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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and remarks, see (Pgs. 5 – 6), filed on (8 – 18 – 2025), with respect to the amended feature(s) of claim(s) 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Elizalde et al. (EP 3819280 A1) in view of Li et al. (Water governs the mechanical properties of poly(vinyl alcohol), 2020).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Claim(s) 1 – 7, 9 – 10 & 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Currently, amended claim 1 requires that “…wherein the dried ceramic fabric is free of ceramic particles…” which is not found to have explicit support in the specification to satisfy the description requirement of 35 USC 112, In re Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393, MPEP 2143. As such, the dried ceramic fabric is free of ceramic particles is understood to be new matter.
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.
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.
A.) Claim(s) 1 – 2, 6, 9 – 10 & 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elizalde et al. (EP 3819280 A1, hereinafter Elizalde) in view of Li et al. (Water governs the mechanical properties of poly(vinyl alcohol), 2020, hereinafter Li)
Regarding claim 1 and 10 & 21 as applied to claim 1 respectively,
A method of forming a ceramic matrix composite, the method comprising:
applying a binder to a ceramic fabric
the binder comprising: 5% wt % to 15 wt % polyvinyl alcohol and
the remainder water; and
drying the ceramic fabric after applying the binder,
wherein the dried ceramic fabric is free of ceramic particles; and
decomposing the binder to form a discontinuous carbon interfacial layer on filaments of tows of the ceramic fabric;
wherein an as-applied amount of polyvinyl alcohol on the dried ceramic fabric ranges from 2 wt % to 10 wt % relative to the ceramic fabric; and
wherein the step of applying the binder comprises one of spraying, pipetting, painting, immersing, or pre-pregging
Wherein the binder comprises 9 wt % to 11 wt % polyvinyl alcohol.
Wherein the binder comprises greater than 10 wt % polyvinyl alcohol.
Elizalde teaches the following:
(Abstract) teaches (i) providing a layer comprising ceramic fibers and at least one polymeric binder. ([0049]) teaches that the ceramic fibers of step (i) are in the form of individual fibers, bundles, yarns or a fabric.
& 1h.) ([0025]) teaches that the ceramic fiber layer of the invention is obtained by a wet-laid method comprising the following steps: (a) providing a dispersion comprising a. ceramic fibers; b. at least one polymeric binder; and c. a solvent. As such, forming a dispersion comprising the ceramic fibers and polymeric binder is understood to be an immersion / immersing of the ceramic fibers with the polymeric binder.
& 1e.) ([0025]) teaches that in a particular embodiment, the ceramic fiber layer of the invention is obtained by a wet-laid method comprising the following steps:
(a) providing a dispersion comprising
a. ceramic fibers;
b. at least one polymeric binder; and
c. a solvent;
(b) depositing the dispersion on a wire screen and drying.Highlighting, as disclosed above forming the ceramic fiber layer via the wet-laid process comprises only the application of an organic binder and solvent (i.e., water, ([0028])) to the ceramic fibers. As such, the ceramic fiber layer is understood to be free of ceramic particles.
([0081]) teaches that in a particular embodiment, the stabilization of the at least one polymeric binder of step (ii) is a thermal decomposition. Non-limiting examples of said thermal decomposition are: burning said at least one polymeric binder from said ceramic fiber layer or pyrolyzing said at least one polymeric binder from said ceramic fiber layer. ([0132]) teaches that in a more particular embodiment, the optional heating of step (ii) pyrolyzes said at least one polymeric binder of the continuous composite surface A; wherein the at least one polymeric binder leaves a carbonaceous residue.
([0076]) teaches that the at least one polymeric binder is a thermoplastic polymer or a monomeric carbohydrate, preferably poly(vinyl alcohol)(PVA), polyimide (PI) or dextrin, and the ceramic fiber layer of step (ii) comprises between 1 and 20 wt% of said at least one polymeric binder; preferably between 2 and 15 wt%; more preferably between 2 and 8 wt%; even more preferably between 3 and 6 wt%. Highlighting, that the ceramic fiber layer of step (ii) is found in ([0069]) and is understood to comprises a step (ii) of heating said ceramic fiber layer obtained in step (i) at a temperature high enough to stabilize said at least one polymeric binder from said ceramic fiber layer to obtain a ceramic fabric.
Regarding Claim(s) 1, 10 & 21 Elizalde is silent on the composition comprising an optimized amount of polyvinyl alcohol and water. In analogous art for optimizing the amount of polyvinyl alcohol and water, (Abstract), Li suggests details regarding implementing an optimized amount of polyvinyl alcohol and water, and in this regard, Li teaches the following:
& 1c.) 10a) & 21a.) (Pg. 2, ¶3) teaches our results show that both tensile strength and elastic modulus of PVA steadily decrease while the strain-at-break increases first and then decreases with increasing water contents (up to 20 wt%). Only 1.8 wt% water can lead to a brittle-ductile transition during tension. The presence of water molecules can disrupt the H-bonding interactions among PVA chains by replacing H-bonds between water and PVA, leading to reduced mechanical strength and elastic modulus, a decreased glass transition temperature and an increased mobility of PVA chains. (Pg. 2, ¶4, Fabrication of PVA Films) teaches that all the PVA films were dried at 80 ◦C under reduced pressure for 24 h to obtain absolutely dry PVA films (see the process in Fig. 1b). All the dry films were then divided into 9 groups and put into a glass bottle. A predesigned 1.0 wt. %, 2.5 wt. %, 5 wt. %, 10 wt. %, 15 wt. %, 20 wt. %, 30 wt. % and 40 wt. % water was added into bottle which were then sealed. The samples were designated as PVA-x, where x refers to the predesigned water content by mass fraction. The dry PVA was still named as PVA. (Pg. 5, Fig. 2) shows the various tensile strength vs. strain failure test. As illustrated, the dry PVA (100% PVA) resulted in the highest tensile strength, as water was added 1.8, 2.8, etc. the tensile strength is found to be reduced and transition from a brittle failure to a ductile failure i.e, an increase in elasticity. As such, the amount of water included with PVA is found to impact the tensile strength and elasticity provided by the PVA. Accordingly, the use of a binder comprising polyvinyl alcohol in the amount of 5% wt % to 15 wt % PVA, more particularly, 9 wt % to 11 wt % PVA and comprises more than 10 wt % PVA with the remainder water is understood to be disclosed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a ceramic matrix composite that comprises impregnating ceramic fibers with a solvent / water and binder / PVA of Elizalde. By modifying and optimizing the amount of water and binder / PVA utilized, as taught by Li. Highlighting, one would be motivated to optimizing the amount of water and binder / PVA utilized as it provides for tailoring the tensile strength and elasticity provided by the PVA, (Pg. 2, ¶3 & Pg. 5, Fig. 2). Additionally, due to the impact that the amount of water and PVA has on the tensile strength and elasticity provided by the PVA. The case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where, 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), MPEP 2143 II (B).
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1,
Forming a preform with the dried ceramic fabric.
Elizalde teaches the following:
([0072]) teaches the ceramic fiber layer has a 2D (i.e. flat) or a 3D shape; preferably a 3D shape. In more a particular embodiment, the ceramic fiber layer has a 2D (i.e. flat). ([0191]) teaches that additionally, the pulp molding mold used can be adapted to create a flat or 3D shaped ceramic fiber layers with different shapes. As such, shaping / forming a preform with the dried ceramic fabric is understood to be disclosed.
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the step of drying the ceramic fabric evaporates the water of the binder.
Elizalde teaches the following:
([0192]) teaches that the ceramic fiber layer was stabilized and dried under heating at a temperature between 50 and 100 °C to obtain a ceramic fabric. Then, the ceramic fabric was demolded by applying pressurized air. ([0194]) teaches that then, the infiltrated and dried ceramic fabric was heated at about 110 °C for 1 hour in air. As such, heating at a temperature of 100 °C to 110 °C for 1 hour in air is understood to evaporate the water of the binder.
Regarding claim 9 as applied to claim ,
Densifying the preform using one or a combination of chemical vapor infiltration, chemical vapor deposition, polymer infiltration and pyrolysis, and melt infiltration,
wherein the step of densifying the preform is performed following the step of decomposing the binder.
([0009]) teaches that (iii) infiltrating the nonwoven fabric obtained in step (ii) with a solution comprising at least one preceramic polymer to obtain an infiltrated nonwoven fabric.
Elizalde teaches the following:
([0009]) teaches that (iii) infiltrating the ceramic fabric obtained in step (ii) with a solution comprising at least one preceramic polymer. As such, infiltrating the ceramic fabric is understood to act as applicant’s densifying the preform using polymer infiltration / melt infiltration.
([0009]) teaches that (ii) heating said nonwoven layer obtained in step (i) at a temperature high enough to stabilize said at least one polymeric binder from said nonwoven layer to obtain a nonwoven fabric. Which as noted acts as applicant’s decomposing binder step. With ([0009]) adding that the decomposing the binder is followed by (iii) infiltrating the nonwoven fabric obtained in step (ii) with a solution comprising at least one preceramic polymer. As such, densifying the preform is performed following the step of decomposing the binder.
B.) Claim(s) 2 – 3 & 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elizalde in view of Li and in further view of Edwin Butler (US 20110259506 A1, hereinafter Butler) Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1,
Forming a preform with the dried ceramic fabric.
Regarding Claim 2, Elizalde as modified by Li is silent on forming a preform with the dried ceramic fabric. In analogous art for a ceramic matrix composite that comprises impregnating ceramic fibers with a slurry that includes polyvinyl alcohol and water, (Abstract), Butler suggests details regarding forming a preform with the dried ceramic fabric, and in this regard, Butler teaches the following:
(Claim 1) teaches that step (g) comprises stacking the plurality of pieces of slurry impregnated laminates of fabric on a first mould part. Where the stack is understood to act as applicant’s forming a preform.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a ceramic matrix composite that comprises impregnating ceramic fibers with a solvent / water and binder / PVA of Elizalde as modified by Li. By further modifying the process to include stacking the plurality of pieces of slurry impregnated laminates of fabric, as taught by Butler. Highlighting, one would be motivated to stacking the plurality of pieces of slurry impregnated laminates of fabric as it provides for tailoring the size of the article and forming consolidating the plurality of pieces of slurry impregnated laminates of fabric on the mould part, ([0031]).
Accordingly, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "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), MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 2,
Wherein the ceramic fabric is a woven ceramic fabric and
wherein incorporating the dried ceramic fabric into a preform comprises forming a plurality of plies from the woven dried ceramic fabric and laying up the plurality of plies.
Elizalde teaches the following:
([0047]) teaches that ceramic oxide fibers marketed by 3M Company (Saint Paul, MN) under the trade designation "NEXTEL" (for example, "NEXTEL 312", "NEXTEL 440", "NEXTEL 550", "NEXTEL 610", "NEXTEL 650", and "NEXTEL 720") may be utilized. ([0049]) teaches that the ceramic fibers of step (i) are in the form of individual fibers, bundles, yarns or a fabrics.
Regarding Claim 3, Elizalde as modified by Li is silent on the ceramic fabric being a woven ceramic fabric and wherein incorporating the dried ceramic fabric into a preform comprises forming a plurality of plies from the woven dried ceramic fabric and laying up the plurality of plies. In analogous art as applied above, Butler suggests details regarding the ceramic fabric being a woven ceramic fabric and forming a preform with the dried ceramic fabric, and in this regard, Butler teaches the following:
([0044]) teaches that the fibres may comprise a mixture of alumina and mullite, e.g., the fabric may be woven from Nextel® 720 fibres, which are an alumina-mullite fibres.
(Claim 1) teaches that step (e) comprises cutting the slurry impregnated length of fabric into a plurality of pieces of slurry impregnated laminates of fabric. With (Claim 1) adding that (g) comprises stacking the plurality of pieces of slurry impregnated laminates of fabric on a first mould part. As such, incorporating the ceramic fabric into a preform comprises forming a plurality of pieces from the ceramic fabric and stacking up the plurality of pieces.
The same rejection rationale, case law(s) and analysis that was used previously for claim 2, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 2,
Wherein the step of decomposing the binder comprises heating the preform to a temperature ranging from 800 °F to 1150 °F in an inert environment.
Elizalde teaches the following:
([0119]) teaches that the step (ii) is performed at a temperature of at least 300°C to obtain a continuous composite surface B; preferably at a temperature of at least 500°C; more preferably at a temperature of at least 600°C; even more preferably at a temperature of between 700°C and 1100°C. ([0125]) teaches the heating of step (ii) is performed at a temperature about 500°C, at about 1 atm of pressure and during between 0.6 and 5 hours in a furnace and under nitrogen atmosphere. ([0131]) teaches In a particular embodiment, the heating of step (ii) is performed under an inert atmosphere; particularly under a nitrogen gas flow. Where a temperature of 800 °F to 1150 °F is equal to 425 °C to 620 °C. As such, a heating at a temperature of at a temperature of at least 500 °C in an inert atmosphere is found to overlap with applicant’s range of 425 °C to 620 °C
C.) Claim(s) 2 – 3 & 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elizalde in view of Li and in further view of Harris (US 20190185385 A1, hereinafter Harris) Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1,
Forming a preform with the dried ceramic fabric.
Elizalde teaches the following:
([0049]) teaches that the ceramic fibers of step (i) are in the form of individual fibers, bundles, yarns or a fabrics.
Regarding Claim 2, Elizalde as modified by Li is silent on forming a preform with the dried ceramic fabric. In analogous art for making a fiber preform for ceramic matrix composite (CMC) fabrication comprises laminating an arrangement of fibers between polymer sheets comprising an organic polymer, which may function as a fugitive binder during fabrication, to form a flexible prepreg sheet, (Abstract), Harris suggests details regarding forming a preform with the dried ceramic fabric, and in this regard, Harris teaches the following:
([0013]) teaches that the method entails laminating an arrangement of fibers between polymer sheets in order to form a flexible prepreg sheet. The polymer sheets comprise an organic polymer (e.g., an aliphatic organic polymer) that is preferably high purity and low char-yielding. The arrangement of fibers may be a 2D woven arrangement, a unidirectional arrangement, or another suitable arrangement of fibers. The fibers employed in the process are typically ceramic fibers. ([0020]) teaches that the organic polymer may be selected from polyvinyl alcohol amongst others. ([0013]) teaches that the lamination is typically carried out at a temperature ranging from about 80° C. to about 200° C., or from 100° C. to about 125° C., and may entail applying a compressive pressure in a range from about 50 psi (about 0.3 MPa) to about 200 psi (about 1.4 MPa). An ambient environment (e.g., air) is typically suitable for the laminating process. Where the lamination process is understood to acts as a drying process. ([0016]) teaches that to form the preform, a number of the flexible prepreg sheets 16 formed in the lamination process are laid up in a predetermined geometry, thereby forming a stack 18 of the flexible prepreg sheets 16. The stack 18 may be formed in a double-sided tool or a single-sided tool, optionally with the aid of vacuum or pressure. As such, forming a preform with the dried ceramic fabric is understood to be disclosed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a ceramic matrix composite that comprises impregnating ceramic fibers with a solvent / water and binder / PVA of Elizalde as modified by Li. By further modifying the process to include stacking the plurality of pieces of slurry impregnated laminates of fabric, as taught by Harris. Highlighting, one would be motivated to stacking the plurality of pieces of slurry impregnated laminates of fabric as it provides for forming a desired geometry which may be planar or may be a curved stack or another simple or complex three-dimensional shape, ([0016]). Accordingly, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "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), MPEP 2143.Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 2,
Wherein the ceramic fabric is a woven ceramic fabric and
wherein incorporating the dried ceramic fabric into a preform comprises forming a plurality of plies from the woven dried ceramic fabric and laying up the plurality of plies.
Elizalde teaches the following:
([0049]) teaches that the ceramic fibers of step (i) are in the form of individual fibers, bundles, yarns or a fabrics.
Regarding Claim 3, Elizalde as modified by Li is silent on the ceramic fabric being a woven ceramic fabric and wherein incorporating the dried ceramic fabric into a preform comprises forming a plurality of plies from the woven dried ceramic fabric and laying up the plurality of plies. In analogous art as applied above, Harris suggests details regarding the ceramic fabric being a woven ceramic fabric and forming a preform with the dried ceramic fabric, and in this regard, Harris teaches the following:
& b.) ([0013]) teaches that the method entails laminating an arrangement of fibers between polymer sheets in order to form a flexible prepreg sheet. The polymer sheets comprise an organic polymer (e.g., an aliphatic organic polymer) that is preferably high purity and low char-yielding. The arrangement of fibers may be a 2D woven arrangement, a unidirectional arrangement, or another suitable arrangement of fibers. The fibers employed in the process are typically ceramic fibers. ([0020]) teaches that the organic polymer may be selected from polyvinyl alcohol amongst others. As such, the ceramic fabric is a woven ceramic fabric.
([0013]) teaches that the lamination is typically carried out at a temperature ranging from about 80° C. to about 200° C., or from 100° C. to about 125° C., and may entail applying a compressive pressure in a range from about 50 psi (about 0.3 MPa) to about 200 psi (about 1.4 MPa). An ambient environment (e.g., air) is typically suitable for the laminating process. Where the lamination process is understood to acts as a drying process. ([0016]) teaches that to form the preform, a number of the flexible prepreg sheets 16 formed in the lamination process are laid up in a predetermined geometry, thereby forming a stack 18 of the flexible prepreg sheets 16. The stack 18 may be formed in a double-sided tool or a single-sided tool, optionally with the aid of vacuum or pressure. As such, the dried ceramic fabric has been formed into a preform by forming a plurality of plies from the woven dried ceramic fabric and laying up the plurality of plies.
The same rejection rationale, case law(s) and analysis that was used previously for claim2_, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 2,
Wherein the step of decomposing the binder comprises heating the preform to a temperature ranging from 800 °F to 1150 °F in an inert environment.
Elizalde teaches the following:
([0119]) teaches that the step (ii) is performed at a temperature of at least 300°C to obtain a continuous composite surface B; preferably at a temperature of at least 500°C; more preferably at a temperature of at least 600°C; even more preferably at a temperature of between 700°C and 1100°C. ([0125]) teaches the heating of step (ii) is performed at a temperature about 500°C, at about 1 atm of pressure and during between 0.6 and 5 hours in a furnace and under nitrogen atmosphere. ([0131]) teaches In a particular embodiment, the heating of step (ii) is performed under an inert atmosphere; particularly under a nitrogen gas flow. Where a temperature of 800 °F to 1150 °F is equal to 425 °C to 620 °C. As such, a heating at a temperature of at a temperature of at least 500 °C in an inert atmosphere is found to overlap with applicant’s range of 425 °C to 620 °C
D.) Claim(s) 4, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elizalde in view of Li and in further view of Butler and in further view of Weaver et al. (US 20170029340 A1, hereinafter Weaver)
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 2,
Wherein the ceramic fabric is a braid.
Regarding Claim 4, Elizalde as modified by Li is silent on the ceramic material being braided. In analogous art for a ceramic matrix component that is infiltrated and further processes, (Abstract), Weaver suggests details regarding implementing a ceramic material that is a braided, and in this regard, Weaver teaches the following:
([0024]) teaches that as an alternative to unidirectional arrays of tows, the reinforcement material 14 could simply comprise fibers 16 arranged to form unidirectional arrays of fibers, or the reinforcement material 14 could comprise tows woven to form a two-dimensional fabric or woven or braided to form a three-dimensional fabric.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a ceramic matrix composite that comprises impregnating ceramic fibers with a solvent / water and binder / PVA of Elizalde as modified by Li. By further modifying the ceramic fibers to comprises woven or braided ceramic fibers, as taught by Weaver. Highlighting, one would be motivated to include ceramic fibers that are woven or braided as it provides for form a three-dimensional fabric from the ceramic fibers, ([0024]). Accordingly, the change in shape case law may be recited. Where, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23.E.) Claim(s) 5, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elizalde in view of Li in view of Butler and in further view of Sangeeta et al. (US 5628938 A, hereinafter Sangeeta)
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 2,
Additionally applying the binder to the preform.
Regarding Claim 5, Elizalde as modified by Li is silent on applying the binder to the preform. In analogous art for the formation of a CMC article via infiltration of a slurry (Abstract), Sangeeta suggests details regarding implementing a step of applying the binder to the preform, and in this regard, Sangeeta teaches the following:
(Col. 16, lines 45-65) teaches that the silicon carbide preform was infiltrated with a carbonaceous resin mixture under pressure in an autoclave. Pressure was utilized in an attempt to force more of the resin to infiltrate into the interlamellar regions of the ceramic preform than occurred using the method of Example 2. The silicon carbide preform was immersed in the resin mixture and subjected to 4 cycles of vacuum (<1 min.) and 100 psi pressure (<1 min.) in the autoclave for 3 hours. It was heated to 150 °C followed by pressurization to 1000 psi with air for 24 hours in the autoclave. To prepare the silicon carbide composite, the pyrolysis and silicon melt infiltration steps of Example 2 were followed. As such, the implementation of a binder via infiltration into the ceramic preform is understood to be disclosed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a ceramic matrix composite that comprises impregnating ceramic fibers with a solvent / water and binder / PVA of Elizalde as modified by Li. By further modifying the process to include a step of applying the binder to the preform, as taught by Sangeeta. Highlighting, one would be motivated to include a step of applying the binder to the preform as it provides for increasing the amount of carbon residue in the regions of the ceramic preform, so as to increase the amount of silicon carbide formed during the subsequent densification step with liquid silicon infiltration (Col. 16, lines 45-65). Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Birchall et al. (US 5053175 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) A process for the production of a fibre-reinforced ceramic composite by forming a precursor structure comprising a matrix of a composition comprising particulate ceramic material, liquid diluent and organic binder and fibres within the matrix, in which the fibres are formed from a composition comprising particulate ceramic material, liquid diluent and organic binder, and heating the precursor structure in order to evaporate the liquid diluent, decompose the organic binder and sinter the particles of ceramic material in both the matrix and the fibres.
Chamberlain et al. (US 20160185092 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) A method of forming a composite preform containing multiple laminates is disclosed. The method may include providing a first sublaminate comprising stacked fibers woven into a fabric; providing a second sublaminate comprising stacked fibers woven into a fabric; joining the first sublaminate and the second sublaminate forming a component comprising a region of discontinuity sandwiched between the first sublaminate and the second sublaminate;
Thomas Edward Strasser (US 6153291 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) A method of fiber preparation for discontinuous fiber-reinforced ceramic matrix composite and a coated discontinuous fiber prepared by this method. The method includes immersing a fiber spool in a resin and drip drying the fiber spool until any excess resin is removed. Next, the damp fiber is cut or chopped and heated to the green-state cure temperature of the resin.
Edwin Butler (US 8313598 B2) – teaches in the (Abstract) A method of manufacturing a ceramic matrix composite article comprising the steps of: — a) forming a slurry consisting of water, polyvinyl alcohol, nitric acid, polyethylene glycoland alumina particles only, b) providing a length of fabric, the fabric comprising a plurality of ceramic fibres.
Sheedy et al. (US 20160264475 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) A method of preparing a fiber for use in forming a ceramic matrix composite material comprises the steps of removing an organic sizing from a fiber to provide pyrolyzed remnants on the fiber and using the pyrolyzed remnants as a reactant to provide an interface coating on the fiber.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrés E. Behrens Jr. whose telephone number is (571)-272-9096. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 AM-5:30 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 Hindenlang can be reached on (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.
/Andrés E. Behrens Jr./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741