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 .
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.
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrigeon [US 5141775] in view of Hayashi [KR 20070090763] and Holder [CN 1305540].
Kataoka [US 4668729] and Bhattacharya [US 7846506] and JP415 [JP4899415].
Claim 1: Patrigeon is directed to manufacture of a composite material by densifying via chemical vapor infiltration (CVI) using a tool [abstract] wherein the tool comprises a graphite body [col 3, ln 14-15]. Patrigeon further teaches that the composite can be a ceramic matrix composites (CMC) [col 1, ln 22 and col 2, ln 47]. Patrigeon also teaches the tool (dies) are perforated with a plurality of holes for easy access of the gaseous infiltration phase for the composite to be densified [col 3, ln 15-18] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that by having holes to allow for gas access to the supported composite therein, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the surface of the graphite body would have a porous surface. Patrigeon teaches that the graphite body/dies can have a inserted layer to allow for better release between the composite and tool [col 3, ln 35-45]. However, Patrigeon does not appear to teach a glass carbon layer on the graphite body to hermetically seal the porous surface. Hayashi and Holder are provided.
Hayashi teaches a process for producing preform with press molding [title], wherein it is preferable to adding a carbon containing film, such as glassy carbon film as a release film on the mold [pg 13, para 4]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a release film such as a glassy carbon film since Hayashi teaches this type of release film can be used in high temperature molding temperature [pg 13, para 4]. However, Hayashi does not appear to teach the glassy carbon layer hermetically seals the porous surface. Holder is provided.
Holder teaches a glassy carbon film is capable of acting as protective sealing layer on graphite [pg 4, para 4]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide glassy carbon on a graphite to seal the surface, since Holder teaches it operable to provide glassy carbon as a protective and sealing layer on graphite.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrigeon in view of Hayashi in view of Holder as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goto [JP 2009078973].
The prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach glassy carbon layer is formed by heat cured carbon yield resin. Goto is provided.
Claim 2: Goto teaches providing a thermosetting resin to form a glassy carbon mold by heat and carbonization after curing [pg 3, para 4]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the glassy carbon layer by heat cured carbon yield resin since the prior art appears to be silent on how to form the glassy carbon and Goto provides an operable and known way of producing glassy carbon.
Claim(s) 3-4, 6, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrigeon in view of Hayashi, Holder and Goto as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Pellegri [CA2341508].
The prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach including filler particles in the carbon resin. Pellegri is provided.
Claims 3-4, 6: Pellegri teaches the resin includes filler particles such as carbon particles or graphite particles or fibers in a resin for coating [abstract]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide such particles in the resin so as to impart some properties such as conductivity to the coating that is similar to the surface material (i.e. graphite).
Claim(s) 8, 10-11, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrigeon in view of Hayashi, Holder, Goto and Pellegri as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of JP415 [JP4899415].
The prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach a second coating on the glassy carbon layer, wherein the glassy carbon layer is part of the first coating between the porous surface and the second coating. JP415 is provided.
Claim 8: JP415 teaches a second coating on the glassy carbon layer can be formed (second treatment) [Tech-Solution, pg 3, para 6]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a second coating on the glassy carbon layer (second treatment) to further ensure sealing of the porous surface [Tech-Solution, pg 3, para 6].
Claim 10: JP415 teaches there could be multiple layers of the heat cured carbon yielding resin (applied twice or more) [pg 4, para 6].
Claim 11: JP415 teaches the carbon resin can be furan based resin [pg 4, para 1].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrigeon in view of Hayashi, Holder, Goto and Pellegri as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Wu [CN108675790].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned which uses graphite particles but does not appear to teach graphite flakes. Wu is provided.
Claim 5: Wu teaches the graphite particles naturally in the form of flakes [pg 3, para 2]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use graphite flakes since graphite particles naturally occur in flake form.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrigeon in view of Hayashi, Holder, Goto and Pellegri as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of LI [CN109251651].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the claimed ratio of claim 7. Li is provided.
Claim 7: Li teaches the ratio of the resin can impart particular properties to the coating such as good adhesion, resistance and etc. [pg 3, ln 10]. Although the prior art does not explicitly teach the claimed range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the ratio of the particles to the resin through routine experimentation since Li teaches the amount of particles to resin can affect the properties of the coating.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrigeon in view of Hayashi, Holder, Goto, Pellegri and JP415 as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Gawin [CA1322948].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach using neat resin. Gawin is provided.
Claim 9: Gawin teaches using neat resin mixed with particles [abstract], wherein using neat resins increases damage tolerance [pg 70]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use neat resins so as to increase damage tolerance in the coating.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments on pg 6-8 regarding Kataoka and Bhattacharya, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 2 under Patrigeon in view of Kataoka and bhattacharya and JP415 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 Patrigeon in view of Hayashi, Holder, and Goto as applied to claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDY C LOUIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 1:00PM to 4:00PM 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, Timothy Meeks can be reached at (571)272-1423. 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.
/MANDY C LOUIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718