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 March 20, 2026 has been entered into the prosecution for the application. Currently, claims 1-27 are pending, with claims 11-14 being withdrawn. Claims 1-3, 15-16, 23-24, and 27 have been amended.
The objection to claims 11-14 is withdrawn as moot.
The rejection of claims 1-10 and 15-27 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn as moot in view of the amendments to the claims and Applicant’s arguments presented in the reply filed on March 20, 2026.
All prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection.
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, 6, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. 2009/0295048 to Matsumoto et al. (hereinafter “Matsumoto”).
Regarding claim 1, Matsumoto teaches a shaped composite body of a reaction-bonded, silicon-infiltrated mixed ceramic (¶ 0030; claim 3), a microstructure of which is determined by primary grains of crystalline B4C grains (¶ 0028). Matsumoto teaches B4C grains of mean grain size d50 in the range of 10 μm to 200 μm (¶ 0062); this range overlaps the recited range of > 100 μm and < 500 μm in claim 1. 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). Matsumoto teaches wherein the microstructure is further defined by primary grains of a finer silicon carbide with d50 in the range of 0.1 μm to 5 μm (¶ 0066; see also ¶ 0115, Examples 1-3, teaching silicon carbide powder having an average grain diameter of 0.6 μm), a range that falls within the recited range of d50 < 70 μm. Matsumoto teaches wherein primary grains of B4C and the primary grains of silicon carbide are siliconized bonded by secondarily formed silicon carbide formed by reaction bond onto the primary silicon carbide portion (¶¶ 0057, 0069; claim 3). Matsumoto teaches controlled carbon adding (see ¶¶ 0067-0070) that influences a siliconizing procedure (¶ 0057) to implement a silicon carbide matrix comprising primary and secondary silicon carbide portions with a content of free metallic silicon (see ¶¶ 0060, 0072). Matsumoto teaches wherein crystalline B4C grains fractions are embedded in that silicon carbide matrix (see ¶ 0063, describing dispersed B4C grains surrounded and covered with “the reacted product,” i.e., the secondarily formed silicon carbide resulting from the reaction of added carbon with impregnated molten silicon).
Matsumoto teaches that “the preferable mixing ratio of each of the raw materials is 0-45 parts by weight of the carbon source, with respect to the total 100 parts by weight of the 10-90 parts by weight of boron carbide and the 90-10 parts by weight of initial injected silicon carbide” (¶ 0097). Matsumoto also teaches that “the preferable silicon amount,” i.e., the amount of free metallic silicon to be reacted with carbon to produce secondarily formed silicon carbide, “is 105-200% of the silicon amount required for making the carbon transform into silicon carbide and further completely filling the void, and further preferably, 110-150%” (¶ 0101). These taught ranges overlap the recited ranges in claim 1 for primary grains of B4C grains, primary grains of silicon carbide grains, secondarily formed silicon carbide, and free metallic silicon. Within the taught ranges, one of ordinary skill in the would have found it obvious to select amounts for each of the components such that the respective weight percentages would read on the limitations of claim 1. For example, a composition comprising 50 parts per weight of boron carbide (B4C) and 50 parts per weight of silicon carbide (i.e., primary grains of silicon carbide) (see Example 4, ¶ 0116, and Example 6, ¶ 0118), together with 10 parts by weight of carbon black and 35.1 parts by weight of molten silicon would produce, after reaction of the carbon black with the molten silicon, weight percentages outlined in the table below:
Component
Raw Material Parts by Weight
Composite Body Parts by Weight
Composite Body Weight %
B4C
50
50
34.5%
SiC (primary)
50
50
34.5%
Carbon black
10
Metallic Si
35.1
SiC (secondary)
33.4
23.0%
Remaining Metallic Si
11.7
8.1%
(In the above example, the amount of molten silicon initially introduced is 150% of the amount required for making the carbon transform into silicon carbide—see ¶ 0101—and the remainder of unreacted free metallic silicon is deduced from the excess 50% of molten silicon:
(
10 g C
)(
1 mol C
)(
1.50 mol Si
)(
28.086 g Si
)
= 35.1 g Si
12.010 g C
1.00 mol C
1 mol Si
Then, 10 g C react with 23.4 g Si to form 33.4 g SiC, leaving 35.1 – 23.4 = 11.7 g free metallic silicon.) Thus, it would have been obvious, given the teachings of Matsumoto, to produce a shaped composite body wherein a content (or fraction) of primary grains of crystalline B4C grains is > 10% by weight and < 50% by weight, wherein a content (or fraction) of primary grains of silicon carbide is > 10% by weight and < 50% by weight, wherein a content (or fraction) of secondarily formed silicon carbide is > 5% by weight and < 25% by weight, and wherein a content of free metallic silicon is > 1% by weight and < 20% by weight.
Hence, Matsumoto teaches a shaped composite body of a reaction-bonded, silicon-infiltrated mixed ceramic reading on every limitation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Matsumoto teaches the shaped composite body as claimed in claim 1 and, in particular, teaches wherein “the preferable mixing ratio of each of the raw materials is 0-45 parts by weight of the carbon source, with respect to the total 100 parts by weight of the 10-90 parts by weight of boron carbide and the 90-10 parts by weight of initial injected silicon carbide” (¶ 0097) and wherein “the preferable silicon amount required for the reaction sintering is 105-200% of the silicon amount required for making the carbon transform into silicon carbide and further completely filling the void, and further preferably, 110-150%” (¶ 0101). Within these taught ranges, one of ordinary skill in the would have found it obvious to select amounts for each of the components such that the primary grains of B4C and the primary grains of silicon carbide are siliconized bonded by secondarily formed silicon carbide with a fraction of > 15%, by weight, and < 25%, by weight, as shown above in the discussion of claim 1 (see p. 8).
Regarding claim 3, Matsumoto teaches primary grains of a finer silicon carbide with d50 in the range of 0.1 μm to 5 μm (¶ 0066; see also ¶ 0115, Examples 1-3); this range falls within the recited range of d50 < 40 μm.
Regarding claim 4, Matsumoto teaches the shaped composite body as claimed in claim 1. Further, Matsumoto teaches that the shaped composite body is manufactured via pressure slip casting with liquid silicon infiltration at temperatures between 1430°C-1800°C (¶¶ 0092-0093); this method of manufacturing is substantially identical to the method described for producing the claimed invention (compare with Applicant’s Specification, p. 6, lines 25-28). Because Matsumoto teaches a shaped composite body substantially identical in composition to the claimed invention and produced by a method substantially identical to the method of producing the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would expect that shaped composite body of Matsumoto necessarily would possess physical properties substantially identical to those of the claimed invention—including a density gradient that is < 2%, by weight—since products of identical composition are presumed not to have mutually exclusive properties (see MPEP 2112.01(II)). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph).
Regarding claim 6, Matsumoto teaches wherein shaping of the shaped composite body is carried out by slip casting (¶ 0075).
Regarding claim 15, Matsumoto teaches a shaped composite body of a reaction-bonded, silicon-infiltrated mixed ceramic (¶ 0030; claim 3), a microstructure of which is determined by primary grains of crystalline B4C grains (¶ 0028). Matsumoto teaches B4C grains of mean grain size d50 in the range of 10 μm to 200 μm (¶ 0062); this range overlaps the recited range of > 100 μm in claim 15. 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). Matsumoto teaches wherein the microstructure is further defined by primary grains of a finer silicon carbide (¶ 0066). Matsumoto teaches wherein primary grains of B4C and the primary grains of silicon carbide are siliconized bonded by secondarily formed silicon carbide formed by reaction bond onto the primary silicon carbide portion (¶¶ 0057, 0069; claim 3). Matsumoto teaches controlled carbon adding (see ¶¶ 0067-0070) that influences a siliconizing procedure (¶ 0057) to implement a silicon carbide matrix comprising primary and secondary silicon carbide portions with a content of free metallic silicon (see ¶¶ 0060, 0072). Matsumoto teaches wherein crystalline B4C grains fractions are embedded in that silicon carbide matrix (see ¶ 0063, describing dispersed B4C grains surrounded and covered with “the reacted product,” i.e., the secondarily formed silicon carbide resulting from the reaction of added carbon with impregnated molten silicon).
Matsumoto teaches that “the preferable mixing ratio of each of the raw materials is 0-45 parts by weight of the carbon source, with respect to the total 100 parts by weight of the 10-90 parts by weight of boron carbide and the 90-10 parts by weight of initial injected silicon carbide” (¶ 0097). Matsumoto also teaches that “the preferable silicon amount,” i.e., the amount of free metallic silicon to be reacted with carbon to produce secondarily formed silicon carbide, “is 105-200% of the silicon amount required for making the carbon transform into silicon carbide and further completely filling the void, and further preferably, 110-150%” (¶ 0101). These taught ranges overlap the recited ranges in claim 1 for primary grains of B4C grains, primary grains of silicon carbide grains, secondarily formed silicon carbide, and free metallic silicon. Within the taught ranges, one of ordinary skill in the would have found it obvious to select amounts for each of the components such that the respective weight percentages would read on the limitations of claim 1. For example, a composition comprising 50 parts per weight of boron carbide (B4C) and 50 parts per weight of silicon carbide (i.e., primary grains of silicon carbide) (see Example 4, ¶ 0116, and Example 6, ¶ 0118), together with 10 parts by weight of carbon black and 35.1 parts by weight of molten silicon would produce, after reaction of the carbon black with the molten silicon, weight percentages outlined in the table below:
Component
Raw Material Parts by Weight
Composite Body Parts by Weight
Composite Body Weight %
B4C
50
50
34.5%
SiC (primary)
50
50
34.5%
Carbon black
10
Metallic Si
35.1
SiC (secondary)
33.4
23.0%
Remaining Metallic Si
11.7
8.1%
(In the above example, the amount of molten silicon initially introduced is 150% of the amount required for making the carbon transform into silicon carbide—see ¶ 0101—and the remainder of unreacted free metallic silicon is deduced from the excess 50% of molten silicon:
(
10 g C
)(
1 mol C
)(
1.50 mol Si
)(
28.086 g Si
)
= 35.1 g Si
12.010 g C
1.00 mol C
1 mol Si
Then, 10 g C react with 23.4 g Si to form 33.4 g SiC, leaving 35.1 – 23.4 = 11.7 g free metallic silicon.) Thus, it would have been obvious, given the teachings of Matsumoto, to produce a shaped composite body wherein a fraction of primary grains of crystalline B4C grains is 30-40% by weight, wherein a fraction of secondarily formed silicon carbide is 15-25% by weight, and wherein a content of free metallic silicon is < 15% by weight.
Hence, Matsumoto teaches a shaped composite body of a reaction-bonded, silicon-infiltrated mixed ceramic reading on every limitation of claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, Matsumoto teaches primary grains of a finer silicon carbide with d50 in the range of 0.1 μm to 5 μm (¶ 0066; see also ¶ 0115, Examples 1-3); this range falls within the recited range of d50 < 40 μm.
Regarding claim 17, Matsumoto teaches the shaped composite body as claimed in claim 15. Further, Matsumoto teaches that the shaped composite body is manufactured via pressure slip casting with liquid silicon infiltration at temperatures between 1430°C-1800°C (¶¶ 0092-0093); this method of manufacturing is substantially identical to the method described for producing the claimed invention (compare with Applicant’s Specification, p. 6, lines 25-28). Because Matsumoto teaches a shaped composite body substantially identical in composition to the claimed invention and produced by a method substantially identical to the method of producing the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would expect that shaped composite body of Matsumoto necessarily would possess physical properties substantially identical to those of the claimed invention—including a density gradient that is < 2%, by weight—since products of identical composition are presumed not to have mutually exclusive properties (see MPEP 2112.01(II)). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph).
Regarding claim 18, Matsumoto teaches wherein shaping of the shaped composite body is carried out by slip casting (¶ 0075).
Claim 5, 9, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto in view of WO 2005079207 A2 to Aghajanian et al. (hereinafter “Aghajanian”).
Regarding claim 5, Matsumoto teaches the shaped composite body as claimed in claim 1. Further, Matsumoto teaches that the free metallic silicon in the shaped composite body may include impurities, including boron (see ¶¶ 0072-0073). However, Matsumoto does not explicitly teach wherein dissolved boron is contained within the free metallic silicon in a proportion between > 0.05 and <5%, by weight.
Aghajanian, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a composite material comprising a boron carbide filler or reinforcement phase and a silicon carbide matrix produced by the reactive infiltration of an infiltrant having a silicon component (Abstract). Aghajanian teaches that dissolved boron is included in the molten silicon in order to inhibit reaction between the molten silicon and the boron carbide component (p. 12, ¶ 0057). Aghajanian teaches that “a few weight percent of elemental boron” is dissolved in the molten silicon (p. 13, ¶ 0062).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Matsumoto by including dissolved boron within the free metallic silicon in a proportion of “a few weight percent,” as taught by Aghajanian; in this context, “a few weight percent” is interpreted as encompassing amounts (e.g., 3 wt.% or 4 wt.%) that lie within the claimed range of > 0.05 and <5%, by weight. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Matsumoto as taught by Ide by a desire to minimize or inhibit reaction between molten free metal silicon and the primary grains of boron carbide (B4C), in order to maximize the boron carbide loading within the shaped composite body and also in order to avoid cracking within the shaped composite body (see Aghajanian at p. 12, ¶ 0057).
Regarding claim 9, Matsumoto teaches the shaped composite body as claimed in claim 1. However, Matsumoto does not explicitly teach wherein shaping of the shaped composite body takes place in plate form.
Aghajanian, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein shaping of the shaped composite body takes place in plate form (p. 14, ¶ 0064).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Matsumoto by shaping the shaped composite body in plate form, as taught by Aghajanian. One of ordinary skill in the art, equipped with the teachings of Aghajanian, would have found it a straightforward matter to shape the shaped composite body in plate form, with predictable results and a high probability of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Regarding claim 21, Matsumoto teaches the shaped composite body as claimed in claim 15, as set forth above (see p. 12). However, Matsumoto does not explicitly teach wherein shaping of the shaped composite body takes place in plate form.
Aghajanian, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein shaping of the shaped composite body takes place in plate form (p. 14, ¶ 0064).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Matsumoto by shaping the shaped composite body in plate form, as taught by Aghajanian. One of ordinary skill in the art, equipped with the teachings of Aghajanian, would have found it a straightforward matter to shape the shaped composite body in plate form, with predictable results and a high probability of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Claim(s) 7-8, 19-20, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. 2016/0083300 to Ide et al. (hereinafter “Ide”).
Regarding claim 7, Matsumoto teaches the shaped composite body as claimed in claim 1. However, Matsumoto does not explicitly teach wherein shaping of the shaped composite body is carried out via a powder bed 3D printing process.
Ide, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a process for producing a reaction bonded silicon carbide shaped composite body (shaped member) (¶¶ 0001, 0008), the shaped composite body including boron carbide in some embodiments (¶ 0036). Ide teaches wherein shaping of the shaped composite body is carried out via a powder bed 3D printing process (¶ 0110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Matsumoto by shaping of the shaped composite body via a powder bed 3D printing process, as taught by Ide. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to shape the shaped composite body via a powder bed 3D printing process, as taught by Ide, by a desire to eliminate the need for use of a molding die and to minimize need for post-shaping the resultant shaped composite body (see Ide at ¶ 0041).
Regarding claim 8, Matsumoto as modified by Ide teaches wherein a mixture of SiC and B4C powder (Ide at ¶ 0036) is built up by means of binder (phenol resin, Ide at ¶¶ 0062, 0116) by powder bed printing to give a three-dimensional component (green body, Ide at ¶¶ 0113, 0117) and is subsequently siliconized (Ide at ¶ 0122).
Regarding claim 19, Matsumoto teaches the shaped composite body as claimed in claim 15. However, Matsumoto does not explicitly teach wherein shaping of the shaped composite body is carried out via a powder bed 3D printing process.
Ide, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a process for producing a reaction bonded silicon carbide shaped composite body (shaped member) (¶¶ 0001, 0008), the shaped composite body including boron carbide in some embodiments (¶ 0036). Ide teaches wherein shaping of the shaped composite body is carried out via a powder bed 3D printing process (¶ 0110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Matsumoto by shaping of the shaped composite body via a powder bed 3D printing process, as taught by Ide. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to shape the shaped composite body via a powder bed 3D printing process, as taught by Ide, by a desire to eliminate the need for use of a molding die and to minimize need for post-shaping the resultant shaped composite body (see Ide at ¶ 0041).
Regarding claim 20, Matsumoto as modified by Ide teaches wherein a mixture of SiC and B4C powder (Ide at ¶ 0036) is built up by means of binder (phenol resin, Ide at ¶¶ 0062, 0116) by powder bed printing to give a three-dimensional component (green body, Ide at ¶¶ 0113, 0117) and is subsequently siliconized (Ide at ¶ 0122).
Regarding claim 23, Matsumoto teaches a shaped composite body of a reaction-bonded, silicon-infiltrated mixed ceramic (¶ 0030; claim 3), a microstructure of which is determined by primary grains of crystalline B4C grains (¶ 0028). Matsumoto teaches B4C grains of mean grain size d50 in the range of 10 μm to 200 μm (¶ 0062); this range overlaps the recited range of > 100 μm in claim 23. 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). Matsumoto teaches wherein the microstructure is further defined by primary grains of a finer silicon carbide with d50 in the range of 0.1 μm to 5 μm (¶ 0066; see also ¶ 0115, Examples 1-3, teaching silicon carbide powder having an average grain diameter of 0.6 μm), a range that falls within the recited range of d50 < 70 μm. Matsumoto teaches wherein primary grains of B4C and the primary grains of silicon carbide are siliconized bonded by secondarily formed silicon carbide formed by reaction bond onto the primary silicon carbide portion (¶¶ 0057, 0069; claim 3). Matsumoto teaches controlled carbon adding (see ¶¶ 0067-0070) that influences a siliconizing procedure (¶ 0057) to implement a silicon carbide matrix comprising primary and secondary silicon carbide portions with a content of free metallic silicon (see ¶¶ 0060, 0072). Matsumoto teaches wherein crystalline B4C grains fractions are embedded in that silicon carbide matrix (see ¶ 0063, describing dispersed B4C grains surrounded and covered with “the reacted product,” i.e., the secondarily formed silicon carbide resulting from the reaction of added carbon with impregnated molten silicon).
Matsumoto teaches that “the preferable mixing ratio of each of the raw materials is 0-45 parts by weight of the carbon source, with respect to the total 100 parts by weight of the 10-90 parts by weight of boron carbide and the 90-10 parts by weight of initial injected silicon carbide” (¶ 0097). Matsumoto also teaches that “the preferable silicon amount,” i.e., the amount of free metallic silicon to be reacted with carbon to produce secondarily formed silicon carbide, “is 105-200% of the silicon amount required for making the carbon transform into silicon carbide and further completely filling the void, and further preferably, 110-150%” (¶ 0101). These taught ranges overlap the recited ranges in claim 1 for primary grains of B4C grains, primary grains of silicon carbide grains, secondarily formed silicon carbide, and free metallic silicon. Within the taught ranges, one of ordinary skill in the would have found it obvious to select amounts for each of the components such that the respective weight percentages would read on the limitations of claim 1. For example, a composition comprising 50 parts per weight of boron carbide (B4C) and 50 parts per weight of silicon carbide (i.e., primary grains of silicon carbide) (see Example 4, ¶ 0116, and Example 6, ¶ 0118), together with 10 parts by weight of carbon black and 35.1 parts by weight of molten silicon would produce, after reaction of the carbon black with the molten silicon, weight percentages outlined in the table below:
Component
Raw Material Parts by Weight
Composite Body Parts by Weight
Composite Body Weight %
B4C
50
50
34.5%
SiC (primary)
50
50
34.5%
Carbon black
10
Metallic Si
35.1
SiC (secondary)
33.4
23.0%
Remaining Metallic Si
11.7
8.1%
(In the above example, the amount of molten silicon initially introduced is 150% of the amount required for making the carbon transform into silicon carbide—see ¶ 0101—and the remainder of unreacted free metallic silicon is deduced from the excess 50% of molten silicon:
(
10 g C
)(
1 mol C
)(
1.50 mol Si
)(
28.086 g Si
)
= 35.1 g Si
12.010 g C
1.00 mol C
1 mol Si
Then, 10 g C react with 23.4 g Si to form 33.4 g SiC, leaving 35.1 – 23.4 = 11.7 g free metallic silicon.) Thus, it would have been obvious, given the teachings of Matsumoto, to produce a shaped composite body wherein a fraction of primary grains of crystalline B4C grains is > 10% by weight, wherein a fraction of primary grains of silicon carbide is > 10% by weight, wherein a fraction of secondarily formed silicon carbide is > 5% by weight, and wherein a content of free metallic silicon is < 20% by weight.
However, Matsumoto does not explicitly teach wherein shaping of the shaped composite body is carried out via a powder bed 3D printing process for wall thickness > 10 mm.
Ide, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a process for producing a reaction bonded silicon carbide shaped composite body (shaped member) (¶¶ 0001, 0008), the shaped composite body including boron carbide in some embodiments (¶ 0036). Ide teaches wherein shaping of the shaped composite body is carried out via a powder bed 3D printing process (¶ 0110). Ide teaches wherein the shaped composite body produced via a powder bed 3D printing process has a wall thickness > 10 mm (see ¶¶ 0113, 0164).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Matsumoto by shaping of the shaped composite body via a powder bed 3D printing process for wall thickness > 10 mm, as taught by Ide. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to shape the shaped composite body via a powder bed 3D printing process, as taught by Ide, by a desire to eliminate the need for use of a molding die and to minimize need for post-shaping the resultant shaped composite body (see Ide at ¶ 0041).
Hence, Matsumoto as modified by Ide teaches a shaped composite body of a reaction-bonded, silicon-infiltrated mixed ceramic reading on every limitation of claim 23.
Regarding claim 24, Matsumoto as modified by Ide teaches primary grains of silicon carbide with d50 in the range of 0.1 μm to 5 μm (see Matsumoto at ¶ 0066); this range falls within the recited range of d50 < 40 μm.
Regarding claim 25, Matsumoto as modified by Ide teaches wherein a mixture of SiC and B4C powder (Ide at ¶ 0036) is built up by means of binder (phenol resin, Ide at ¶¶ 0062, 0116) by powder bed printing to give a three-dimensional component (green body, Ide at ¶¶ 0113, 0117) and is subsequently siliconized (Ide at ¶ 0122).
Claim(s) 10 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto in view of Ide and U.S. Pat. Pub. 2010/0111744 to Schleiss et al. (hereinafter “Schleiss”).
Regarding claim 10, Matsumoto teaches the shaped composite body as claimed in claim 1, as set forth above (see p. 8). Regarding claim 22, Matsumoto teaches the shaped composite body as claimed in claim 15, as set forth above (see p. 12). However, Matsumoto does not explicitly teach wherein shaping of the shaped composite body is performed with an envelope volume > 200 x 200 x 200 mm.
Ide, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a process for producing a reaction bonded silicon carbide shaped composite body (shaped member) (¶¶ 0001, 0008), the shaped composite body including boron carbide in some embodiments (¶ 0036). Ide teaches wherein shaping of the shaped composite body is carried out via a selective laser sintering (SLS) 3D printing process (¶ 0110; Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Matsumoto by shaping of the shaped composite body via a powder bed 3D printing process, as taught by Ide. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to shape the shaped composite body via a powder bed 3D printing process, as taught by Ide, by a desire to eliminate the need for use of a molding die and to minimize need for post-shaping the resultant shaped composite body (see Ide at ¶ 0041).
Matsumoto as modified by Ide does not explicitly teach that shaping of the shaped composite body is performed with an envelope volume > 200 x 200 x 200 mm.
Schleiss, in the related field of endeavor of selective laser sintering (SLS) 3D printing processes (Abstract), teaches a 3D printing process in which shaping of a shaped composite body is performed in a processing chamber with an envelope volume that “best measures” 0.2 m3 to 3 m3 (¶ 0050), which is considerably larger than the 200 x 200 x 200 mm = 8,000,000 mm3 = 0.008 m3 recited in claims 10 and 22.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Schleiss to modify Matsumoto as modified by Ide to the extent of performing the 3D printing process in an envelope volume of 0.2 m3 to 3 m3, as taught by Schleiss. Design incentives and market forces—e.g., demand for ballistic armor of a large size, for instance for vehicle panels—would have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to look to Schleiss. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it a straightforward matter to adapt the teaching of Schleiss to the teachings of Matsumoto as modified by Ide, with predictable results and a high probability of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(F).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto in view of Ide as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Aghajanian.
Regarding claim 26, Matsumoto in view of Ide teaches the shaped composite body as claimed in claim 23, as set forth above (see p. 19). However, Matsumoto as modified by Ide does not explicitly teach wherein shaping of the shaped composite body takes place in plate form.
Aghajanian, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein shaping of the shaped composite body takes place in plate form (p. 14, ¶ 0064).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Matsumoto as modified by Ide by shaping the shaped composite body in plate form, as taught by Aghajanian. One of ordinary skill in the art, equipped with the teachings of Aghajanian, would have found it a straightforward matter to shape the shaped composite body in plate form, with predictable results and a high probability of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto in view of Ide and U.S. Pat. No. 8,128,861 to Aghajanian et al. (hereinafter “Aghajanian II”).
Regarding claim 27, Matsumoto teaches a shaped composite body of a reaction-bonded, silicon-infiltrated mixed ceramic (¶ 0030; claim 3), a microstructure of which is determined by primary grains of crystalline B4C grains (¶ 0028). Matsumoto teaches B4C grains of mean grain size d50 in the range of 10 μm to 200 μm (¶ 0062); this range overlaps the recited range of > 100 μm in claim 27. 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). Matsumoto teaches wherein the microstructure is further defined by primary grains of a finer silicon carbide with d50 in the range of 0.1 μm to 5 μm (¶ 0066; see also ¶ 0115, Examples 1-3, teaching silicon carbide powder having an average grain diameter of 0.6 μm), a range that falls within the recited range of d50 < 70 μm. Matsumoto teaches wherein primary grains of B4C and the primary grains of silicon carbide are siliconized bonded by secondarily formed silicon carbide formed by reaction bond onto the primary silicon carbide portion (¶¶ 0057, 0069; claim 3). Matsumoto teaches controlled carbon adding (see ¶¶ 0067-0070) that influences a siliconizing procedure (¶ 0057) to implement a silicon carbide matrix comprising primary and secondary silicon carbide portions with a content of free metallic silicon (see ¶¶ 0060, 0072). Matsumoto teaches wherein crystalline B4C grains fractions are embedded in that silicon carbide matrix (see ¶ 0063, describing dispersed B4C grains surrounded and covered with “the reacted product,” i.e., the secondarily formed silicon carbide resulting from the reaction of added carbon with impregnated molten silicon).
Matsumoto teaches that “the preferable mixing ratio of each of the raw materials is 0-45 parts by weight of the carbon source, with respect to the total 100 parts by weight of the 10-90 parts by weight of boron carbide and the 90-10 parts by weight of initial injected silicon carbide” (¶ 0097). Matsumoto also teaches that “the preferable silicon amount,” i.e., the amount of free metallic silicon to be reacted with carbon to produce secondarily formed silicon carbide, “is 105-200% of the silicon amount required for making the carbon transform into silicon carbide and further completely filling the void, and further preferably, 110-150%” (¶ 0101). These taught ranges overlap the recited ranges in claim 1 for primary grains of B4C grains, primary grains of silicon carbide grains, secondarily formed silicon carbide, and free metallic silicon. Within the taught ranges, one of ordinary skill in the would have found it obvious to select amounts for each of the components such that the respective weight percentages would read on the limitations of claim 1. For example, a composition comprising 50 parts per weight of boron carbide (B4C) and 50 parts per weight of silicon carbide (i.e., primary grains of silicon carbide) (see Example 4, ¶ 0116, and Example 6, ¶ 0118), together with 10 parts by weight of carbon black and 35.1 parts by weight of molten silicon would produce, after reaction of the carbon black with the molten silicon, weight percentages outlined in the table below:
Component
Raw Material Parts by Weight
Composite Body Parts by Weight
Composite Body Weight %
B4C
50
50
34.5%
SiC (primary)
50
50
34.5%
Carbon black
10
Metallic Si
35.1
SiC (secondary)
33.4
23.0%
Remaining Metallic Si
11.7
8.1%
(In the above example, the amount of molten silicon initially introduced is 150% of the amount required for making the carbon transform into silicon carbide—see ¶ 0101—and the remainder of unreacted free metallic silicon is deduced from the excess 50% of molten silicon:
(
10 g C
)(
1 mol C
)(
1.50 mol Si
)(
28.086 g Si
)
= 35.1 g Si
12.010 g C
1.00 mol C
1 mol Si
Then, 10 g C react with 23.4 g Si to form 33.4 g SiC, leaving 35.1 – 23.4 = 11.7 g free metallic silicon.) Thus, it would have been obvious, given the teachings of Matsumoto, to produce a shaped composite body wherein a fraction of primary grains of crystalline B4C grains is > 10% by weight, wherein a fraction of primary grains of silicon carbide is > 10% by weight and < 50% by weight, wherein a fraction of secondarily formed silicon carbide is > 5% by weight, and wherein a content of free metallic silicon is < 20% by weight.
Matsumoto does not explicitly teach wherein shaping of the shaped composite body is carried out via a powder bed 3D printing process.
Ide, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a process for producing a reaction bonded silicon carbide shaped composite body (shaped member) (¶¶ 0001, 0008), the shaped composite body including boron carbide in some embodiments (¶ 0036). Ide teaches wherein shaping of the shaped composite body is carried out via a powder bed 3D printing process (¶ 0110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Matsumoto by shaping of the shaped composite body via a powder bed 3D printing process, as taught by Ide. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to shape the shaped composite body via a powder bed 3D printing process, as taught by Ide, by a desire to eliminate the need for use of a molding die and to minimize need for post-shaping the resultant shaped composite body (see Ide at ¶ 0041).
Matsumoto as modified by Ide does not explicitly teach wherein the shaped composite body is combined with at least one layer of a backing material comprising at least one of a polymer, a carbon fiber, a glass fiber, a metal, or combinations thereof, and a composite structure comprising the shaped composite body and the backing material is configured to provide ballistic protection against ammunition comprising a tungsten carbide-cobalt (WC/Co) core, including M993 and M995 ammunition types.
Aghajanian II, in the same field of endeavor, teaches boron carbide reinforced silicon carbide composite materials as armor for stopping ballistic projectiles (Col. 12, lines 46-52). Aghajanian II teaches a ballistic armor system that includes a ceramic layer and a backing layer (Col. 17, lines 36-40). Aghajanian II teaches wherein the backing layer material comprises at least one of a polymer, a glass fiber, and a metal (such as aluminum, iron, or titanium) (Col. 17, lines 50-56). Aghajanian II teaches wherein a composite structure comprising the shaped composite body and the backing material is configured to provide ballistic protection against ammunition comprising a tungsten carbide-cobalt (WC/Co) core, including M993 ammunition type (Col. 45, lines 23-29
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Matsumoto as modified by Ide in order to combine the shaped ceramic body with at least one layer of a backing material comprising at least one of a polymer, a glass fiber, and a metal, and to configure the shaped ceramic body and the at least one layer of backing material to provide ballistic protection against ammunition comprising a tungsten carbide-cobalt (WC/Co) core, including M993 ammunition type, as taught by Aghajanian II. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include at least one layer of a backing material in order to “catch” any backward propelled fragments of the shaped ceramic body when that shaped ceramic body is impacted by a bullet (see Aghajanian II at Col. 17, lines 46-48).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed March 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 10 of the Remarks submitted with the reply filed March 20, 2026 (hereinafter “Remarks”), Applicant argues that “the cited references are directed to fundamentally different technical fields and address distinct technical problems.” However, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Each of the cited references is, at the very least, reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the present inventors (i.e., creating a shaped composite body of reaction-bonded, silicon-infiltrated mixed ceramic), because a person of ordinary skill would have consulted those references and applied their teachings when faced with the problem that the inventors were trying to solve, for reasons set forth above in in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103. See MPEP 2141.01(a)(I). For instance, simply from a materials science standpoint, Matsumoto is concerned with composite material having boron carbide, silicon carbide, and silicon as main components (see Matsumoto at ¶ 0003), as are the pending claims. To the extent that Applicant may be asserting that one of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to combine teachings from prior art references from different fields (as for claims 5, 7-10, 19-20, and 22-27, where the rejections set forth above rely upon a combination of two or more references), the rejections of claims 5, 7-10, 19-20, and 22-27 set forth above (see pp. 10-24) provide specific rationales for why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the noted teachings from the cited references, notwithstanding the different technical fields into which those cited references fall. If Applicant wishes to dispute any particular cited motivation, that point should be argued specifically.
Applicant also argues that “the cited references fail to teach or suggest the type of strength suitable for ballistic armour equipment” (Remarks at p. 10). However, in the case of independent claims 1, 15, and 23, there is no suggestion in the text of the claims themselves that the claimed shaped composite body is to be used for ballistic armour equipment. Thus, for those claims and most of their dependent claims, the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., “strength suitable for ballistic armour equipment”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Moreover, in the case of, for example, claim 27, it is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Here, a prima facie case has been made that the reaction-bonded, silicon-infiltrated boron carbide/silicon carbide ceramics of Matsumoto (the primary reference) are capable of performing Applicant’s intended use, and Applicant has presented no evidence and nothing beyond cursory argument to rebut that prima facie case. See MPEP 2145 (“arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence”).
Applicant further alleges that “the Office has failed to address the specific microstructure required by the independent claims” (Remarks at p. 10). Applicant argues that none of the cited references “teach or suggest the specifically controlled formation and microstructural arrangement of secondary silicon carbide bonding bridges among primary silicon carbide grains” (Remarks at p. 10). In response, it is noted that Matsumoto describes a process of secondarily generated silicon carbide bonding to primary grains of main silicon carbide:
The method for manufacturing a composite material in one embodiment of the invention includes a reaction sintering step of impregnating molten silicon into a molded body having boron carbide, initial injected silicon carbide, and a carbon source as main components to react the carbon source with the silicon to generate the reaction generated silicon carbide, and impregnated silicon is filled into the gap among the boron carbide, the initial injected silicon carbide, and the reaction generated silicon carbide.
(Matsumoto, ¶ 0057; emphasis added). Likewise, Matsumoto describes the remaining voids being filled with elemental silicon (Matsumoto, ¶ 0074). Moreover, Applicant’s argument again appears to rely for patentability on features (details of the microstructure of the shaped composite body) beyond those details actually recited in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s remaining arguments are unpersuasive for reasons set forth above in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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 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
Prosecution Insights