DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-5 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it now recites “wherein a quantity of the plurality of fluid pathways per unit area of the respective, first, second, and third plies decreases monotonically from the outermost layer to the innermost layer”. The meaning of this limitation is unclear because it is not clear what is meant by a “quantity” of fluid pathways. In particular, it is not clear if the “quantity” refers to volume, area, number, or some other measure. For the sake of compact prosecution, a decrease in “quantity” of fluid pathways in any manner is considered herein to meet the claim requirement.
Claims 2-5 and 11-15 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from claim 1.
The rejections of claims 13, 14, and 18 made under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) citing “characteristic” pore sizes and widths in the previous Office Action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment, filed October 8, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 102 in the previous Office Action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment, filed October 8, 2025.
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.
Claims 1-5, 11, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenz (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0155553).
Regarding claims 1-5, 11, 15-17, and 19, Lenz teaches a ceramic matrix composite (“CMC”) component comprising a ply stack of consecutively-stacked (i.e. “laid up”) plies (i.e. the groups of tows labeled 20 and 30 in Fig. 1 and represented by repeating rectangles in Fig. 3; i.e. “first ply”, “second ply”, “third ply”, “additional plies”, etc.), each comprising a plurality (i.e. “first plurality”, “second plurality”, “third plurality”, etc.) of unidirectional arrays of fiber tows (20, 30) disposed in a ceramic matrix material and extending in a direction (i.e. “first direction”, “second direction”, etc.) (Figs. 1-3; par. 29-33).
Although Lenz does not explicitly teach including more than four plies in his product, wherein there is a sufficient number of plies such that there can be at least two “third” plies between a first outermost ply and second innermost ply, which may be considered a difference from the current invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include as few or as many plies in Lenz’s product as necessary, including configuring the product such that an innermost ply could be considered a “second” ply in the context of the claims, wherein there are at least two “third” plies positioned between the “second” ply and an outermost “first” ply, according to the dimensional and mechanical requirements of the product (e.g. a combustion liner, nozzle, a turbine engine blade, etc.) being made. As no actual features are claimed to distinguish any plies from any other plies or any surfaces from any other surfaces, a set of four (or more), adjacent layers may be considered and referred to as the “first ply”, “second ply”, “plurality of third plies”, “additional plies”, etc., wherein an outermost layer is considered the “first ply”, an innermost layer is considered the “second ply”, and layers between the first and second plies are considered the “plurality of third plies”.
Each of Lenz’s plies defines a plurality of fluid pathways (40, 60; i.e. “first fluid pathways”, “second fluid pathways”, “third fluid pathways”, etc.), each having a length (i.e. “first length”, “second length”, “third length”, etc.) in a length direction (i.e. “first length direction”, “second length direction”, “third length direction”, etc.) that is normal to and greater than a width (i.e. “first width”, “second width”, “third width”, etc.) in a width direction (i.e. “first width direction”, “second width direction”, “third width direction”, etc.) (Figs. 2, 3). As shown in Figure 3, which depicts a cross-section of four stacked plies, each of the plies has a first surface (i.e. “first ply first surface”, “second ply first surface”, “third ply first surface”, etc.) that is opposite a respective second surface (i.e. “first ply second surface”, “second ply second surface”, “third ply second surface”, etc.) (Fig. 3). As conceptualized by the combination of Figures 1-3, the fluid pathways (i.e. “first fluid pathways”, “second fluid pathways”, “third fluid pathways”, etc.) in each ply each have a depth (i.e. “first depth”, “second depth”, “third depth”) that is less than each pathways’ length (i.e. “the first length greater than the first depth”, “the second length greater than the second depth”, etc.) and that extends from a respective first surface to a respective second surface of their respective ply (i.e. “first ply”, “second ply”, “third ply”, etc.) (Figs. 1-3).
As noted above, Lenz’s product includes multiple fluid pathways (40, 50, 60; i.e. a “plurality of first fluid pathways”, “plurality of second fluid pathways”, “plurality of additional fluid pathways” etc.) having lengths that are greater than their widths in each ply (each unlabeled layer of a groups; i.e. “first ply”, “second ply”, “third ply”, “additional plies” that are “consecutively stacked” with the first and second plies) that are laterally spaced apart from each other within a ply and that are fluidly connected to the fluid pathways in adjacent plies, thereby forming continuous fluid pathways (i.e. “first continuous fluid pathway”, “second continuous fluid pathway”, “additional continuous fluid pathways”, etc.) through the ply stack (Figs. 1-3).
As shown in Figure 1 and discussed by Lenz, the plies and arrays of tows (20, 30) are aligned such that the extension direction (i.e. which extend a “first direction”, “second direction”, “third direction”, etc.) of tows and fluid channels (40, 50) in one layer are offset from those in adjacent layers (Figs. 1; par. 31). For example, the structure of Figure 1 includes plies arranged such that the second direction is offset (and “different”) by 90 ° from the first direction (Fig. 1). The layers are also arranged such that the fluid pathways (160, i.e. “first fluid path way”, “second fluid pathway”, “third fluid pathway”, etc.) from adjacent layers intersect each other to define continuous pathways (164, i.e. “first continuous fluid pathway”, “second continuous fluid pathway”, etc.) between the layers (Figs. 1-3; par. 30-33). As such, the plurality of fluid pathways in each of the plies is fluidly connected to the plurality of fluid pathways in each of the other plies.
As just discussed, Lenz teaches a composite component meeting or rendering obvious the limitations of claims 1-5, which are also repeated in claims 16 and 19. As shown in Lenz’s figures and discussed above, Lenz’s product includes multiple fluid pathways (40, 50, 60; i.e. a “plurality of first fluid pathways”, “plurality of second fluid pathways”, “plurality of additional fluid pathways” etc.) having lengths that are greater than their widths in each ply (each unlabeled layer of a groups; i.e. “first ply”, “second ply”, “third ply”, “additional plies” that are “consecutively stacked” with the first and second plies) that are laterally spaced apart from each other within a ply and that are fluidly connected to the fluid pathways in adjacent plies, thereby forming continuous fluid pathways (i.e. “first continuous fluid pathway”, “second continuous fluid pathway”, “additional continuous fluid pathways”, etc.) through the ply stack (Figs. 1-3). Lenz’s product also necessarily includes outermost layers and one or more innermost layers.
Although Lenz does not expressly refer to first or second fluid channel respectively having a first or second width that varies over a respective first or second length, which might be considered a difference from the current invention, Lenz does teach that his fluid channels may vary in width by less than 5 %, including in a manner such that the channels have a width at an exterior surface that is greater than the width at an interior space (par. 27). Therefore, Lenz teaches channels (e.g. “second fluid channels”) with widths (e.g. “second widths”) that vary over their length (e.g. “second length”) and, as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure any of Lenz’s fluid channels to vary in width by an amount of up to 5 % because Lenz explicitly teaches that it is appropriate. Furthermore, as Lenz teaches that his product is made by infiltrating fibrous preforms with a ceramic matrix, discloses that the infiltration process is gradual, with the ceramic forming first near the exterior of the preform (i.e. the ceramic is not deposited over the entire preform at a uniform rate), and discloses that his channeled structure achieves a “more uniform” microstructure than previous CMC components (par. 25, 32), Lenz makes clear that the ceramic deposited within his product, including within the fluid channels, is not perfectly uniform. Therefore, the channels in Lenz’s product have at least some variation in width over their lengths. Furthermore, in view of Lenz’s disclosure, the nature of the infiltration process, and the overwhelming likelihood that the tows forming a preform (and therefore the spaces in between the tows) are not perfectly uniform in width, it is more likely than not that there is at least some variation in the widths of the fluid channels along their lengths in the prior art product.
The teachings of Lenz differ from the current invention in that the relationship of ply thickness (t1, t2, t3, etc.) to fluid pathway spacing (m) within the composite component is not discussed. However, as no criticality has been established, the claimed relative proportions appear to be prima facie obvious selections of dimensions or relative proportions that do not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04.
The teachings of Lenz also differ from the current invention in that he does not explicitly discuss the number of fluid pathways per unit area in the layers decreasing monotonically from the outermost layer to the innermost layer. However, Lenz does teach that the purpose of the fluid pathways is to improve infiltration during densifying of the structure (par. 25, 26, 32). Hall teaches a similar CMC product including fluid pathways within its plies and discloses that infiltration success and mechanical/thermal property levels can be controlled as a function of the size and distribution of the fluid pathways provided within its plies (par. 30, 44, 45). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an appropriate distribution of the fluid pathways within Lenz’s product, including selecting to place the pathways such that they decrease in number per unit area from the outermost layer to the innermost layer, in order to achieve a desired/required balance of infiltration success and resultant mechanical and thermal property levels as desired/required for a given application.
Claims 1-5, 11, and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corman (US PG Pub. No. 2018/0093926) in view of Lenz and Hall (US PG Pub. No. 2018/0362413).
Regarding claims 1-5, 11, 15-17, and 19, Corman teaches ceramic matrix composite (“CMC”) components comprising a ply stack of consecutively-stacked (i.e. “laid up”) plies (20, 210; i.e. “first ply”, “second ply”, “third ply”, “additional plies” that are “consecutively stacked” with the first and second plies etc., etc.), each comprising a plurality (i.e. “first plurality”, “second plurality”, “third plurality”, “additional plurality”) of unidirectional arrays (20, 210) of fiber tows (unlabeled lines or dots) disposed in a ceramic matrix material and extending in a direction (i.e. “first direction”, “second direction”, “third direction”, etc.) (Figs. 1, 3, 4; par. 23, 28). As shown the figures, each of the plies has a first surface (i.e. “first ply first surface”, “second ply first surface”, “third ply first surface”, etc.) that is opposite a respective second surface (i.e. “first ply second surface”, “second ply second surface”, “third ply second surface”, etc.) (Figs. 1, 3, 4).
The teachings of Corman differ from the current invention in that his product is not taught to include fluid channels within the plies and extending as claimed. However, Corman’s product is a CMC component that is formed by a process including chemical vapor infiltration (“CVI”) to densify its matrix (par. 22). Lenz further discloses that CMC components formed in this manner can suffer from a non-uniform microstructure and less desirable physical properties due to pores in the exterior regions of their fiber preforms being filled and closed, thereby preventing interior regions from being properly infiltrated during the densification process (par. 25). To remedy this, Lenz teaches omitting fiber tows from the plies forming the CMC preforms to provide direct channels extending from the exterior surfaces to the interior regions of the preforms to allow the CVI gas to more completely and uniformly infiltrate the preforms, thereby providing a quicker, more complete infiltration that achieves a more uniform and dense microstructures (par. 26, 29, 30).
Lenz further teaches that the channels can extend in multiple directions, such as parallel and perpendicular, and exemplifies structures that include alternating ply layers, each with an array of parallel fluid channels that extend perpendicularly to an array of parallel fluid channels in an adjacent layer, wherein the perpendicularly-extending channels intersect at cross-over points to form fluid pathways between the layers (Figs. 1-3; par. 30-33). As shown in his figures, Lenz’s fluid channels have lengths that are normal to and longer than their widths and depths, and have depths that extend the full thickness (i.e. from a ply’s first surface to its second surface) of their respective plies (Figs. 1-3). Lenz also teaches that the channels can vary in width by up to 5 % including in a manner such that the channels have a width at an exterior surface that is greater than the width at an interior space (par. 27). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art configure Corman’s product to include many fluid channels, as taught by Lenz, wherein the plies of the preform are made with arrays of parallel fluid channels, wherein the fluid channels from adjacent layers are situated perpendicular to each other and intersect to form continuous fluid channels between/through the layers, and wherein the channels vary in width along their length by as much as 5 %, as taught by Lenz, in order to allow the CVI gas used for densifying to more completely and uniformly infiltrate the preforms, thereby providing a quicker, more complete infiltration that achieves a more uniform and dense microstructures.
As Corman and Lenz’s product is made by infiltrating fibrous preforms with a ceramic matrix (discussed above), Lenz discloses that the infiltration process is gradual, with the ceramic forming first near the exterior of the preform (i.e. the ceramic is not deposited over the entire preform at a uniform rate), and Lenz discloses that his channeled structure achieves a “more uniform” microstructure than previous CMC components (Lenz, par. 25, 32), Lenz makes clear that the ceramic deposited within Corman and his product, including within the fluid channels, is not perfectly uniform. Therefore, the channels (i.e. including the “first fluid path” and the “second fluid path”) in Corman and Lenz’s product have at least some variation in width over their lengths. Furthermore, in view of Lenz’s disclosure, the nature of the infiltration process, and the overwhelming likelihood that the tows forming a preform (and therefore the spaces in between the tows) are not perfectly uniform in width, it is more likely than not that there is at least some variation in the widths of the fluid channels along their lengths in the prior art product.
In view of the above combination, each of the plies (i.e. “first ply”, “second ply”, “third ply”, “additional plies”) in Corman and Lenz’s product defines a plurality of fluid pathways (i.e. “first fluid pathways”, “second fluid pathways”, “third fluid pathways”, etc.), each having a length (i.e. “first length”, “second length”, “third length”, etc.) in a length direction (i.e. “first length direction”, “second length direction”, “third length direction”, etc.) that is normal to and greater than a width (i.e. “first width”, “second width”, “third width”, etc.) in a width direction (i.e. “first width direction”, “second width direction”, “third width direction”, etc.) (note: the fluid pathways in adjacent layers are arranged as shown in Lenz’s Fig. 1). As discussed above, each of the plies has a first surface (i.e. “first ply first surface”, “second ply first surface”, “third ply first surface”, etc.) that is opposite a respective second surface (i.e. “first ply second surface”, “second ply second surface”, “third ply second surface”, etc.), and the fluid pathways (i.e. “first fluid pathways”, “second fluid pathways”, “third fluid pathways”, etc.) in each ply each have a depth (i.e. “first depth”, “second depth”, “third depth”) that is less than each pathways’ length (i.e. “the first length greater than the first depth”, “the second length greater than the second depth”, etc.) and that extends from a respective first surface to a respective second surface of their respective ply (i.e. “first ply”, “second ply”, “third ply”, etc.) (Figs. 2, 3). As no actual features are claimed to distinguish any plies from any other plies or any surfaces from any other surfaces, a set of four (or more), adjacent layers may be considered and referred to as the “first ply”, “second ply”, “plurality of third plies”, “additional plies”, etc., wherein an outermost layer is considered the “first ply”, an innermost layer is considered the “second ply”, and layers between the first and second plies are considered the “plurality of third plies”. As shown in Figure 3, Corman exemplifies CMC structures including five plies (210), which, therefore, include an outermost ply that may be considered a “first ply”, an innermost ply that may be considered a “second ply”, and a plurality of intervening plies that may be considered “third plies” or “additional plies”.
As also discussed above, the plies and arrays of tows in Corman and Lenz’s product are aligned such that the extension direction (i.e. which extend a “first direction”, “second direction”, “third direction”, etc.) of tows and fluid channels (160) in one layer are offset from those in adjacent layers. Each of Corman and Lenz teaches CMC products with adjacent layers that are offset (i.e. have “directions” or “extension directions” that are “different” from each other) from adjacent layers by 90° (Corman, Figs. 1, 3, 4; Lenz, Fig. 1). As also noted above and given that the adjacent fluid channels in adjacent layers intersect and interconnect, the respective fluid pathways intersect each other, thereby forming/defining continuous pathways (i.e. a “first continuous fluid pathway from the first fluid pathway to the second continuous fluid pathway”, a “second continuous fluid pathway from the second fluid pathway to the third fluid pathway”, a “continuous fluid pathway through the ply stack”, etc.). As such, the plurality of fluid pathways in each of the plies is fluidly connected to the plurality of fluid pathways in each of the other plies.
As just discussed, Corman and Lenz teach a composite component meeting or rendering obvious the limitations of claims 1-5, which are also repeated in claims 16, and 19. As shown in Lenz’s figures and discussed above, Corman and Lenz’s product includes multiple fluid pathways (40, 50, 60; i.e. a “plurality of first fluid pathways”, “plurality of second fluid pathways”, “plurality of additional fluid pathways” etc.) having lengths that are greater than their widths in each ply (i.e. “first ply”, “second ply”, “third ply”, “additional plies” that are “consecutively stacked” with the first and second plies) that are laterally spaced apart from each other within a ply and that are fluidly connected to the fluid pathways in adjacent plies, thereby forming continuous fluid pathways (i.e. “first continuous fluid pathway”, “second continuous fluid pathway”, etc.) through the ply stack (Figs. 1-3). Corman and Lenz’s product also necessarily includes outermost layers and one or more innermost layers
The teachings of Corman and Lenz differ from the current invention in that neither discusses the relationship of ply thickness (t1, t2, t3, etc.) to fluid pathway spacing (m) within their composite component. Corman and Lenz also do not explicitly discuss the number of fluid pathways per unit area in the layers decreasing monotonically from the outermost layer to the innermost layer. However, Lenz does teach that the purpose of the fluid pathways is to improve infiltration during densifying of the structure (par. 25, 26, 32). Hall further teaches a similar CMC product including fluid pathways within its plies and discloses that infiltration success and mechanical/thermal property levels can be controlled as a function of the size and distribution of the fluid pathways provided within its plies (par. 30, 44, 45). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an appropriate size and distribution of the fluid pathways within Corman and Lenz’s product, including selecting to place the pathways such that the ratio of their spacing (m) to the ply thickness (t1, t2, etc.) is in the range of 0.25 to 10:1 and including selecting to place the pathways such that they decrease in number per unit area from the outermost layer to the innermost layer, in order to achieve a desired/required balance of infiltration success and resultant mechanical and thermal property levels as desired/required for a given application.
With respect to the relative proportions discussed in claims 11, 16, and 17, it is further noted that as no criticality has been established, the claimed relative proportions appear to be prima facie obvious selections of dimensions or relative proportions that do not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claims 12-14 and 18, Corman teaches that the ceramic matrix in/around plies (i.e. “first ply”, “second ply” , “third ply”, etc.) in his component have pores (i.e. “first plurality of pores”, “second plurality of pores”, etc.), which may have a median size in the range of 3 to 30 µm (par. 37). Although Corman does not explicitly teach an average pore size, which might be considered a difference from the current invention, Corman does teach that a more uniform pore structure advantageously allows for a more uniform CMC microstructure (par. 21). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the matrix of the prior art product to have a substantially uniform pore structure, wherein substantially all of the pores have sizes falling in the range of 3 to 30 µm and, therefore, wherein the average pore size falls within the range of 3 to 30 µm, because Corman explicitly teaches that such pore sizes are appropriate for his product and in order to achieve a more uniform CMC microstructure, as desired and taught beneficial by Corman.
Lenz teaches that the channels (i.e. “first fluid pathway”, “second fluid pathway”, “third fluid pathway”, etc.), which are longer than they are wide (discussed above), should have a width (i.e. “first width”, “second width”, “third width” etc.) in the range of 500 to 3000 µm (par. 27). As Lenz teaches that the widths of his channels may vary up to 5 %, the average widths of his channels may range from 500 +/-5% µm to 3000 +/- 5 % µm. As such, Corman and Lenz’s product includes pores and fluid pathways that are each voids in the composite component, wherein the pluralities of pores (i.e. “first plurality of pores”, “second plurality of pores”, etc.) are smaller than the fluid pathways (i.e. “first fluid pathway”, “second fluid pathway”, etc.) in their respective plies, wherein the fluid pathway widths (i.e. “first width”, “second width”, etc.) are greater than the average pore size in their respective plies, and wherein there is a bimodal distribution of void sizes. Corman and Lenz’s taught dimensions correspond to fluid pathway average widths (i.e. average widths of the first fluid pathway, second fluid pathway, etc.) that are about 17 to 1000 times greater than their average pore sizes. The instantly claimed width-to-pore size relationship is overlapped and rendered obvious by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 8, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that the claims, as now amended, are distinguished over the prior art because none teaches a ceramic matrix composite (“CMC”) component including fluid channels in its plies, wherein the quantity of fluid channels decreases monotonically from an outermost layer to an innermost layer. However, it would have been obvious to select an appropriate distribution of fluid pathways for the prior art CMC components, including selecting to place the pathways such that they decrease in number per unit area from the outermost layer to the innermost layer, in view of Hall’s teachings for the reasons discussed above.
Applicant has further argued that the claims are distinguished over the cited prior art because none teaches the recited proportions of fluid channel spacing and ply thickness. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an appropriate size of the fluid pathways within Corman and Lenz’s product, including selecting to place the pathways such that the ratio of their spacing (m) to the ply thickness (t1, t2, etc.) is in the range of 0.25 to 10:1, in view of Hall’s teachings for the reasons discussed above. Furthermore, as no criticality has been established, the claimed relative proportions appear to be prima facie obvious selections of dimensions or relative proportions that do not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Applicant has also argued that the recitation of fluid pathways with varying widths distinguishes the claims over the prior art. However, as discussed above, Lenz teaches that the widths of his channels may vary by up to 5 %. Furthermore, based on the nature of the infiltration process (discussed further above) and the unlikelihood of the tows (and, therefore, the spaces between the tows) in a fibrous preform having perfectly uniform thickness, it is more likely than not that the widths of the fluid pathways in the prior art products vary to at least some extent.
Applicant has also argued that it would not have been obvious to adjust the fluid channel distribution by adjusting ply thickness in view of Hall’s teachings because Hall employs sacrificial materials for making fluid channels. However, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
As discussed above, Lenz’s fluid pathways, which are formed by the omission/removal of tows in selected locations in the plies of a preform, are cited as corresponding to the recited fluid pathways. The sizes of Lenz’s fluid pathways are controlled by the number and width of tows that are omitted/removed from a given ply, which, therefore also directly affect the number and width (i.e. corresponding to the claimed distance “m”) of tows that remain between the fluid pathways. Lenz teaches that the purpose of the fluid pathways is to improve infiltration during densifying of the structure (par. 25, 26, 32). Hall is only cited for his teaching that the size and placement of fluid pathways that are used for improving infiltration of a CMC product can also be used to control the mechanical and thermal properties of a CMC product (par. 30, 44, 45). In view of Hall’s teachings, it would have been obvious to adjust the size and placement of Lenz’s fluid pathways, which are formed by altering the structure of the fibrous preforms, as necessary to achieve the desired/required mechanical and thermal properties. Furthermore, the claims only recite a ratio that includes ply thickness, rather than reciting a specific ply thickness. Therefore, any change to the width of a fluid channel, which necessarily changes the width of material between the fluid channels (i.e. the distance “m”) and which is rendered obvious by the prior art, necessarily also changes the ratio of each of the channel width and the distance “m” to the thickness of a ply. A ply’s thickness need not change to change this ratio. Additionally, as noted above, the recited proportions have not been established to have any criticality and appear to be prima facie obvious selections of size or shape that do not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04.
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 JULIA L RUMMEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -5:00 pm 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/JULIA L. RUMMEL/
Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/HUMERA N. SHEIKH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights