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 Amendment
The reply filed on October 24, 2025 has been entered into the prosecution for the application. Currently, claims 1, 4, 6, and 8-14 are pending. Claims 8-14 were withdrawn without traverse in response to a previous restriction requirement. Claims 2-3, 5, and 7 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 4, and 6 have been amended.
The previous rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn as moot in view of the amendments to claims 1, 4, and 6.
The previous rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) is withdrawn as moot in view of the cancellation of that claim.
All prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1, as amended, in lines 6-7 recites the matrix formed in the substrate “having an average composition falling within a range surrounded by four points…” (emphasis added); the four points are then defined with reference to a ternary phase diagram in Fig. 2. In line with Applicant’s arguments contained in the Remarks submitted with the reply filed on October 24, 2025 (hereinafter “Remarks”), the word “within” in claim 1 is interpreted to exclude the endpoints and boundary lines of the range area defined by the four listed points in the ternary phase diagram (see Remarks at p. 6, lines 1-7). That is, for the points X1, X2, X3, and X4, and for the connecting lines X1-X2, X2-X3, X3-X4, and X4-X1, as shown in Applicant’s Fig. 2, “within” is interpreted as comparable to “less than” rather than “less than or equal to,” or as comparable to “more than” rather than “more than or equal to.”
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. 2019/0152861 to Bouillon et al. (hereinafter “Bouillon”) in view of Murakami et al., “Phase Equilibria and Properties of Glasses in the Al2O3–Yb2O3–SiO2 System,” Journal of the Ceramic Society of Japan 101(10) [1993], pp. 1101-1106 (hereinafter “Murakami”).
Regarding claim 1, Bouillon teaches a ceramic matrix composite (¶¶ 0003, 0007) comprising a fibrous body formed from a silicon carbide fiber (¶ 0008) and a matrix which is formed in the fibrous body (¶ 0009), the matrix comprising Yb2Si2O7 and the balance being Yb2SiO5 and a mixture of mullite (3Al2O3∙2SiO2) and rare earth silicate (i.e., an oxide of RE, Al, and Si) (¶¶ 0009, 0052-0053), where RE is Yb (¶ 0053). Bouillon teaches that the part containing the fibrous body may function as a substrate, for example, as a portion of a wall of a combustion chamber, or as a portion of a turbine ring sector (¶ 0022).
Bouillon does not explicitly teach wherein the matrix comprises Yb3Al5O12 (i.e., ytterbium aluminum garnet). Bouillon also does not explicitly teach wherein an average composition of the matrix falls within a range surrounded by four points of X1 (SiO2: 66.6 mol%, Yb2O3: 33.4 mol%, Al2O3: 0 mol%), X2 (SiO2: 53.5 mol%, Yb2O3: 16.5 mol%, Al2O3: 30.0 mol%), X3 (SiO2: 0mol%, Yb1O3: 37.5 mol%, Al2O3: 62.5 mol%), and X4 (SiO2: 50.0 mol%, Yb2O3: 50.0 mol%, Al2O3: 0 mol%) in a ternary phase diagram of a SiO2-Yb2O3-Al2O3 system in Fig. 2.
Murakami, in the closely related field of endeavor of glasses and crystallized glasses based on the Al2O3-Yb2O3-SiO2 system (Abstract), teaches compositions that include Yb2Si2O7 and Yb3Al5O12 (p. 1102, col. 1, section 3.1; see also Fig. 2, reproduced below); Murakami teaches that such compositions are useful for fiber reinforcement (p. 1101, col. 1). (Murakami represents ytterbium aluminum garnet using the chemical formula “Al1.25Yb0.75O3,” which is stoichiometrically equivalent to Yb3Al5O12 used in claim 1.) Murakami discloses a ternary phase diagram of a SiO2-Yb2O3-Al2O3 system (reproduced below) and teaches that keeping the molar proportions of Yb2O3, Al2O3, and SiO2 to the right of the line DG in the phase diagram is useful for ensuring the presence of a liquid phase (L) in the composition; that is, liquid phase “does not appear in a region of higher Yb2O3 composition than that of the straight line between D and G” (p. 1102, col. 2). The range area in the phase diagram to the right of the line DG overlaps substantially with the range surrounded by the four points X1, X2, X3, and X4 in claim 1 (i.e., “the claimed range”); the straight line DG substantially corresponds to the line between X1 and X3 in Applicant’s Fig. 2.
PNG
media_image1.png
710
736
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 from Murakami.
PNG
media_image2.png
570
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 from the current Application.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Murakami to modify Bouillon to the extent of selecting molar proportions of Yb2O3, Al2O3, and SiO2 in the matrix such that the average composition of the matrix falls within or near a range to the right of the straight line DG, i.e., to the right of the line between X1 and X3 in the ternary phase diagram in Applicant’s Fig. 2. This range includes substantial overlap with the claimed range. In a case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05). Such a matrix composition would include Yb2Si2O7 and Yb3Al5O12 (see Murakami, p. 1102 and Fig. 2). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the teachings of Murakami to modify Bouillon by a desire to ensure the presence of a liquid phase in the matrix (see Murakami, p. 1103, col. 1); design incentives, including the desire to ensure thorough impregnation of the fibrous body by the matrix material (a process that would be aided by the presence of a liquid phase within the matrix) (see Bouillon at ¶ 0059), would have prompted adaptation of the teachings of Murakami to modify Bouillon. One of ordinary skill in the art, equipped with the teachings of Murakami, would have been able to adjust the molar proportions of Yb2O3, Al2O3, and SiO2 in the ceramic matrix composite of Bouillon with predictable results and a high probability of success (see MPEP 2143(I)(F)).
Thus, in view of Murakami, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bouillon by selecting molar proportions of SiO2, Yb2O3, and Al2O3 in order to produce a ceramic matrix composite reading on every limitation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Bouillon as modified by Murakami teaches wherein the matrix further comprises an oxide which comprises Yb, Al, and Si, and which has a eutectic composition of Yb2Si2O7 and Al6Si2O13 (see Murakami at p. 1104, col. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Bouillon as modified by Murakami teaches wherein the matrix further comprises Yb2SiO5 (see Murakami at p. 1102, col. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed October 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant notes that Bouillon does not explicitly recite that the matrix comprises Yb3Al5O12 (Remarks at p. 6). The new ground of rejection looks to Murakami, rather than Bouillon, for the teaching that the matrix comprises Yb3Al5O12 (see above, p. 4). Applicant’s remaining arguments are directed towards the Lee reference (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2013/0189531); these arguments are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Lee for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PAUL A. FORSYTH whose telephone number is (703) 756-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th 8:00 - 5:30 EDT and F 8:00 - 12:00 EDT.
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, AMBER R. ORLANDO can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
/P.A.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/JENNIFER A SMITH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731