon Carbide using Chemical Vapor Infiltration)
and the ply is infiltrated with a molten silicon or silicon alloy to form an infiltrated fiber preform
([0019]). Coating the preform provides a compliant layer at an interface between fibers and the
matrix that can enhance toughness and crack deflection in the final composite, and prevent
reaction of the reinforcing fibers with a molten alloy infiltrate ([0015] In some embodiments,
the inorganic fibers in the preform may be treated by applying a coating or coatings to, for
example, provide a compliant layer at an interface between the fibers and the matrix composed
of subsequently introduced particles or components of the particle-containing slurry and molten alloy infiltrant. In some embodiments, the fiber treatment can enhance toughness and
crack deflection in the final composite article and/or prevent reaction of the reinforcing fibers
with the molten alloy infiltrant). Further, infiltrating the fiber preform with molten silicon
densifies the composite article by reducing the porosity to less than about 1%, porosity to form
a CMC article ([0019]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the fiber preform of Heng modified with Shim and
Grossnickle be rigidized, as taught by Harris, for the benefit of enhancing toughness and crack
deflection in the final composite, and preventing reaction of the reinforcing fibers with a
molten alloy infiltrate.
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the reworked ply of Heng modified
with Shim and Grossnickle be infiltrated with a molten silicon or silicon alloy to form an
infiltrated fiber preform, as taught by Harris, since one of ordinary skill would be motivated to
densify the composite article by reducing the porosity to form the final CMC article.
Regarding claim 17, Heng modified with Shim, Grossnickle and Harris teaches the
method according to claim 15. Further, Heng teaches wherein the rework slurry comprises a
plurality of solid particulate fillers, wherein the solid particulate fillers comprise silicon carbide
(SiC) (col 12 line 17-28).
However, Heng fails to teach the solid particulate fillers are present in a solid loading in
the range of about 10 vol.% to about 70 vol.% relative to the overall volume of the rework
slurry; and wherein the one or more reactive additives includes at least one of graphite, diamond, carbon black, molybdenum (Mo), and tungsten (W).
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to method of producing a ceramic matrix
composite (CMC) component, Shim teaches wherein the rework slurry comprises a solid loading of about 40 vol% to about 70 vol % ([0031] second slurry 28 may include about 30 percent by volume (vol. %) to about 60 vol. % carrier material 36 and about 70 vol. % to about 40 vol. % solid materials (e.g., second solid particles 16) and [0016] The first slurry and the second slurry may be formulated with the same or different compositions). The solid loading range of Shim allows for a high solid loading content of particle, which may reduce the amount of molten metal infiltrant used during subsequent infiltration, while still maintaining a workable viscosity ([0038] The relative amount of second solid particles 16 in second slurry 28 may be selected to provide a relatively high solid loading content of second solid particles 16 (e.g., up to about 70 vol. %) compared to other materials yet still maintain a workable viscosity (e.g., less than about 1000 centipoise (cP)). Reducing the amount of molten metal infiltrant used during subsequent infiltration may reduce an amount of excess metal infiltrant left in the final CMC article ([0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the rework slurry of Heng modified with Shim, Grossnickle and Harris comprise a solid loading of about 40 vol% to about 70 vol %, as taught by Shim, for the benefit of reducing an amount of excess metal infiltrant left in the final CMC article.
Further, Shim teaches wherein the rework slurry includes one or more reactive additives that includes diamond ([0036] Second slurry 28 may also include a plurality of diamond particles 34. Diamond particles 34 may provide a reactive carbon source in second solid particles 16 that can be converted to a metal carbide during subsequent melt infiltration processing). Diamond additives provide a reactive carbon source for slurry particles to be converted to a metal carbide during subsequent melt infiltration processing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the rework slurry of Heng modified with Shim, Grossnickle and Harris include diamond additives, as taught by Shim, for the benefit of promoting reactions with the molten material such that unreacted silicon metal on the surface is reduced or eliminated.
Regarding claim 18, Heng modified with Shim, Grossnickle and Harris teaches the
method according to claim 15. Further, Heng teaches wherein the fiber preform comprises
fibers that include one or more of silicon carbide (SiC), silicon nitride (Si3N4), or a mixture
thereof (col 12 line 17-28).
However, Heng fails to teach wherein a non-infiltrated fiber preform is rigidized via a
chemical vapor infiltration (CVI) process with a fiber interphase coating that comprises silicon
carbide (SiC), silicon nitride (Si3N4), or a mixture thereof to form the rigidized non-infiltrated fiber preform.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to manufacturing ceramic matrix components,
Harris wherein a non-infiltrated fiber preform is rigidized via a chemical vapor infiltration (CVI)
process with a fiber interphase coating that comprises silicon carbide (SiC) to form the rigidized
non-infiltrated fiber preform ([0033] coating the preform with a Boron Nitride fiber coating and
rigidizing with Silicon Carbide using Chemical Vapor Infiltration).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the fiber preform of Heng modified with Shim,
Grossnickle and Harris be rigidized with a fiber interphase coating that comprises silicon
carbide, as taught by Harris, for the benefit of enhancing toughness and crack deflection in the
final composite, and preventing reaction of the reinforcing fibers with a molten alloy infiltrate.
Regarding claim 20, Heng modified with Shim, Grossnickle and Harris teaches the
method according to claim 15. Further, Heng teaches wherein applying the rework slurry to
each at least one delaminated ply to form the reworked ply comprises applying the rework
slurry directly to the each at least one delaminated ply (col 20 line 64-66); and
wherein applying the rework slurry is done by spraying, brushing, or other application
methods (col 13 line 38-42).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heng et al.
(US9545774), Shim et al. (US20170313629), Grossnickle et al. (US20160102966), and Harris (US
20160279744), and further in view of Heng et al. (herein referred to as Heng2-
US20110003077).
Regarding claim 16, Heng modified with Shim, Grossnickle and Harris teaches the
method according to claim 15. However, Heng fails to teach the method further comprising:
performing rework slurry touch-up on the reworked ply.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to reworking ceramic structures, Heng teaches
the method further comprising: performing rework slurry touch-up on the reworked ply, (see
curing of ceramic bonding material in Figure 5 and [0080] In these illustrative examples,
ceramic bonding material 634 may be cured a second time). Curing the ceramic bonding
material a second time ensures all the ceramic bonding material is fully cured ([0080] ceramic
bonding material 634 may be cured a second time to fully cure all of ceramic bonding material
634).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the method of Heng modified with Shim,
Grossnickle and Harris further comprise performing rework slurry touch-up on the reworked ply
as taught by Heng2, for the benefit of ensuring that all the ceramic bonding material is fully
cured.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heng et al.
(US9545774), Shim et al. (US20170313629), Grossnickle et al. (US20160102966), Harris (US
20160279744), and Heng et al. (herein referred to as Heng2- US20110003077), and further in
view of Harris et al. (US10227264- herein referred to as Harris2).
Regarding claim 19, Heng modified with Shim, Grossnickle, Harris, and Heng2 teaches
the method according to claim 16. However, Heng fails to teach wherein the rework slurry comprises a solvent comprising a carbonaceous resin and wherein the rework slurry is
thermally cured at a temperature range of about 100°C to about 200°C prior to melt infiltration
of a silicon or silicon alloy.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to method of producing a ceramic matrix
composite (CMC) component, Harris2 teaches wherein the solvent in the rework slurry
comprises a carbonaceous resin (col 7 line 21-24) and wherein the rework slurry is thermally
cured at a temperature range of about 50°C to about 150°C prior to melt infiltration of a silicon
or silicon alloy (col 8 line 63-67 and col 9 line 36-38). Phenolic resin and furfuryl alcohol are high
char-yielding components that produce carbon when pyrolyzed, and react with a metal or allow
to form a metal carbide (col 2 line 10-24) such that an amount of residual metal in the finished
product is reduced (col 6 line 56-61).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the solvent in the rework slurry of Heng modified
with Shim, Grossnickle, Harris, and Heng2 comprise a phenolic resin and furfuryl alcohol and
thermally cure the rework slurry at a temperature range of about 50°C to about 150°C prior to
melt infiltration of a silicon or silicon alloy, as taught by Harris2, for the benefit of forming metal
carbides from the slurry after pyrolyzing such that the amount of residual metal in the finished
product is reduced.
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris (US
20160279744), Shim et al. (US20170313629), Grossnickle et al. (US20160102966), and Heng et
al. (US9545774), and further in view of Daws (US5928448).
Regarding claim 21, Heng modified with Shim, Grossnickle and Harris teaches the
method according to claim 15. However, Heng fails to teach wherein the holding the reworked
ply comprises holding the reworked ply with at least one mechanical fastening means.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to repairing ceramic matrix composites, Daws
teaches wherein the holding the reworked ply comprises holding the reworked ply with at least
one mechanical fastening means (col 3 line 17-35).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the holding of the reworked ply of Heng modified
with Shim, Grossnickle and Harris comprise holding the reworked ply with at least one
mechanical fastening means, as taught by Daws, since once of ordinary skill would be
motivated to apply a mechanical bond that ensure the reworked plies and rework slurry are
secured and are not separated from the component.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ARIELLA MACHNESS whose telephone number is (408)918-7587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:30-2:30 PT.
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.
/ARIELLA MACHNESS/Examiner, Art Unit 1743