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
Applicant’s amendments, filed 12/12025, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. Examiner notes the addition of new claim 17. Claims 1, 3, 5-17 remain pending, with claim 13-16 withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as they are directed to newly added claim requirements addressed in the prior art rejection that follows.
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 1, 3, 5, 7-9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3693350, hereinafter EP 350 taken with US Patent Application Publication 20140273681 by Chamberlain et al. and US Patent 5350545 by Streckert et al.
Claim 1: EP 350 discloses discharging a ceramic vapor to infiltrate a preform within a CVI device and coating ceramic fibers (0009, 0013, 0016, Figure 1 and accompanying text), infiltrating the preform with the ceramic vapor (0016), partially densifying the preform to form a partially densified preform (0017, 0022), discharging from a metal vaporization device a vapor of a metal or metal precursor to the CVD device, wherein the CVI device and metal vaporization device are in fluid communication, disposing upon the partly completed densified preform with the coating of the metallic precursor and ceramic precursor coating simultaneously applied (see Figure 1 and accompanying text, 0017-002). Here the claims include comprising language and therefore reasonably disclose the claimed process steps of a method comprising discharging a ceramic vapor, infiltrating the preform with ceramic vapors and densifying and discharging a metal vapor as claimed. In other words, the claims are open to unrecited claim requirements, including additional vapors being supplied at the partial densification stage (i.e. initial supplying of ceramic vapor and metal precursor vapor would still read on “infiltrating the preform with the ceramic precursor vapor to form a ceramic precursor coating on the preform; densifying the ceramic precursor vapor in the preform to form a partly-completed densified preform” as instantly claimed).
See also Figure 3B related to a partially densified preform that includes a SiC coating (without doping and thus explicitly meets the applicant’s argued interperation, that is “infiltrating the preform with only ceramic precursor vapor to form a ceramic precursor coating on the preform; densifying the ceramic precursor vapor in the preform to form a partly-completed densified preform”) that is further densified with a doped SiC coating (discharging a metal vapor precursor with ceramic precursors to form a mixed coating).
Alternatively, EP 350 discloses the varied metallic precursor and ceramic, disclosing providing pure SiC layers or regions and therefore it would have been obvious to provide a partially densified matrix with a reasonable expectation of predictable results in forming a composite with the desired composition.
EP 350 discloses varying the composition of the metallic and ceramic components such that increased metal component in certain areas, including gradients (0017, 0022) therefore determination of the concentration of metallic component would have been obvious through routine experimentation. EP 350 discloses adjusting the metallic precursor vapor by “the amount . . . can be set by adjusting a gas flow rate. . . the gas flow rate can be varied to provide a continuous gradient” and thus by varying the flow rate the prior art will result in controlling the ratio as claimed.
EP 350 fails to disclose the claimed metal salt; however, Chamberlain, in the art of CVI for infiltration of CMC with SiC (title, abstract) discloses doping during CVI process matrix including SiC and discloses dopants include those as taught by EP 350 such at Y, Yb, Zr, Nb, Mo etc. and using a dopant that this forms a silicate when oxidized (0008), same as taught by EP 350. Chamberlain discloses supplying a metal salt (yttrium chloride) during the CVI process for providing the dopant (0038). Therefore taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to have modified EP 350 to use metal salts as the added dopant to achieve the benefits of its inclusion. Additionally, using a metal chloride would have been obvious as Chamberlain discloses dopants include yttrium, zirconium, niobium, etc. and exemplifies yttrium chloride and thus using other discloses dopants as metal chlorides in the process would have been obvious as predictable.
As for the requirement of sequentially supplying the ceramic coating and the metallic coating from the vapor precursor, the examiner notes that Chamberlain explicitly discloses forming alternating layers of SiC (ceramic precursor coating) and metal doped layers (metallic coating or coating with metallic precursors) and therefore taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to have modified EP 350 to use the sequentially applied ceramic coating and metal containing coating as claimed as Chamberlain explicitly discloses using such an arrangement CVI during a CMC formation. Here, the claims include comprising language and therefore open to coating of the metal precursors (metal salt) being supplied concurrently with other materials and sequentially with a ceramic material as taught by Chamberlain.
EP 350 discloses a CVI apparatus; however, fails to disclose the claimed CVI apparatus structure, including the induction coil, graphite susceptor and heating the preform using the induction coil and graphite susceptor. However EP 350 discloses an example of a CVI assembly for infiltration and discloses “it will be understood that reactor 12 can have alternative constructions as known in the art and is not limited to embodiment disclosed” (0011). Streckert, disclosing CVI infiltration of a preform with SiC materials for CMC formation (column 1) discloses a CVI assembly including placing the preform on a graphite susceptor in a furnace, wherein the furnace is heated by an induction coil encircling the chamber (see Figure 3 and accompanying text, specifically column 7, lines 20-50). Streckert discloses the preform is radiantly heated by the graphite susceptor which is inductively heated by means of RF coupling (, i.e. EM energy), see column 7, lines 40-45. As such, Strecker discloses a CVI assembly comprising a induction coil for EM energy and a graphite susceptor for converting the EM to heat and heating the preform using the induction coil and the graphite susceptor as claimed. Therefore, taking the references collectively and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to have modified EP 350 to use the CVI assembly as outlined by Streckert as EP 350 provided an example of a CVI assembly and indicated that such assembly can be any known in the art and Streckert discloses a known CVI assembly that is utilized to infiltrate SiC into a preform for CMC formation. A predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to achieve a predictable result is prima facie obvious. See KSR Int’l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR Int'l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d.
Claim 3: EP 350 discloses generating precursors using via what can reasonably be considered CVD (0020).
Claim 5: EP 350 discloses what can reasonably be considered a diffusion barrier (0016).
Claim 7: EP 350 discloses a ceramic of silica as claimed (0042)
Claim 8: EP 350 discloses the CMC includes SiC or carbon fibers (0016)
Claim 9: EP 350 discloses the linear gradient of dopant (0022) and determination of the amount of the ceramic coating to the amount of the doped coating would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim 17: Streckert additionally discloses that the device includes water cooled table or support (column 7, lines 30-35, reads on cooling fluid) and such would necessarily control the temperature as claimed, i.e. in conjunction with the induction coil, the water cooling by its nature will provide a temperature control over the temperature of the table/support. At the very least, Streckert discloses temperature is “maintained” and thus controlling a temperature of the device such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to reap the benefits of adjusting the assembly to the desired temperature and to provide a maintained surface temperature (see column 7, lines 45-48).
Claim 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 350 with Chamberlain and Streckert as applied above and further with US Patent 5211776 by Weiman.
EP 350 with Chamberlain and Streckert disclose all that is taught above and each individually disclose the CMC composite; however, fails to disclose the diffusion barrier. However, Weiman, also discloses a CMC for a gas turbine discloses pretreating the fibers with a diffusion barrier, such as silver, using vapor deposition, to the silicon carbide or alumina fibers (column 5-6) to reap the benefit of preventing diffusion of the later coating materials. Therefore, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to have deposited a silver diffusion barrier to reap the benefits of increased protection again reactant diffusion. A predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to achieve a predictable result is prima facie obvious. See KSR Int’l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Claims 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 350 with Chamberlain and Streckert as applied above and further with US Patent Application 20150361269 by Abe et al.
EP 350 with Chamberlain and Streckert disclose all that is taught above and EP 350 discloses linear gradient or various modifications. However, the references fail to explicitly disclose the curvilinear or stepped gradient. However, Abe, also disclosing a gradient coating and discloses known gradients including linear, stepwise or curvilinear (0037) and therefore using the curvilinear, linear or stepped gradient would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR Int'l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d.
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 350 with Chamberlain and Streckert and further with US Patent Application Publication 20060147688 by Subramanian et al. or US Patent Application Publication 20170145560 by Weaver et al.
EP 350 with Chamberlain and Streckert discloses all that is taught above and discloses a functionally graded coating on a CMC including SiC/SiC composite as discussed above. EP 350 fails to explicitly disclose applying a “mask” to the preform. However, Subramanian also a functionally graded coating on a CMC including SiC/SiC composite and discloses controlling the vapor coating by applying masking to the preform (0025). Alternatively, Weaver discloses a CMC that includes applying a mask to the preform (0031-0032) to control deposition location. Therefore taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a mask on the preform as taught by Subramanian or by Weaver to reap the benefits of controlling the vapor deposition process as outlined by those references.
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 DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 571-272-5166. 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights