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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 14 and 16 depend from claim 10 and claim 10 has been cancelled. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
For purposes of examination, claims 14 and 16 will be interpreted to be dependent on claim 7 as it appears that at least some of the limitations of claim 10 have been incorporated into claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendez et al (US 20190337859) in view of Corman et al (US20170275210) and Buet FR3044022 and Bouillon et al (US 7238247).
Mendez is directed to a method of fabricating a part out of ceramic matrix composite material. Mendez teaches the method including infiltrating a fiber preform with a molten composition including a majority by weight of silicon, the fiber preform including silicon carbide fibers, silicon carbide powder being present in the pores of said preform, a mean size of silicon carbide crystallites in the powder being less than the mean size of the silicon carbide crystallites in the fibers, a ceramic matrix being formed in the pores of the fiber preform during the infiltration so as to obtain the part made of composite material (ABST).
Mendez teaches the fiber preform can be obtained by three-dimensional weaving between a plurality of layers of warp yarns and plurality of weft yarns [0030].
Mendez teaches once the preform is formed, an embrittlement relief interphase is formed on the fibers, e.g. the interphase can be PyC or boron nitride [0041].
Mendez teaches a consolidation phase comprising silicon carbide can be formed in the pores of the fiber preform by chemical vapor infiltration. The outer layer of the consolidation phase (farthest from the fibers) is made of silicon carbide to constitute a barrier against reaction between the underlying fibers and subsequently introduced molten silicon composition [0042]. The preform is densified by the SiC consolidation phase [0055] as claimed.
Mendez teaches fibers in the preform and an interphase applied to the fibers of the preform. Mendez teaches a consolidation phase made from SiC which would be free from silicon as claimed.
Mendez is silent with regard to the Youngs modulus of the SiC consolidation phase being greater than 350 GPa. As Mendez teaches the same materials, made by the same method and of the same thickness, it is reasonable to presume the modulus is inherent to Mendez. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
Mendez teaches after the consolidation phase, an SiC powder is introduced into the pores of the consolidated fiber preform and then infiltrated with a molten composition [0044]-[0046]. Mendez teaches the introduction of SiC powder and then a molten silicon composition can be silicon or an alloy of silicon. Because of the small size of the SiC crystallites in the powder, the molten composition interacts with the powder during infiltration and interacts less with the SiC present in the consolidation phase [0046].
The SiC powder and silicon alloy are equated with the SiC matrix claimed. The SiC powder and molten silicon alloy are in contact with the consolidation phase of SiC.
Mendez teaches, as shown in Fig. 1, a fiber preform of SiC fibers, forming an interphase on the fibers of the preform, forming an SiC consolidation phase in the pores of the fiber preform and introducing a SiC powder into the pores of the fiber preform and infiltrating the fiber preform with a molten silicon composition [0047]-[0051].
Mendez differs and is silent with regard to the silicon carbide matrix phase having a volume porosity less than or equal to 8%. The range of less than 8% includes 0% volume porosity. Mendez teaches the SiC powder (matrix phase) is introduced into the pores of the consolidated fiber preform [0044] which infers that the residual porosity after the silicon matrix is applied is near 0 and would be in the claimed range.
In the alternative, Corman is directed to a ceramic matrix composite with a plurality of unidirectional arrays of fiber tows in a matrix having a monomodal pore size distribution and a fiber volume fraction of 15-35%.
Corman teaches the unidirectional fibers can be woven as shown in Fig. 6 and equated with a 3D woven. Corman teaches the fiber tows are in a matrix precursor and a pore former and curing the shaped preform to pyrolyze the matrix precursor and burnout the pore former so that the shaped preform comprises unidirectional arrays of fibers twos and a porous matrix skeleton having a monomodal pore size distribution and subjecting the cured shaped preform to chemical vapor infiltration to densify the porous matrix skeleton so that the ceramic matrix composite article has a fiber volume fraction between about 15 percent to about 35 percent [0022].
Materials for the tows may include silicon carbide (SiC) fibers, polycrystalline SiC fibers, or other suitable fiber. The fibers may be coated with materials such as carbon or boron nitride as an interface layer to impart certain desired properties to the CMC article [0024].
The resulting porosity of the CMC article may have a monomodal pore size distribution. The volume porosity is 5-20% [0030] which is equated with the residual volume fraction of the consolidation phase overlaps the claimed range of less than or equal to 8%. Corman teaches the ceramic matrix composite articles formed by the method (500) may have an optimized range of interlaminar strength and proportional limit with a fiber volume between about 15-35 % and a volume porosity of a bout 8-20%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce a CMC with a porosity of less than or equal to 8% motivated to provide for a more uniform pore structure for densification, mechanical properties and optimized range of interlaminar strength.
As to claim 7, Mendez differs and does not teach the fibers or tows are individually coated with the interphase with intra tow filling due to fiber spacing in the tow produced by placing fibers under tension during a deposition process.
Fibers are equated with tows.
It should be noted that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or an obvious variant from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though a different process made the prior product. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to the Applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289,292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
In the alternative, Buet is relied upon for teaching the claimed product by process limitation.
Buet relates to a device (1) for coating one or more threads by a vapor deposition process, comprising at least: - a treatment chamber (4) defining at least a first treatment zone (4a) wherein at least one yarn is to be coated by a vapor deposition process, a conveyor system (6) configured to convey said at least one yarn through at least one yarn (4a). ) along a conveying axis (Y), a first injection device configured to inject a first gaseous treatment phase (10a) into the first zone (4a) through at least a first orifice of inlet (7a), and a first discharge device configured to discharge the first residual gas phase (11a) out of the first zone (4a) through at least a first outlet orifice (8a), the first orifice inlet (7a) and the first outlet port (8a) facing each other and being aligned perpendicularly to the conveying axis (Y).
Buet teaches the wires 2i….2n are stretched between the first and second pulleys.
The yarns or wires of Buet are equated with the claimed fibers of the tows. As the treatment is done with at least one yarn, wires 2i….2n, to coat the at least one yarn by vapor deposition and Buet teaches the wires are stretched, Buet teaches the same method claims wherein the fibers are individually coated with an interphase. Buet is not specific with regard to the spacing between the wires in the treatment chamber. As Buet is treating individual yarns and wires, and Buet is stretching and applying tension to the wires in order to reliably control the conditions of the vapor deposition and the method is substantially the same as claimed and as disclosed in the specification, it is reasonable to presume that the process wires are individually coated with interphase.
The vapor deposition process implemented may be chemical vapor deposition ("CVD"), reactive chemical vapor deposition ("Reactive Chemical Vapor Deposition" or "RCVD"), or physical vapor deposition. ("Physical Vapor Deposition"; "PVD").
In an exemplary embodiment, the first layer and / or the second layer may be formed by chemical vapor deposition (addition of material on the surface of the wires) or reactive chemical vapor deposition (transformation of the material present on the surface sons).
The first and / or second layer of an interphase coating is, for example, pyrocarbon (PyC), boron nitride (BN), boron doped carbon (BC), silicon nitride (Si3N4) or carbide mixed boron and silicon (Si-BC).
The present invention also relates to a method of manufacturing a composite material part comprising at least the following steps: coating a plurality of tow by an interphase coating at least by implementing a method as described higher, formation of a fibrous preform by carrying out one or more textile operations from the yarns thus coated by the interphase coating, and densification of the fibrous preform with a matrix in order to obtain a component material part.
Preferably, the fibrous preform is obtained by weaving, for example by three-dimensional weaving, from the yarns coated with the interphase coating.
The matrix may comprise a ceramic material such as silicon carbide or be carbon. The matrix can be formed by any type of process known as chemical vapor infiltration ("Chemical Vapor Infiltration") or melt infiltration ("Melt-Infiltration"), for example.
The yarns are carbon yarns or yarns of ceramic material (SiC or Si-C-O yarns, such as Nicalon®, Hi-Nicalon® or Hi-Nicalon® Type S yarns from Nippon Carbon).
Buet teaches the device for coating the fibers provides the advantage of making it easy to vary the thickness of the layer or layers formed by changing the speed or travel.
As to claim 7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ the method of coating the fibers with interphase prior to weaving motivated to coat the entire individual fiber tow with interphase and improve the thickness of the interphase layers.
Mendez, Corman and Buet differ and does not teach the volume fraction of the consolidation phase is 5% to 30%.
Bouillon is directed to a fiber preform for constituting the fiber reinforcement of composite material is prepared and then consolidated by depositing a matrix phase to bond the fibers together while not completely densifying the preform (ABST).
Bouillon teaches the step of consolidating the preform consists in depositing within it a material that achieves partial densification of the preform with a matrix phase so as to bond the fiber preform together sufficiently to enable the preform to be handled and pins to be put into place without the preform being deformed, after which the consolidated preform can be densified without requiring tooling to hold the preform in shape (col. 3, lines 24-31).
Consolidation is advantageously performed by depositing a small thickness of carbon or ceramic matrix phase on the fibers of the preform. Consolidation is preferably by chemical vapor infiltration. Under such circumstances, a ceramic matrix phase may optionally be deposited after forming an interphase layer of PyC or BN on the fibers (col. 3, lines 48-52).
Consolidation is preferably performed to leave the largest possible fraction of the initial pores of the preform empty, with the empty fraction of the pores being reduced by 40% at most, for example being reduced by a quantity lying in the range 8% to 40%. Typically, for a fiber preform initially presenting an empty volume ratio lying in the range 50% to 70%, consolidation is performed so as to reduce the empty volume ratio to a value lying in the range 40% to 60% (col. 3, lines 32-40).
As the consolidation reduces the fraction of initial pores by an amount of 8-40%, the amount of volume taken up by the consolidation phase is 8-40% and overlaps the claimed range for the consolidation phase of 5-30%.
Bouillon also teaches a SiC matrix [0058].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to densify or consolidate the preform by chemical vapor infiltration to reduce volume by 5-30% motivated to leave the largest portion of pores empty for the matrix and to bond the fiber preform together sufficiently to enable the preform to be handled.
As to claim 8, Mendez is silent with regard to the Young’s modulus of the silicon carbide consolidation (equated with the second interphase) phase. As Mendez teaches the same materials, made by the same method and of the same thickness, it is reasonable to presume the modulus is inherent to Mendez. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
As to claims 11 and 13, Mendez teaches the interphase may be formed by at least one layer of the following materials: pyrolytic carbon (PyC), boron-doped carbon (DC), of boron nitride (BN) [0019].
As to claim 14, Mendez teaches the interphase may be formed by at least one layer of the following materials: pyrolytic carbon (PyC), boron-doped carbon (DC), of boron nitride (BN) [0019].
As to claim 18, Mendez teaches a first interphase layer and a consolidation phase in contact with the interphase as the consolidation phase is formed on the interphase layer [0040]-[0042].
As to claim 21, Mendez teaches the silicon carbide matrix phase is formed by applying silicon carbide powder followed by molten composition comprising silicon alloy. Mendez teaches the consolidated preform was impregnated with a slurry comprising SiC power [0044] followed by molten silicon alloy composition [0045].
Claims 12, 15, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendez et al (US 20190337859) in view of Buet FR3044022 and Bouillon et al (US 7238247) and in further view of Goujard et al (FR2995892).
As to claims 12, 15, 16 and 17, Mendez teaches the fibers can be based on silicon carbide [0008]. Mendez is silent with regard to the oxygen content of the SiC fibers.
Goujard is directed to a method of making a CMC part. Goujard teaches a matrix material part at least predominantly made of ceramic material is manufactured by a process comprising: producing a fibrous preform from silicon carbide fibers containing less than 1% at oxygen; depositing on the fibers of the preform a boron nitride interphase, the deposition being carried out by chemical vapor infiltration; performing a boron nitride stabilizing heat treatment of the interphase, after deposition of the interphase; and then, the densification of the preform with a matrix at least predominantly ceramic.
The presence of oxygen in a BN interphase of a CMC material poses a problem, in particular because of the risk of reaction with the SiC fiber at high temperature, leading to a degradation of the fiber and the production of volatile species (including SiO) may be undesirable. Goujard teaches low oxygen at the surface of SiC fibers results in risk of reaction between SiC fibers and oxygen is eliminated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ low oxygen silicon carbide fibers motivated to reduce the risk of reaction between the interphase material and oxygen and subsequent degradation of the fiber.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamouroux et al (US20140363663) in view of Buet FR3044022 and Bouillon et al (US 7238247).
Lamouroux is directed to a part made of ceramic matrix composite material has fiber reinforcement of carbon or ceramic fibers and a majority-ceramic sequenced matrix having first matrix layers made of crack-deflector material alternating with second matrix layers made of ceramic material. An interphase coating is interposed between the fibers and the matrix, and the interphase coating adheres to the fibers and to the matrix, and is formed of at least one sequence constituted by a first elementary layer made of carbon, or doped with boron, followed by a second elementary layer made of ceramic. The outer elementary interphase layer of the coating is a ceramic layer having an outer surface formed by ceramic grains of size lying essentially in the range 20 nm to 200 nm, with the presence of grains of size greater than 50 nm conferring roughness on the outer surface ensuring mechanical attachment with the adjacent matrix phase (ABST).
Lamouroux teaches a method of fabricating a CMC material part comprises: making a fiber preform out of carbon or ceramic fibers to constitute the fiber reinforcement of the part [0023]; using chemical vapor infiltration to form the interphase coating on the fibers of the preform, the interphase coating comprising at least one sequence constituted by a first elementary layer of optionally boron-doped pyrolytic carbon surmounted by a second elementary layer of ceramic [0024]; and densifying the fiber preform coated with the interphase coating by means of the mostly-ceramic sequenced matrix[0025]; [0022].
Lamouroux teaches using chemical vapor infiltration to form an interphase coating on the fibers of the preform, the interphase coating comprising at least one first layer of boron-doped pyrolytic carbon surmounted by a second elementary layer of ceramic [0024].
Lamouroux teaches a first interphase on the fibers and a second interphase on the first interphase. The second interphase is formed by chemical vapor deposition and is equated with a consolidation phase. As the second interphase is formed by chemical vapor deposition therefore the second interphase would inherently densify the fiber reinforcement.
Lamouroux teaches the preform with its interphase coating is then densified by means of a sequenced majority ceramic matrix comprising ceramic layers alternating with layers of crack deflector material [0057].
Lamouroux teaches the preforms may be made from unidimensional fiber structures such as yarns, tows, or rovings, e.g. by filamentary winding or by multilayer weaving (three-dimensional weaving) possibly followed by a shaping step [0036].
Lamouroux teaches the second elementary layer of ceramic is a layer of silicon carbide SiC [0049].
Lamouroux the mean thickness of the or each first elementary interphase layer of optionally boron-doped carbon preferably lies in the range 20 nm to 500 nm [0052]. The mean thickness of each second elementary interphase layer of ceramic preferably lies in the range 20 nm to 500 nm [0053].
Lamouroux is silent with regard to the Young’s modulus of the silicon carbide consolidation (equated with the second interphase) phase. As Lamouroux teaches the same materials, made by the same method and of the same thickness, it is reasonable to presume the modulus is inherent to Lamouroux. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
As to claim 20, Lamouroux differs and does not teach the fibers or tows are individually coated with the interphase with intra tow filling due to fiber spacing in the tow produced by placing fibers under tension during a deposition process.
It should be noted that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or an obvious variant from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though a different process made the prior product. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to the Applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289,292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
In the alternative, Buet relates to a device (1) for coating one or more threads by a vapor deposition process, comprising at least: - a treatment chamber (4) defining at least a first treatment zone (4a) wherein at least one yarn is to be coated by a vapor deposition process, a conveyor system (6) configured to convey said at least one yarn through at least one yarn (4a). ) along a conveying axis (Y), a first injection device configured to inject a first gaseous treatment phase (10a) into the first zone (4a) through at least a first orifice of inlet (7a), and a first discharge device configured to discharge the first residual gas phase (11a) out of the first zone (4a) through at least a first outlet orifice (8a), the first orifice inlet (7a) and the first outlet port (8a) facing each other and being aligned perpendicularly to the conveying axis (Y).
Buet teaches the wires 2i….2n are stretched between the first and second pulleys.
The yarns or wires of Buet are equated with the claimed fibers of the tows. As the treatment is done with at least one yarn, wires 2i….2n, to coat the at least one yarn by vapor deposition and Buet teaches the wires are stretched, Buet teaches the same method claims wherein the fibers are individually coated with an interphase. Buet is not specific with regard to the spacing between the wires in the treatment chamber. As Buet is treating individual yarns and wires, and Buet is stretching and applying tension to the wires in order to reliably control the conditions of the vapor deposition and the method is substantially the same as claimed and as disclosed in the specification, it is reasonable to presume that the process wires are individually coated with interphase.
The vapor deposition process implemented may be chemical vapor deposition ("CVD"), reactive chemical vapor deposition ("Reactive Chemical Vapor Deposition" or "RCVD"), or physical vapor deposition. ("Physical Vapor Deposition"; "PVD").
In an exemplary embodiment, the first layer and / or the second layer may be formed by chemical vapor deposition (addition of material on the surface of the wires) or reactive chemical vapor deposition (transformation of the material present on the surface sons).
The first and / or second layer of an interphase coating is, for example, pyrocarbon (PyC), boron nitride (BN), boron doped carbon (BC), silicon nitride (Si3N4) or carbide mixed boron and silicon (Si-BC).
The present invention also relates to a method of manufacturing a composite material part comprising at least the following steps: coating a plurality of tow by an interphase coating at least by implementing a method as described higher, formation of a fibrous preform by carrying out one or more textile operations from the yarns thus coated by the interphase coating, and densification of the fibrous preform with a matrix in order to obtain a component material part.
Preferably, the fibrous preform is obtained by weaving, for example by three-dimensional weaving, from the yarns coated with the interphase coating.
The matrix may comprise a ceramic material such as silicon carbide or be carbon. The matrix can be formed by any type of process known as chemical vapor infiltration ("Chemical Vapor Infiltration") or melt infiltration ("Melt-Infiltration"), for example.
The yarns are carbon yarns or yarns of ceramic material (SiC or Si-C-O yarns, such as Nicalon®, Hi-Nicalon® or Hi-Nicalon® Type S yarns from Nippon Carbon).
Buet teaches the device for coating the fibers provides the advantage of making it easy to vary the thickness of the layer or layers formed by changing the speed or travel.
As to claim 20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ the method of coating the fibers with interphase prior to weaving motivated to coat the entire individual fiber tow with interphase and improve the thickness of the interphase layers.
Lamouroux and Buet differs and does not teach the volume fraction of the consolidation phase is 5% to 30%.
Bouillon is directed to a fiber preform for constituting the fiber reinforcement of composite material is prepared and then consolidated by depositing a matrix phase to bond the fibers together while not completely densifying the preform (ABST).
Bouillon teaches the step of consolidating the preform consists in depositing within it a material that achieves partial densification of the preform with a matrix phase so as to bond the fiber preform together sufficiently to enable the preform to be handled and pins to be put into place without the preform being deformed, after which the consolidated preform can be densified without requiring tooling to hold the preform in shape (col. 3, lines 24-31).
Consolidation is advantageously performed by depositing a small thickness of carbon or ceramic matrix phase on the fibers of the preform. Consolidation is preferably by chemical vapor infiltration. Under such circumstances, a ceramic matrix phase may optionally be deposited after forming an interphase layer of PyC or BN on the fibers (col. 3, lines 48-52).
Consolidation is preferably performed to leave the largest possible fraction of the initial pores of the preform empty, with the empty fraction of the pores being reduced by 40% at most, for example being reduced by a quantity lying in the range 8% to 40%. Typically, for a fiber preform initially presenting an empty volume ratio lying in the range 50% to 70%, consolidation is performed so as to reduce the empty volume ratio to a value lying in the range 40% to 60% (col. 3, lines 32-40).
As the consolidation reduces the fraction of initial pores by an amount of 8-40%, the amount of volume taken up by the consolidation phase is 8-40% and overlaps the claimed range for the consolidation phase of 5-30%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to densify or consolidate the preform by chemical vapor infiltration to reduce volume motivated to reduce the empty volume.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection over Lamouroux in view of Buet and Bouillon have been fully considered and are persuasive. Lamouroux differs and does not teach a silicon carbide matrix on a silicon carbon consolidation phase. The 35 USC 103 over Lamouroux, Buet, Bouillon over claims 7, 8, 11, 13 and 18 have been withdrawn.
The 35 USC 103 rejection over Lamouroux, Buet, Bouillon for claim 20 is maintained as the rejection was not amended.
Applicants arguments are persuasive regarding the amendments to the claims. Lamouroux teaches a crack deflector layer between the silicon carbide interphase and the silicon carbide matrix.
New grounds of rejection is presented over Mendez in view of Corman, Buet and Bouillon.
Claims 9 and 10 were cancelled and claims 14 and 16 are still dependent on claim 10 and a 112(d) rejection is presented herein. Claims 14 and 16 are interpreted to be dependent on claim 7 as the limitation of claim 10 was incorporated into claim 7, and the rejections revised per this interpretation.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the secondary rejections over claims 10 and 14 in further view of Corman, and claims 12, 15 and 17 in further view of Goujard are persuasive over Lamouroux for the same reasons as noted above. Goujard is presented with Mendez, Buet and Bouillon over claims 12, 15, 16 and 17.
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 JENNIFER A STEELE whose telephone number is (571)272-7115. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNIFER A STEELE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789