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
In view of the amendment, filed on September 5th, 2025, the following are withdrawn from the previous office action, mailed on June 5th, 2025.
Objection of claim 8 due to minor informalities
Rejections of claims 8, 12 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in view of the amendments filed September 5th, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Jarrossay does not disclose “chopping excess or scrap coated continuous SiC fibers to produce chopped coated SiC fibers…wherein ends of the chopped coated SiC fibers are uncoated with a surface coating”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Jarrossay teaches excess or scrap continuous fibers can be chopped to produce chopped fibers ([0056]; crushing of textile scraps). The fibers undergoing this chopping process may be SiC fibers supplied under the name “Hi-Nicalon-S” by the Japanese company NGS. As evidenced by Hi-Nicalon Type S (NPL 1), these SiC fibers are supplied as continuous SiC fibers coated with a surface coating. Jarrossay states whatever the embodiment of the invention, the fibers supplied to form the chopped coated SiC fibers may be the continuous coated SiC fibers supplied under Hi-Nicalon-S. The grinding, cutting or crushing of textile scraps of these continuous coated SiC fibers produces the short discontinuous coated SiC fibers, wherein the ends of the short discontinuous coated SiC fibers would necessarily not have the coating on the ends as the coating happens before the grinding, cutting or crushing.
Applicant argues one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify the fibers to achieve fibers with uncoated ends because this feature of Jarrossay has no nexus to the proposed advantage. Examiner respectfully disagrees. "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." See MPEP 2123 (I). Furthermore, it is not necessary that the prior art suggest expressly or in so many words the changes or possible improvements the inventor made but that the knowledge be clearly present. See MPEP 2144 (II). In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143.01. In this case, the short discontinuous coated SiC fibers of Jarrossay do not have a coating on their ends and are used in providing a fiber-reinforced ceramic matrix composite that can adapt more easily to complex geometries and is resistant to high temperatures ([0009]).
Applicant argues examiner used impermissible hindsight to piece together the claimed features of claim 8. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Appellant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, 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 Appellant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See MPEP 2145 (X). The cited prior art references address all of the limitations of the claims and provide a rational and factual motivation for their hypothetical combination.
Applicant argues one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Sudre, in view of Jarrossay, with the teachings of Kameda to provide “chopped coated SiC fibers comprise at least 40 vol% of the powder composition” for the purposes of forming a “denser, more tough and reliable ceramic matrix composite”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." See MPEP 2123 (I). Furthermore, it is not necessary that the prior art suggest expressly or in so many words the changes or possible improvements the inventor made but that the knowledge be clearly present. See MPEP 2144 (II). In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143.01. In this case, Kameda states in specification column 9, paragraph 5, that “The foregoing examples show that the ceramic matrix composite material of the present invention can make a major improvement in the density of sinter, provided that a comparatively large amount of reinforcements are compounded in and deterioration of the reinforcements is suppressed. A ceramic matrix composite material thus can be provided, having a more toughness and more reliable SiC as the primary component of the matrix”. From this passage of Kameda one of ordinary skill in the art can recognize the recited volume percentage of the chopped coated SiC fibers (the reinforcements) improves the density, toughness and reliability of the formed ceramic matrix composite.
Applicant argues the claimed method provides a specific technical benefit not discussed in the prior art. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See MPEP 2145 (II).
Applicant’s amendments to the claims necessitate an updated grounds of rejection provided below.
Updated Grounds of Rejection
Claim Interpretation
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the chopped coated SiC fiber have a length comparable to a linear dimension of the SiC particles” in lines 7-8. This limitation is understood to mean the chopped coated SiC fibers have a length similar in size to a diameter or width of the SiC particles as per specification paragraph [00016] and the dictionary definition of the term “comparable”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudre (US 20230047461 A1), in view of Jarrossay et al. (WO 2022263740 A1; hereafter Jarrossay; paragraph numbers correspond to previously attached English machine translation), Kameda et al. (US 5510303 A; hereafter Kameda) and Shim et al. (US 20200123068 A1; hereafter Shim), and as evidenced by Bortoluzzi et al. (US 20210147303 A1; hereafter Bortoluzzi).
Regarding claim 8, Sudre discloses a method of producing a fiber-reinforced ceramic matrix composite ([0017, 0027]; making fiber-reinforced CMC), the method comprising:
delivering a powder composition ([0027]; providing ceramic particles) comprising SiC particles ([0020]; ceramic particles can be silicon carbide) and chopped coated SiC fibers ([0020-0022]; ceramic particles can be chopped fibers, SiC and coated with interphase or interfacial coating), wherein the chopped coated SiC fiber have a length comparable to a linear dimension of the SiC particles ([0020-0022]; ceramic particles can include a combination of one or more powders, powder aggregates and chopped fibers, wherein the ceramic particles can have an average diameter of less than about 100 microns, or between about 10 microns and 100 microns), and wherein the linear dimension is from about 10 microns to about 30 microns ([0021]; an average diameter of less than about 100 microns, or between about 10 microns and 100 microns; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05), via a slurry ([0023]; slurry) comprising the powder composition dispersed in a liquid ([0023]; ceramic particles can be suspended in water or alcohol for delivery into the preform), into a powder receptacle ([0023, 0027]; preform receives ceramic particles via slurry) configured for composite fabrication, wherein delivering the powder composition into the powder receptacle comprises slurry infiltration ([0023, 0036]; ceramic particles can be suspended in water or alcohol for delivery into the preform);
and after delivering the powder composition into the powder receptacle, densifying the SiC particles ([0027]; densifying the preform filled with SiC ceramic particles) to form a SiC matrix reinforced with the chopped coated SiC fibers, wherein densifying the SiC particles comprises infiltrating the powder receptacle ([0023, 0036]; ceramic particles can be suspended in water or alcohol for delivery into the preform) with a formulation comprising a preceramic polymer ([0017, 0039]; slurry comprising preceramic polymer), and pyrolyzing the formulation to convert the preceramic polymer to SiC ([0039]; slurry comprising SiC ceramic particles and preceramic polymer is pyrolyzed and would necessarily form SiC), thereby producing the fiber-reinforced ceramic matrix composite.
While Sudre does not explicitly disclose the method of producing a fiber-reinforced ceramic matrix composite can be used for repairing a repair region of the fiber-reinforced ceramic matrix composite, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the same method of Sudre used to produce a fiber-reinforced ceramic matrix composite would be able to repair damage done to the fiber-reinforced ceramic matrix composite. This is evidenced by Bortoluzzi wherein a similar process of applying a slurry ([0039)] comprising SiC particles ([0040]), carbon particles ([0040]) and short SiC fibers ([0040]; SiC fillers can be rod-shaped) to a fiber-reinforced ceramic matrix composite preform ([0032]) and densifying thereafter ([0047]) is used to repair a repair region of the fiber-reinforced ceramic matrix composite ([0033]; reworking with the slurry to repair). As such, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the method of producing a fiber-reinforced ceramic matrix composite of Sudre to repair a repair region of a previously formed fiber-reinforced ceramic matrix composite for the purposes of renewing the previously formed fiber-reinforced ceramic matrix composite for reuse.
While Sudre discloses the powder composition can include a combination of one or more powders, powder aggregates, and chopped fibers ([0021]), Sudre does not explicitly disclose chopping excess or scrap coated continuous SiC fibers to produce the chopped coated SiC fibers, the powder composition comprises silicon particles and carbon particles, ends of the chopped coated SiC fibers are uncoated with a surface coating, the chopped coated SiC fibers comprise at least 40 vol. % of the powder composition and the preceramic polymer is a silicon-based polymer.
However, Jarrossay teaches a method of producing a fiber-reinforced ceramic matrix composite ([0032, 0045]; making abradable coating comprising a ceramic matrix composite with fibrous reinforcement), the method comprising: chopping excess or scrap coated continuous SiC fibers to produce chopped coated SiC fibers ([0056, 0058, 0062]; grinding, cutting or crushing of textile scraps produces the short discontinuous SiC fibers which are coated), delivering a powder composition ([0067]) comprising SiC particles ([0067]; silicon carbide powder), the chopped coated SiC fibers ([0058, 0062]; short discontinuous SiC fibers can coated with interphase material) and silicon particles ([0067]; silicon powder), into or onto a powder receptacle configured for composite fabrication ([0061]; mixture is implemented in injection molding and therefore placed in a mold); after delivering the powder composition into or onto the powder receptacle, densifying ([0047]; densification after formation of preform from the mixture) the SiC particles to form a SiC matrix reinforced with the chopped coated SiC fibers, thereby producing the fiber-reinforced ceramic matrix composite. As the grinding, cutting or crushing of textile scraps produces the short discontinuous SiC fibers which are coated ([0056, 0058, 0062]), the SiC fibers of the textile scraps are coated before the grinding, cutting or crushing and therefore the ends of the short discontinuous SiC fibers would necessarily not have the coating on the ends.
Sudre and Jarrossay are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of ceramic matrix composite manufacture. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Sudre with the teachings of Jarrossay to provide chopping excess or scrap coated continuous SiC fibers to produce the chopped coated SiC fibers and ends of the chopped coated SiC fibers are uncoated with a surface coating. Doing so would provide a fiber-reinforced ceramic matrix composite that can adapt more easily to complex geometries and is resistant to high temperatures (Jarrossay [0009]).
Modified Sudre does not explicitly disclose the powder composition comprises silicon particles and carbon particles, the chopped coated SiC fibers comprise at least 40 vol. % of the powder composition and the preceramic polymer is a silicon-based polymer.
However, Kameda teaches a method of producing a fiber-reinforced ceramic matrix composite (Col. 2, 2nd ¶), the method comprising: delivering a powder composition (Col. 3, 7th ¶; matrix composition comprises various material reinforcements, including short fibers and particles) comprising SiC particles (Col. 4, 6th ¶; SiC powder), silicon particles (Col. 5, 7th ¶; silicon powder), carbon particles (Col. 4, 3rd ¶; carbon powder) and short SiC fibers (Col. 3, 7th ¶; short fibers can be SiC fibers), wherein the chopped coated SiC fibers comprise at least 40 vol. % of the powder composition (Col. 3, 8th ¶; volume ratio of short SiC fiber reinforcements is from about 20 to 75%; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05), via a slurry comprising the powder composition (Examples 1 and 11; matrix composition is inside a slurry) into or onto a powder receptacle configured for composite fabrication (Examples 1 and 11; slurry is filled into a mold with a preform); after delivering the powder composition into or onto the powder receptacle, densifying (Col. 6, 1st ¶; densifying by reaction sintering) the SiC particles to form a SiC matrix reinforced with the chopped coated SiC fibers, thereby producing the fiber-reinforced ceramic matrix composite.
Sudre and Kameda are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of ceramic matrix composite manufacture. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Sudre with the teachings of Kameda to provide the powder composition comprises silicon particles and carbon particles and the chopped coated SiC fibers comprise at least 40 vol. % of the powder composition. Doing so would result in denser, more tough and reliable fiber-reinforced ceramic matrix composites (Kameda Col. 9, 5th ¶).
Modified Sudre does not explicitly disclose the preceramic polymer is a silicon-based polymer.
However, Shim teaches a method of processing a ceramic matrix composite component ([0005]) by applying a formulation comprising a silicon-based polymer ([0014]; preceramic polymer may comprise polysiloxane) to a powder receptacle and pyrolyzing the formulation to convert the preceramic polymer to SiC ([0014]; the preceramic polymer is converted to silicon carbide by pyrolysis).
Sudre and Shim are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of ceramic matrix composite manufacture. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Sudre with the teachings of Shim to provide the preceramic polymer is a silicon-based polymer. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Doing so would reduce the concentration of free silicon and therefore avoid potentially detrimental reactions with other metallic elements and reduce the formation of low melting temperature phases (Shim [0004-0005]).
Regarding claim 21, modified Sudre discloses the method of claim 8.
Modified Sudre does not explicitly disclose a repaired region has a residual porosity of no greater than about 10 vol. %.
However, Sudre teaches that interlaminar and thermal properties of the ceramic matrix composite are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the desired packing density and porosity of the ceramic matrix composite ([0017]), wherein the size and shape of the particles of the powder composition can be selected to achieve effective densification ([0017]) and reduce residual porosity ([0002]; inventor aims to address problem with the prior art wherein residual porosity leads to poor thermal properties, early failure, and debonding). As the interlaminar and thermal properties of the ceramic matrix are improved by reducing the residual porosity ([0017]), the residual porosity would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the residual porosity to obtain the desired interlaminar and thermal properties of the ceramic matrix composite, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II). Furthermore, as evidenced by specification paragraph [0044] of Jarrossay, fiber-reinforced ceramic matrix composites composed of SiC particles and chopped coated SiC fibers having a residual porosity as low as 5% were known in the art before the time of invention.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Vipul Malik whose telephone number is (571)272-0976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Susan Leong can be reached on (571)270-1487. 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.
/V.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754