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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14, 16-22 and 24 are allowed.
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 1-3, 6-10 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buet et al. (FR3059322) in view of Wang (“Processing and properties of high entropy carbides”, Advances in Applied Ceramics: Structural, Functional and Bioceramics. 2022;121(2):57-78).
Regarding claims 1-2, 6 and 23, Buet et al. teach a ceramic matrix composite comprising a matrix (16) a fiber disposed in the matrix, a first interface coating layer (could be construed as layer 23) disposed adjacent to an outer surface of the fiber (12), and a first protective layer (could be construed as layer 24 or 33) disposed outward of the first interface coating layer and the fiber and within the matrix wherein the first protective layer comprises a ceramic [claim 1]. Buet et al. teach multiple layers including a second interface coating layer disposed on the first protective layer and a second protective layer disposed on the second interface coating layer and the second protective coating layer comprises a ceramic and the first protective coating layer us disposed on the first interface coating layer. Buet et al. are silent regarding the ceramic being high entropy including high entropy carbide. However, Wang teach high entropy ceramic including high entropy carbide in order to provide improved high-temperature, high-hardness and wear-resistant ceramics. The high entropy ceramic includes at least four cations including a refractory metal cation selected from group consisting of titanium, chromium, zirconium, hafnium, vanadium, niobium, tantalum, molybdenum and tungsten. The high entropy ceramic is a single phase solid solution of cations of the at least four refractory materials in an anionic matrix (rock salt structure taught). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary sill in the art to use single phase solid solution since it would provide higher hardness and strength and provide improved wear resistance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the high entropy ceramic of Wang in Buet et al. in order to provide high-temperature, high-hardness and wear-resistant ceramics and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, Buet et al. teach a plurality of fibers (12) with each fiber coated with the first and second interface coating layers and first and second protective layers [Fig. 4 and all layers coat the fibers].
Regarding claim 7, The first protective layer has a thickness in the claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 8, the interface coating layer is boron nitride.
Regarding claim 9, the fiber further comprises a carbon layer disposed between the first interface coating layer and the outer surface of the fiber (the coating is formed residually by the heating process).
Regarding claim 10, A matrix material (can be construed as the interlayer) is disposed between the first interface coating layer and first protective layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Buet teaches protective layer of a specified composition for the formation of crystals and Wang does not teach retention of liquid oxide B2O3. Buet teaches “The aluminum present in the first protective layer helps to limit the volatilization of the liquid oxide B2O3 by the formation of crystals of 10 defined compounds aB2O3.bA12O3 (a and b being integers).” Wang teaches high entropy ceramic matrix including (TiAlCrNbY)C that includes aluminum and would help limit the volatilization of the liquid oxide B2O3 by the aluminum and also provide improved high-temperature, high-hardness and wear-resistant ceramics. Buet teaches the first protective layer is in the matrix. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would in fact use the high entropy ceramic of Wang in Buet in order to provide improved high-temperature, high-hardness and wear-resistant ceramics and still also help limit the volatilization of the liquid oxide B2O3.
Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the cited art.
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 SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights