Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 has been amended to recite a mixture of the first material and the second material and forming a gradient ranging from the first material to the mixture to the second material
The term “gradient” indicates an intermixing region according to the published specification of the instant application [0064] any portion of the intermixing region 115 may be considered a gradient [0064] and Fig. 6
For the purpose of this examination any intermixing region with the first material adjacent the second material is considered to have a gradient between the two.
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 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) 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenji JP10-338538 machine translation provided herein and further in view of Verdon et al. Hafnium and Silicon Carbide multilayer coatings for the protection of carbon composites Surface and Coating Technology June 14 2013 as viewed online at www.elsevier.com/locate/surfcoat and further in view of Wang et al. SiC/HfC/SiC ablation resistant coating for carbon/carbon composites as provided herein.
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, Kenji discloses a muffle for an optical fiber draw furnace (Fig 4), the muffle comprising:
A carbon furnace core tube [0004], [0010] the tube has an inner surface and an outer surface, the inner surface forming an inner cavity;
Kenji discloses and a protective coating disposed on the inner surface of any one of TiC, ZrC, HfC having melting points of 3160, 3532, 3900 deg. Celsius respectively thus overlapping the claimed range of 1850 deg. Celsius or greater.
Kenji discloses [0013] states:
“Since it is not necessary that the whole thickness of the furnace core tube is made of these carbides and it is not practical to form the furnace core tube by these carbides alone, the object of the present invention can be achieved by making at least the inner surface of the furnace core tube of these carbides.”
[0016] states “forming a coating layer composed of carbides TiC, ZrC, HfC thus understood to be more than one of the carbides.
Kenji discloses one or more of these carbides for coating layers with the expected result of efficiently providing a protective coating.
Kenji discloses
[0015] the coating is preferably in the range of 5 to 15 μ m and to 15 μ m in the case of TiC, in the case of 25-250μm, ZrC , and in the case of 10-25μm, HfC
Thus overlapping with the claimed first layer of 0.2-40 microns.
Kenji discloses a protective coating that may comprise TiC, ZrC, HfC however fails to explicitly disclose the claim language of: the protective coating comprising the first layer of the first material and one more second layers of a second material, the first material being different from the second material, the first material having a lower coefficient of thermal expansion than the second material, and the second material comprising one of hafnium, zirconium, and tantalum.
In an analogous art Wang discloses protecting carbon from oxidation (introduction) with a three layer protective coating SiC/HfC/SiC (2.1)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pursue applying alternating layers of SiC and Hf to the carbon muffle of Kenji as motivated to prevent oxidation with the reasonable expectation of success as taught by Wang.
"A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
The prior art makes obvious a protective coating of first and second layers of SiC and HfC thus having a coefficient thermal expansion of approximately 4.3-4.6/degree Celsius and HfC at 7.5-8.2/degree Celsius thus the first material having a lower coefficient of thermal expansion than the second material. Wang discloses the first layer with the lower coefficient of thermal expansion is thicker (description of Fig. 3 and discussion of peeling due to CTE mismatch between the carbon, SiC, HfC)
Furthermore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to optimize the thickness as motivated to prevent the different materials of the protective coating expanding at different rates as motivated to prevent a portion of the carbon muffle becoming uncovered due to the difference in expansion of the protective coating layers during heating [0015].
Wang shows intermixing between first and second layers, see Fig. 3, this has a gradient from a first layer to a second layer with any intermixing and looking from the first layer to the second layer given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
The melting point of Silicon Carbide is approximately 2830°C and Hafnium Carbide is 3958°C thus the protective coating has a melting point of about 1850°C or greater.
The prior art does not explicitly recite an absolute difference between a coefficient of thermal expansion of the protective coating and a coefficient of thermal expansion of a material of the muffle is 2.0 ppm/°C or less over a temperature range from 25°C to 1000°C. However; Kenji and Wang make obvious a graphite muffle with a protective coating of silicon carbide first material and hafnium carbide second material as claimed in present claims 1, 2, 4 and 6.
MPEP 2112.01 states;
"Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. (Applicant argued that the claimed composition was a pressure sensitive adhesive containing a tacky polymer while the product of the reference was hard and abrasion resistant. "The Board correctly found that the virtual identity of monomers and procedures sufficed to support a prima facie case of unpatentability of Spada’s polymer latexes for lack of novelty."
In the present instance the prior art makes obvious the claimed structure of the same composition. There are not unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claims provided on record and thus a skilled artisan has sufficient reason to believe the claimed properties of the coefficient of thermal expansion of the protective coating and graphite muffle necessarily exist.
Furthermore, Kenji discloses [0015] that when the thickness of the protective layer is too low it allows a portion of the carbon muffle to become uncovered. It is obvious to a skilled artisan to use coatings on the muffle with a minimal difference in coefficient of expansion as motivated to prevent the carbon muffle of exposure and risk of oxidation.
Further regarding the thickness of the first and second layer and overall coating layer, It is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) A particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.
Regarding claims 11 and 13, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to optimize the thickness as motivated to prevent the different materials of the protective coating expanding at different rates as motivated to prevent a portion of the carbon muffle becoming uncovered due to the difference in expansion of the protective coating layers during heating Wang.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenji JP10-338538 machine translation provided herein and further in view of Verdon et al. Hafnium and Silicon Carbide multilayer coatings for the protection of carbon composites Surface and Coating Technology June 14 2013 as viewed online at www.elsevier.com/locate/surfcoat as applied above and further in view of Chen (US 20070105706).
Regarding claim 16, Kenji and Verdon do not disclose the average particle diameter of the particles composing the protective coating.
In an analogous art, Chen discloses a protective coating, armor (abstract) with oxidation resistance [0002] composed of carbides [0070]-[0071], [0093] where a coating portion of the carbides applicable by CVD [0021]-[0022] has an average particle size of a carbide powder material may be 0.02-20 microns [0093]-[0099]. Where the prior art is silent to a suitable particle size, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to look to analogous art for CVD of carbides as motivated to determine a suitable particle size.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Fig.3 of Wang does not indicate the SiC/HfC/SiC layers are intermixed.
Wang does not need to use one of the words ”intermix” “intermixing” “intermixes” for this to be seen and obvious in coated layers to a skilled artisan.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive of nonobviousness. There is no requirement that Wang must use the same words to describe a claim element in order to be deemed as teaching or disclosing that claim element. “[T]he reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.¢., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Prior art reference must be “considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). As such, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. KSR /Int’/ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421.
Furthermore, “intermixing” is not limited to a specific concentration of each composition within specific dimensions, nor is the term ”gradient”. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification Fig. 3 of Wang has SiC and HfC layers that are not completely parallel to one another or separated and thus necessarily intermixed and from one material to next is considered a gradient.
The claimed intermixing and bonding is insufficient to overcome the above rejection for the reasons above and the layers depicted in Fig 3 of Wang. Furthermore, a skilled artisan Applicant should recognize that even negligible, infinitesimal, or minute intermixing, must exist due to at least interstitial bonding.
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 JODI COHEN FRANKLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3966. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am-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, Alison Hindelang can be reached at (571) 270-7001. 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.
JODI COHEN FRANKLIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741