DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Any rejections made in a previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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 1-4, 6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in Bates (US 5,283,089) in view of Suyama et al. (US 2005/0255335).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 9, Bates discloses a silicon carbide matrix deposited onto and within a pre-shaped fibrous matrix of silicon carbide with the structure having a desnity of greater than about 85%, which corresponds to a porosity of less than about 15%, see abstract; see also MPEP 2144.05 I regarding overlapping ranges. Note that with respect to claims 8 and 9, the reference is considered to disclose a composite material consisting of and consisting essentially of the claimed materials, see Bates entire document.
The reference fails to disclose the claimed alpha-type and beta-type SiC.
Suyama discloses a silicon carbide matrix composite comprising a matrix with a first silicon carbide phase and a second silicon carbide phase, see abstract. The crystal phase of the first SiC phases consists of an alpha or a beta phase, and the second SiC phase is a beta phase [0044]. The second phase is controlled to have an average crystal grain diameter of 0.01 to 2 microns, which overlaps the claimed range [0039]; see MPEP 2144.05 I regarding overlapping ranges. The crystal diameter of the first phase may be smaller than that of the second phase [0043].
Note that while the reference does not specifically disclose the alpha and beta SiC crystals detected at the clamed X-ray beam diameter, it is expected that the disclosed invention will satisfy the claimed requirements based on the method of making the disclosed SiC matrix composite, the crystal size, and the ratio of SiC:C when forming the compact to be injected with molten silicon [0039-0068].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for the matrix of Bates to comprise the SiC phases of Suyama in order to provide a silicon carbide matrix composite material with improved strength and toughness as well as enhanced reliability and durability, see Suyama [0012].
Regarding claim 2, while Suyama does not specifically disclose the claimed volume of each of the alpha and beta SiC crystals, the reference does disclose controlling the amount of SiC powder (alpha phase) and carbon powder (used to form the beta phase) in order to prevent strength degradation and microcracks while providing a material that stably provides high strength and high toughness to large shapes [0057]. Wherein the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, absent a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the volume of each phase to provide for a high strength and high toughness material.
Regarding claim 3, the reference discloses the SiC crystal grains constituting the first SiC phase (alpha-SiC) are controlled to have an average crystal grain diameter falling in a range of 0.1 to 10 microns [0039]. Additionally, the reference discloses the SiC crystal grains constituting the second SiC phase (beta-SiC) are controlled to have an average crystal grain diameter falling in a range of 0.01 to 2 microns [0039]. Based on the ranges disclosed for the diameters of both phases, the reference is considered to render obvious the claimed ratio; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 4, the reference renders obvious the claimed crystal sizes for alpha and beta SiC as well as a beta phase that is no less than two times the crystal size of the alpha phase, see above discussion, [0039] and MPEP 2144.05 I. Additionally, the reference discloses the porosity of the composite material as 4% or less, which overlaps the claimed range [0037]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 6, Bates discloses the fiber as silicon carbide fibers, see abstract.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bates (US 5,283,089) in view of Suyama et al. (US 2005/0255335) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jensen (US 5,272,239).
Bates in view of Suyama discloses the SiC matrix composite of claim 1, see above discussion. While Suyama discloses first and second SiC phases comprising alpha and beta crystals respectively, the reference fails to discloses the claimed crystal structures, see above discussion.
Jensen discloses ceramic compositions comprising mixtures of beta SiC (3C) and alpha SiC (2H, 4H, 6H, 15R, 21R) useful in high temperature structural applications, see col. 1, col. 11 and Example 10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for the phases of Suyama to comprise a mixture of the beta and alpha SiC crystal structures of Jensen as a known material suitable for high temperature and high performance applications, see Jensen col. 1 lines 16-24.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bates (US 5,283,089) in view of Suyama et al. (US 2005/0255335) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wei (US 4,543,345).
Bates in view of Suyama discloses the SiC matrix composite of claim 1, see above discussion.
The references fail to disclose the claimed volume of matrix and of fiber.
Wei discloses a ceramic composite with 5-60 vol% SiC whiskers, which corresponds to fibers, see abstract and col. 4 lines 1-2. The reference further discloses the concentrations greater than 60 vol% cause clumping which detracts from the composite toughness, see col. 4 lines 7-10. Less than 5 vol% of whickers leads to insufficient toughness, see col. 4 lines 10-15.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time for the composite of Bates to have the whisker volume of Wei in order to prevent fiber clumping while at the same time providing sufficient toughness; see MPEP 2144.05 I. Note that based on the vol% of whiskers disclosed by Wei, the reference renders obvious a vol% of matrix of from 40% to 95%, which overlaps the claimed range; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 have been considered but are moot in view of a new combination of prior 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 LAURA A AUER whose telephone number is (571)270-5669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 4 pm 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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571)272-8519. 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.
/LAURA A AUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783