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 .
Applicant's submission filed on 2/18/26 has been entered. Claims 1-11 and 21-27 are currently pending examination, claims 12-20 have been canceled.
Claim Interpretation
At [0010] of Applicant’s specification it states: “As used herein, the term ‘metallic’ can include transition and refractory metals, metalloids, oxides of rare-earth metals, and carbides.” . The examiner will interpret “metallic” based upon this special definition.
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, 6, 11, 24, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al (US 2020/0199026; hereafter Tang) in view of Razzell et al (2020/0392049; hereafter Razzell) and Kirby et al (US 2013/0167374; hereafter Kirby).
Claims 1 and 11: Tang teaches a method of forming a ceramic matrix composite (see, for example, abstract), the method comprising:
depositing particles, including first particles and a second particles on a ceramic fabric (via a slurry), the ceramic fabric (such a fiber ply, sheet, cloth alone or as collective preform) being formed from a plurality of ceramic tows (see, for example, [0015-20] wherein the 1st and 2nd particles can be of compositions 1&2 and / or of components of size modes within the bi- or tri- modal particles);
forming a preform using the ceramic fabric (See, for example, [0019], [0029]. built up from layup of plies);
and densifying the preform (such as via CVI) (See, for example, Fig 3B, [0029]).
wherein the ceramic tows are formed from a first material (such as SiC), and wherein the particles are formed from at least a metallic material (such as self healing additive, or component thereof) (see, for example, [0020], wherein the additive is taught to include transition and refractory metals, metalloids, oxides of rare-earth metals, and carbides).
Tang further teaches wherein slurries possessing a smaller particle size can be used initially to reach the core of the preform while subsequently applying slurries of larger particles sizes; and further teaches wherein the particle slurries can be bi-modal or tri-modal and possesses overall particles sizes ranging from 0.5 microns to 90 microns by diameter and further wherein the size influences the ability of the particles to penetrate into various features of the body (See, for example, Fig 1-2, [0016], [0020], [0025-26]). Further explicitly teaching “wherein the size of particulate materials can be tailored to ensure sufficient material deposition in all parts of the preform”, thus particles sized for deposition in pores formed between filaments of each of the plurality of ceramic tows will be interpreted as at least comprising first particles and particles sized for deposition in pores formed between adjacent ceramic tows, and larger than the first particles will be interpreted as at least comprising second particles (see, for example, [0016]).
Tang does not explicitly teach applying a binder to at least the particles to form stabilized ceramic fabric prior to forming the preform therefrom. Razzell teaches a method of forming ceramic matrix composites (See, for example, abstract). Razzell further teaches wherein a fugitive polymer binder can be applied to individually prepared plies to enhance stability and act as an adhesive to temporarily bind each ply to its neighbor prior to densification such as via CVI (See, for example, [0011], [0046], [0061], [0064-0065]). 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 applying a binder to the ceramic fabric to form stabilized ceramic fabric prior to forming the preform therefrom since such binder application would predictably enhance stability and adhesion of the components as they are laid up to form the ultimate preform.
Tang in view of Razzell teach the method above, and Tang further teaches wherein the particles are formed from metallic material such as comprises mixtures of materials such as refractory elements (like tantalum, hafnium, molybdenum) carbides, silicides, oxides (See, for example, [0020], [0036], [0051]). But they don’t explicitly teach wherein the particles comprise metallic particles consisting of tungsten, tantalum, or hafnium. Kirby teaches a method of fabricating SiC composites comprising prepreg slurry exposure and subsequent densification (See, for example, abstract). Kirby further teaches incorporating similar refractory metal components as Tang, including tantalum and molybdenum silicides and further teaches elemental forms of these refractive elements perform predictably in silicon CMCs as well (See, for example, [0028], claim 5 ). Kirby further teaches tantalum incorporated into the preform prior to densification provides sources for reaction with silicon / residual silicon to form refractory silicides and reduce / prevent costly excess silicon extraction steps (See, for example, [0028], claim 5 ). 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 metallic particles consisting of tantalum 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). And / or since its incorporation would predictably serve as a reaction source for silicon / residual silicon to form refractory silicides further reducing / preventing costly excess silicon extraction steps.
Claim 2: Tang further teaches wherein the ceramic tows are formed from SiC (see, for example, [0015]).
Claim 6: Tang further teaches wherein the step of depositing the particles on the ceramic fabric comprises immersion (see, for example, [0019]).
Claim 24: Tang further teaches wherein the step of depositing particles on a ceramic fabric comprises depositing the first particles prior to depositing the second particles (see, for example, [0016] wherein slurries of smaller particles can be used initially to reach the core, followed by slurries of larger particles).
Claim 27: refer to the rejection of claim 1 above, Razzell has taught binder is additionally applied to slurry-impregnated plies (refer to rejection of claim 1 above) thus the step of applying the binder to at least the particles comprises applying the binder to the ceramic fabric after depositing particles.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Razzell and Kirby as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schmidt et al (US 2020/0157011; hereafter Schmidt).
Claims 3-4: Tang in view of Razzell and Kirby teach the method of claim 1 (above) and Tang further teaches wherein the particles are formed from metallic material such as comprising mixtures of materials such as refractory elements (like tantalum, hafnium) borides, carbides, silicides, rare earth oxides (See, for example, [0020], [0036], [0051]). But they don’t explicitly teach wherein the particles further include at least tungsten particles and further hafnium particles in addition to the metallic particles consisting of tantalum. Schmidt teaches a method of fabricating a CMC (see, for example, abstract). Schmidt further teaches wherein ultrahigh temperature capable CMCs can be produces by conventional impregnation processes of refractory metal particulate(s) which surpass state-of-the-art silicon carbide-based systems (See, for example, [0010]). Schmidt further teaches wherein suitable refractory metal particles include tungsten particles, hafnium particles, and tantalum particles and mixtures thereof (See, for example, [0012]). 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 further incorporated tungsten and / or hafnium particles since such a materials are known refractory metals and as they would predictably allow enhancement of ultrahigh temperature CMCs.
Claim 25: refer to the rejections of claims 1 and 5 above, wherein Kirby has taught tantalum particles (refer to the rejection of claim 1 above) and Schmidt further teaches wherein the particles further include tungsten particles (See, for example, [0012] and the rejection of claim 4 above).
Claim 26: refer to the rejections of claims 1 and 4 above, wherein Kirby has taught tantalum particles and Schmidt further teaches wherein the particles further include tungsten and hafnium particles (See, for example, [0012] and the rejection of claim 4 above).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Razzell and Kirby as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Chen et al (“Synthesis of Core-Shell Micro/Nanoparticles and their Tribological Application: A Review” Materials 2020, 13, 4590 (available 10/15/2020 pg 1-29; hereafter Chen).
Claim 5: Tang in view of Razzell and Kirby teach the method of claim 2 above, and Tang further teaches wherein the particles further comprise mixtures of presently claimed materials such as borides, including tantalum boride, silicides, carbides, rare earth oxides (See, for example, [0013], and [0020]). But Tang does not explicitly teach the particles further include core /shell composite particles of the materials as claimed. Chen teaches a background with respect to core-shell particles including acknowledging their use as fillers in composite structures as they provide enhancement in mechanical and tribological properties due to their structure and good dispersion properties (See, for example, abstract, conclusion). Chen further teaches wherein in addition to taking advantage of the materials provided by core and shell species, the incorporation of core-shell structure particles allow for special properties far more different than those provided by simple blends including synergistic effects, enhancement to optical and electronic properties, interface bonding tailorabilty, and catalytic activity (See, for example, introduction). 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 core – shell particles since mixtures / blends of such materials are explicitly desired for use as the particles per the guidance of Tang, and since implementation of core-shell structure instead of a simple blend would predictably improve synergistic effects and enhanced tailorabilty and enhancement of mechanical, tribological, dispersion, optical, electronic, catalytic, and dispersibility. Although no exemplary embodiment is provided with claimed core and shell pairings, 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 wherein the particles are formed from a core of the second material and coated with a third material, wherein the second material is one of a silicide, a rare earth oxide, and a carbide, and wherein the third material is one of a boride since a reasonable expectation of success exists from choosing the specific taught species from explicitly taught lists. Further when the species is clearly named, the species claim is anticipated (rendered obvious) no matter how many other species are additionally named. Ex parte A 17 USPQ2d 1716 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990).
Claim(s) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Razzell and Kirby as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Overholser (US 2018/0266261; hereafter Overholser).
Claim 7: Tang in view of Razzell and Kirby teach the method of claim 6 above, wherein Tang has further taught its method is concerned with selectively positioning chemical component slurry application to meet specific function needs of the CMC during operation, particularly for use in gas turbine engines (See, for example, abstract,[0001], [0012-13], [0017]). Tang does not explicitly teach masking a portion of the ceramic fabric to selectively deposit the particles. Overholser teaches a method of forming ceramic matrix composites, further for gas turbine engines (See, for example, abstract, [0002], [0022]). Overholser further teaches there exists a need in the art to design such CMC structure with volumes devoid of matrix, such as for ceramic seal components (See, for example, abstract, [0001-00032], [0015]). Overholser further teaches wherein such specific function can be achieved by providing masking to portions of the plies prior to slurry exposure (see, for example, Fig , [0045-0049]). Overholser further teaches wherein such masking methods allow for improvement in speed and cost of manufacturing and provide structures with such areas devoid of slurry can provide enhanced ceramic seal functionality with improved flexibility (See, for example, abstract, [0022], [0029], [0044], [0054-55]). 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 masked a portion of the ceramic fabric to selectively deposit the particles as it would predictably provide for a means to expand the ability to selectively locate chemical component slurries throughout the CMC, expanding its ability to meet specific function needs such as into areas for CMC articles as ceramic seal components; all while offering enhanced flexibility, speed and reduction in cost.
Claim 9: Tang further teaches drying the ceramic fabric after the step of depositing the particles (See, for example, [0017]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Razzell and Kirby as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsumoto et al (US 2016/0031762; hereafter Matsumoto).
Claim 8: Tang in view of Razzell and Kirby teach the method of claim 1 above, wherein Razzell, has taught incorporation of binder to the fabrics of the preform, and thus the particles thereof, to enhance stability and act as an adhesive to bind the precursor (See, for example, [0011], [0046], [0061], [0064-0065]). But they do not explicitly teach applying the binder to the particles prior to depositing the particles. Matsumoto teaches a method of forming a ceramic matrix composite (See, for example, [0001], abstract). Matsumoto further teaches the formation is conventionally known to proceed by laying up of slurry impregnated fabrics (See, for example, [0003], [0034-0035]). Matsumoto further teaches wherein binders are conventionally known to be provided to the particles prior to deposition via inclusion during preparation of the slurries prior to deposition to provide improved pliability (See, for example, [0003], [0031], claim 12). Matsumoto further teaches wherein the binder comprises polyvinylbutyral and is dissolved in a solvent such as ethanol, thus provided as a solution (See, for example, abstract, [0025], [0027], claims 3, 8, 14). 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 applied the binder to the particles prior to depositing the particles since incorporation of such a binder within the slurry solution is a well known and conventional means to provide the binder to the fabrics, and since such an incorporation would provide improved pliability. Although no singular exemplary embodiment is provided with a polyvinyl butyral in ethanol solution, 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 such a combination since a reasonable expectation of success exists from choosing the specific taught species from explicitly taught lists. And further when the species is clearly named, the species claim is anticipated (rendered obvious) no matter how many other species are additionally named. Ex parte A 17 USPQ2d 1716 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990).
Claim(s) 10 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Razzell and Kirby as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shim et al (US 2019/0185384; hereafter Shim384).
Claim 10: Tang in view of Razzell and Kirby teach the method of claim 1 above, wherein Tang has taught application of a slurry comprising particles and a solvent to impregnate fabrics of fiber tows (See, for example, [0017]). Tang does not explicitly teach the slurry further comprises a surfactant. Shim384 teaches a method of forming a CMC, further involving the deposition and infiltration of particulate slurries to ceramic fiber preforms (See, for example, abstract, [0003-4]). Shim384 similarly teaches wherein surfactants are conventional additives for such CMC slurries for improving the wetting of the slurry (See, for example, [0024-25). 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 added a surfactant into the slurry as such an additive is common and well known in the art, and would provide improved wetting of the slurry.
Claim 22: Tang further teaches wherein the solvent is water or an alcohol. (see, for example, [0017]).
Claim 23 Tang further teaches wherein the particles in the slurries comprise between 10-20 % by volume (See, for example, [0018]). Shim384 further teaches wherein surfactants are conventionally incorporated at amounts up to 10wt%, further up to 2 wt% (See, for example, [0024-25). Although not explicitly 0.05 to 2.0 vol%, 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 concentration within the claimed range 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). Additionally / alternatively 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 concentration of surfactant within the claimed range since the prior art (Shim384) have established that the amount of surfactant is result effective in altering the wetting properties between the slurry and the preform and discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 10 and 22 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Razzell and Kirby as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hall et al (US 2018/0362413; hereafter Hall).
Claim 10: Tang in view of Razzell and Kirby teach the method of claim 1 above, wherein Tang has taught application of a slurry comprising particles and a solvent to impregnate fabrics of fiber tows (See, for example, [0017]). Tang does not explicitly teach the slurry further comprises a surfactant. Hall teaches a method of forming a ceramic matric composite article (See, for example, abstract). Hall similarly teaches wherein its method includes steps of contacting fibrous plies with a slurry comprising particles and solvent (see, for example, [0035], [0039], [0042-43], [0048-49]). Hall teaches wherein benefits can be achieved by incorporating a surfactant into the slurry (See, for example, [0043], [0062]). 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 added a surfactant into the slurry as such an additive is common and well known in the art, and would provide beneficial results.
Claim 22: Tang further teaches wherein the solvent is water or an alcohol. (see, for example, [0017]).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Razzell, Kirby, and Hall as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Shim et al (US2019/0256427; hereafter Shim).
Claim 21: Tang in view of Razzell, Kirby, and Hall teach the method of claim 10 above, but Hall is silent as to a particular surfactant, so it does not explicitly teach the surfactant as triethylamine or polyethyleneimine. Shim teaches a method of forming a CMC, further involving the deposition of particulate slurries to ceramic fiber preforms (See, for example, abstract, [0004]). Shim similarly teaches wherein surfactants are conventional additives for such CMC slurries and additionally identifies polyethylene imine as suitable surfactant for such slurries (See, for example, [0014]). 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 polyethyleneimine as the surfactant since it well known in the CMC art and performs predictably as a surfactant within the art 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to claim 27, filed 2/18/26, has been fully considered and is persuasive with respect to the previously applied 35 USC 112 a/d rejections of claim 27. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive with respect to the previously applied 35 USC 103 rejection over Tang in view of Razzell and Schmidt. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tang in view of Razzell and Kirby, wherein Kirby has explicitly taught particles consisting of tantalum (see rejection of claim 1 above). Schmidt was further incorporated as an additional secondary reference for the 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 3-4, and 25-26 (refer to rejections above).
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 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