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 Applicants Arguments and Remarks
The Amendment/Request for Reconsideration After Non-Final Rejection filed 12/17/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 5-11 and 16 remain pending, along with new claims 21-25. Claims 1, 5-7 and 16 have been amended. Claims 3, 4, 12-15, and 17-20 have been cancelled. Claim 15 has been withdrawn. Claims 21-25 are new.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) in the non-final rejection dated 09/19/2025 have been considered, but are moot due to new grounds of rejection necessitated by the Amendment to the claim filed on 12/17/2025. Note: The Applicant does not provide Arguments for claims explicitly. The Examiner intends to provide a Response to Argument in regard to the U.S.C. 102 rejection of Claim1.
Regarding Claim 1 the Applicant argues that,
the Examiner has not provided factual support for known gettering material.
Shim fails to teach the gettering function.
there are benefits to the atomic layer deposition (ALD) process to form ultra-high temperature ceramic matrix composites (CMC) and cites the specification in the application.
There is no expectation of success for gettering in ALD voids/spaces.
Shim's (particles) sizes are not motivated for ALD space-fitting.
Prior art lacks claimed sizes and modification relies on hindsight.
In response to the Applicant’s argument, the Examiner replies that,
a), b), d) the Examiner agrees with the Applicant, which forms the basis for new grounds of rejection.
c) while the Examiner may be in agreement to the benefits of ALD, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. ALD benefits) 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).
e) Shim is not relied upon to teach particles for ALD space fitting. it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (reduced ALD processing time) 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).
f) , it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971), MPEP 7.37.03
Further, the Examiner notes that while the particles containing carbides or borides of Group IV and V metals is supported in the specification, the claim of Claim 5 and Claim 6, where the gettering particles containing carbides or borides of Group IV and V metals is not supported in the specification The specification reads [0019] “In a further example of the foregoing, all of the fibers, the particles, and the matrix contain carbides or borides of Group IV and V metals” [0019], and “In a further example of any of the foregoing, the particles include gettering particles”,[0020]. There is absent in the specification that “In a further example of the foregoing, all of the fibers, the gettering particles, and the matrix contain carbides or borides of Group IV and V metals”. This absence necessitates a 112(a) rejection for Claim 5 and Claim 6.
Claim Interpretation
The claim interpretations presented in the CNTF are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112a, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The Examiner notes that while the particles containing carbides or borides of Group IV and V metals is supported in the specification, the claim of Claim 5 and Claim 6, where the gettering particles containing carbides or borides of Group IV and V metals is not supported in the specification The specification reads [0019] “In a further example of the foregoing, all of the fibers, the particles, and the matrix contain carbides or borides of Group IV and V metals” [0019], and “In a further example of any of the foregoing, the particles include gettering particles”,[0020]. There is absent in the specification that “In a further example of the foregoing, all of the fibers, the gettering particles, and the matrix contain carbides or borides of Group IV and V metals.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-9, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 20200216362A1 by Sheedy et. al. (herein “Sheedy”) and in further view of and in further view of U.S Patent 9,815,736 by Dunn et. al. (herein “Dunn”) and in further view USPGPUB 20220356119A1 by Jackson et. al. (herein “Jackson”) in further view of USPGPUB 20120087457A1 by Garnier et. al. (herein “Garnier”) and in further view of “Gettering Materials”, Vac Aero International, (herein “VacAero”)
Regarding Claim 1, Sheedy teaches,
A method of making a ceramic matrix composite article, comprising:
fabricating a preform comprising a plurality of fibers; [0029] lines 1-2, 4, 8-9 “The manufacture
of a CMC component typically begins with the production of a preform 10…”, “the
preform 10 may be a fiber-based structure…”, “Fiber structures 11 can include discontinuous or
continuous fibers 13…”
the fibers are arranged in a plurality of tows, and wherein there are voids between adjacent
ones of the tows; [0029], lines 4-7, 35-40 “The fiber structures 11 may include individual
fibers 13, or fiber bundles 15 (e.g., a fiber tow), or any combination thereof. The term “fiber
tow” refers to an arrangement of fibers…”,” A fiber bundle 15 within a fiber structure 11 may
internally include void spaces that create porosity within the bundle (i.e., intra-bundle porosity),
and the fibers 13 or fiber bundles 15 that form the fiber structure 11 may include void spaces
between and/or around adjacent fibers or fiber bundles; i.e., inter-bundle porosity. In those
fiber structures 11 that include a plurality of plies, there may be additional void spaces between
plies.”
there are spaces between adjacent ones of the fibers; [0029] lines 31-33, …” and the fibers 13 or
fiber bundles 15 that form the fiber structure 11 may include void spaces between and/or
around adjacent fibers or fiber bundles; i.e., inter-bundle porosity.”
applying a matrix material to the preform by atomic layer deposition to make a ceramic
matrix composite article; [0033], lines 1-3, 11-17 “ Embodiments of the present disclosure
include use of an atomic layer deposition (ALD) process at one or more points throughout the
CMC component processing…”, “The general principle for the various ALD processes comprises
growing a thin film layer 18 by exposing a surface to be coated (e.g., a fiber surface, a fiber tow
surface, etc.) to a plurality of sequential alternating pulses of gaseous chemical precursors that
chemically react with the surface material one at a time…” The gaseous chemical precursors is
the matrix material.
While Sheedy teaches spaces and voids between the tows and in spaces between the fibers of the
tows, Sheedy fails to teach or reference a size of voids and spaces wherein,
voids between tows range in size from between about 200 and about 3000 microns.
the spaces range in size from between about 0.1 and about 2 microns.
In the same field of endeavor as a method to making a ceramic matrix composite article, Dunn teaches
spaces between fibers and between tows; “ In some embodiments, the unidirectional ceramic
fibers 30 (whether tows or single filaments), as a whole, may be substantially evenly spaced throughout
the planar array, or the spacing may vary. If the ceramic fiber portions 30 are tows, the frame 30 may be
configured such that the ceramic filaments making up each tow are spaced from each other. In such
embodiments, the spacing of adjacent tows (i.e., the spacing between adjacent ceramic filaments of
adjacent tows) may be spaced about the same distance as the spacing of the individual filaments of
the tows” (Col 6 lines 34-44). Dunn discloses the claimed invention except for the claimed size of the
space between the fibers and the claimed size of the space between the tows. It would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to optimize the size of the spacing between the fibers and between the tows, since it has been
held that where 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. One would have been motivated to do so for
the purpose of exposing the maximum amount of exterior fiber surface to ensure formation of coating
thereon, as noted by Dunn (Col 6 lines 13-17). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in
the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum
values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing
of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
While Sheedy teaches a CMC substrate with spaces and voids between the tows and in spaces
between the fibers of the tows, as well as particles that fill those voids and spaces, and one or more
types of matrix particles ([0029]), Sheedy fails to teach another specific type of matrix particle having a
certain size wherein,
the gettering particles have diameters ranging from submicron to 2 micron;
In the same field of endeavor as a method of making a ceramic matrix composite article, (a gas turbine),
Jackson teaches getter particles (including different types of particles) in a mix of matrix particles and
diffusive particles [0003] having diameters ranging from 1um-75um in barrier layer coating on a CMC
substrate ([0012], [0014], [0037]).Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to have selected the portion of Jackson’s range that corresponds to the claimed range. See
MPEP 2144.05.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective
filing date of the claimed invention was made to include the gettering particles of Jackson into the
method of Sheedy, as one would be motivated to do so for the purposes of, as the gettering particles
are reactive with respect to oxidant particles and/or water, to reduce oxidants or water from reaching
and oxidizing the substrate, as noted by Jackson ([0037]).
While Sheedy teaches providing particles to the preform ([0030] lines 1-4), that are situated in
spaces and voids ([0030], [0043 Sheedy fails to teach,
providing gettering particles to the preform
the gettering particles are situated in the spaces and in the voids;
In a similar endeavor of fabricating a ceramic matrix composite (CMC) that is infiltrated with a matrix
material, Garnier teaches a CMC made of silicon carbide material (with a fiber denier, [0040]) where the
ceramic matrix includes metal particulate [0030]. The metal particulate can include niobium, vanadium
and tantalum which are known getter materials (See “Gettering Materials”, Vac Aero International, Page
3 – Non-Evaporative Getters).
Further, the metallic material may infiltrate the voids within the ceramic matrix composite
(Fig. 1B, [0032]). Continuing, the ceramic matrix composite may be formed using conventional
infiltration processes, including slurry infiltration ([0048]). Lastly, Garnier specifically teaches oxygen
inhibitors, such as oxygen getters of Tantalum and Niobium (Table 2) and glass formers (Tantalum
Carbide) in the ceramic matrix composite. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the gettering particles
(Tantalum and/or Niobium)of Garnier in the preform of Sheedy, one being motivated to do so for the
purpose of a) using high melting point materials that are compatible with the ceramic matrix composite
material ([0030]), and provide increased strength and oxidation protection of the ceramic composite
matrix ([0032]), as noted by Garnier.
Regarding Claim 2 – Sheedy, Dunn, Jackson, Garnier and VacAero in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Sheedy further teaches,
heat treating the ceramic matrix composite article; [0031], “In some instances, the
preform 10 may be infiltrated with a liquid mixture that includes a ceramic precursor. The
preform may then be subjected to one or more thermal treatments.”
Regarding Claim 5 – Sheedy, Dunn, Jackson, Garnier and VacAero in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Sheedy further teaches wherein,
at least one of the fibers, the matrix material, and the particles materials are carbides
or borides selected form the group consisting of Group IV metals and V metals or combinations
thereof; [0032], “ The present disclosure is also not limited to use with CMC preforms 10 of any
particular material or materials. On the contrary, the present disclosure may be utilized with
any sort of composite structure, but in particular CMC preforms (e.g. Carbon (“C”) fiber/C
matrix, C fiber/Silicon Carbide (“SiC”) matrix, SiC fiber/SiC matrix, Aluminum oxide (e.g.,
“Al2O33)”/ Al2O33preforms that include SiOC, SiNC, ZrC, HOC, and/or other refractory fibers,
glass fibers, etc.). The preforms are noted to be the fiber, Si and Zr are Group IV, and
SiC/SiNC/ZrC represent carbides or nitrides of these Group IV materials.
Sheedy fails to teach,
the gettering particles are carbides or borides selected form the group consisting of
Group IV metals and V metals or combinations thereof.
Garnier teaches an oxygen getter of Tantalum and an oxygen inhibitor of Tantalum Carbide. Garnier
discloses the claimed invention except for a gettering particle that is a carbide. It would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to have fabricated a gettering particle that is Tantalum Carbide, as Garnier has provided both
materials to support oxygen gettering and oxygen inhibition, i.e. both materials involved in suppressing
oxygen. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d
1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 7 - Sheedy, Dunn, Jackson, Garnier and VacAero in the rejection of claim 1 above
teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Garnier teaches the instant claim previously in Claim 1 (Garnier [0048]).
Regarding Claim 8 and 9, which depends on Claim 7 - Sheedy, Dunn, Jackson, Garnier and VacAero
in the rejection of claim 7 above teach all of the limitations of claim 7.
Sheedy further teaches wherein,
Claim 8 (first sentence) - the slurry is provided to the preform in a first mold;
Claim 9 – the preform is fabricated in the first mold;
[0029], lines 42-49 “ In some instances, a preform structure may be created by passing fibers
through a slurry (e.g., a slurry that contains a polymeric binder and may include one or more types
of matrix particles). The fibers may be subsequently wound on a mandrel or otherwise
consolidated into a ‘tape’. The tape may then be processed into desired shapes and/or orientations
and stacked or “layed up” to produce a preform structure.”
Claim 8 (second sentence) - and wherein the matrix material is applied in a second, different
mold; [0038], “the CMC preform may be disposed in an ALD vessel, and a first precursor may
be introduced into the vessel for a period of time adequate for the reaction between the first
precursor and the surface… Subsequently, the ALD vessel is purged of the first precursor … The
process is then repeated with a second precursor being introduced into the vessel for a period
of time adequate for the reaction between the second precursor and the surface.
Regarding 21 - Sheedy, Dunn, Jackson, Garnier and VacAero in the rejection of claim 1 above teach
all of the limitations of claim 1.
wherein the gettering particles are reactive with oxygen and are reactive with water.
Jackson teaches the instant claim as motivation previously in Claim 1 (Jackson [0037]).
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
USPGPUB 20170275210A1 by Corman et. al. (herein “Corman”) .
Regarding Claim 6 - Sheedy, Dunn, Jackson, Garnier and VacAero in the rejection of claim 5 above
teach all of the limitations of claim 5.
Sheedy fails to teach wherein,
all of the fibers, the matrix material, and the gettering particles contain carbides or borides
selected from the group consisting of Group IV metals and V metals, and combinations thereof
In the same field of endeavor as a method to making a ceramic matrix composite article, Corman
teaches, for a chemical vapor infiltration process for CMC manufacture:
the fibers contain carbides or borides of Group IV and V metals; [0024] “Materials for the tows
may include silicon carbide (SiC) fibers, polycrystalline SiC fibers, or other suitable fiber.”
and the particles contain carbides or borides of Group IV and V metals; [0025], “The slurry
may include a matrix precursor such as organic or inorganic material…”,”Fillers may include an
oxide or non-oxide particle or whisker that helps control shrinkage. Examples of a filler include
SiC, B4C, SiO2, HfC, HfB2…”
the matrix material contain carbides or borides of Group IV and V metals; [0038], “a matrix
material such as silicon carbide is infiltrated into a fibrous preform by the use of reactive gases
at elevated temperature.”
Corman discloses the claimed invention except for its application for atomic layer deposition. As both
chemical vapor infiltration and atomic layer deposition are gaseous deposition processes with the intent
of applying a layer or coating of material on the surfaces of porous CMC preforms, it would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to use the materials of Corman in the process of Sheedy, being motivated to tailor the process
to improve mechanical properties and oxidation resistance, as noted by Corman ([0020]). The selection
of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness
determination . Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
But Corman fails to teach,
all of the gettering particles contain carbides or borides selected from the group consisting of
Group IV metals and V metals, and combinations thereof
Garnier teaches this portion of the instant claim previously in Claim 5.
Claims 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 7,686,990 by
Gray et. al. (herein “Gray”).
Regarding Claim 10 - Sheedy, Dunn, Jackson, Garnier and VacAero in the rejection of claim 8 above t
each all of the limitations of claim 8.
Sheedy fails to teach wherein,
the second mold is coated with a release agent prior to the application of the matrix material.
In the same field of endeavor as a method to making a ceramic matrix composite article, Gray
teaches, for a chemical vapor infiltration process on a CMC preform, the use of a coating on a die
surface that inhibits adhesion of the machined surface coating of the preform. “As evident from FIG. 3,
the machined coating 16 lies between the preform 12 and a die surface of the tool 30, such that tows 20
at the surface 14 of the preform 12 do not contact the tool 30. Again, this aspect of the invention
prevents the reinforcement fabric 18 from creating surface flaws in the final CMC article 10. The
machined surface 28 of the coating 16 directly contacts the tool 30, or optionally a coating (not shown)
on the die surface that inhibits adhesion of the coating 16 to the tool 30, the latter of which may be, or
example, formed of graphite”, (Col 5 lines 14-20). Further, Gray teaches that tooling and dies have been
used in a variety of fabrication techniques, not just chemical vapor infiltration, to produce near net
shape CMC components by applying heat and chemical processes (Col 1 33-39). ). It would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to have used the mold release agent of Gray in the method of Sheedy, for the purpose of
supporting the reduction of the fabric imprint pattern on the preform, which can be unacceptable
depending in the application, as noted by Gray (Col 2 lines 1-4). The selection of a known
material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination .
Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claims 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
USPGPUB 20130323417A1 by Kmetz et. al. (herein “Kmetz”).
Regarding Claim 11 - Sheedy, Dunn, Jackson, Garnier and VacAero in the rejection of claim 1 above
teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Sheedy fails to teach wherein, the application of the matrix material comprises,
applying a first quantity of matrix material to the preform in a mold by atomic layer deposition,
wherein,
the first quantity of matrix material is sufficient to rigidize the preform such that it can
withstand free-standing;
removing the preform from the mold;
and applying a second quantity of matrix material to the preform in a free- standing position by
atomic layer deposition.
In the same field of endeavor as a method to making a ceramic matrix composite article, Kmetz teaches
for the traditional chemical vapor infiltration process, the matrix material is usually infiltrated until a
free-standing preform is obtained. Then, additional matrix material is infiltrated into the preform. “After
the interface coating has been deposited, the coated preform is either removed from the tooling at this
point or left in the tooling, depending on the thickness of the interface coating. If the preform is not
removed from the tooling, then the matrix material is usually infiltrated until there is sufficient ply-to-
ply bonding to hold the preform together. Once a free standing preform is obtained, additional matrix
material is infiltrated in the fiber preform” ([0009] lines 1-8).
Kmetz discloses the claimed invention except for its application for atomic layer deposition. As both
chemical vapor infiltration and atomic layer deposition are gaseous deposition processes with the intent
of applying a layer or coating of material on the surfaces of porous CMC preforms, it would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to use the method of Kmetz for the atomic layer deposition process of Sheedy, one being
motivated by obtaining high density, closed porosity, and matrix material around the fiber interface as
noted by Kmetz ([0009] lines 8-11). A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known
option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not
of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82
USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB20200157011A1 by Schmidt et. al. (herein “Schmidt”)
Regarding Claim 22 - Sheedy, Dunn, Jackson, Garnier and VacAero in the rejection of claim 1 above
teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
While the combination teaches a matrix material of particles that is applied to a CMC with a slurry
process, the combination fails to teach wherein,
at least one of the fibers, the matrix material, and the gettering particles are carbides or borides
selected from the group consisting of Group V metals.
In a similar endeavor of fabricating a ceramic matrix composite (CMC) that is infiltrated with a matrix
Material, Schmidt teaches a method of making a ceramic matrix composite (CMC) where coated
particles are part of a SiC matrix phase are infiltrated into the CMC ([0003], [0017], [0019], Fig. 2). The
coated particles are refractory metal particles coated with carbon or boron particles ( [0011],Fig. 1,
element 14). The suitable refractory metal for the refractory metal particles includes tantalum, niobium
and vanadium ([0012]). Once the coated particles are delivered to the CMC via liquid slurry and
infiltration, the particles are converted to refractory compounds in the ceramic matrix ([0016],
[0020],Fig. 3.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to use the coated particle of Schmidt in the matrix material , as one
would be motivated to do so for the purposes of a) providing for a more stable high temperature phase
in a composite structure than silicon carbide [0020], b) ability to control the desired stoichiometry of the
coatings to the particles (amount and material) and c) enable enhanced matrix thermal and physical
properties for CMC’s ([0022]).
Regarding Claim 23-25 - Sheedy, Dunn, Jackson, Garnier and VacAero in the rejection of claim 1 above
teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
wherein,
at least one of the fibers, the matrix material, and the gettering particles:
are carbides of vanadium or borides of vanadium (Claim 23)/ are carbides of tantalum or
borides of tantalum (Claim 24) / are carbides of niobium or borides of niobium (Claim 25).
Schmidt teaches the instant claim in Claim 22 previously.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to use any of the refractory metals of vanadium, tantalum or niobium in carbide or
boride form from the method of Schmidt in the method of the combination, one being motivated to do
so, for the motivation in Claim 22 as well as the common industrial practice of tailoring a product to the
required needs for performance. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
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 CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741