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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on November 21, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would not be a serious search burden because any search of claim 1 would require searching the same classifications required for claim 15. This is not found persuasive because requiring the Examiner to search both groups simultaneously would constitute a serious burden given the inventions cannot be searched simultaneous because the inventions require a different field of search (searching different class/subclasses or electronic resources, and/or employing different search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on November 21, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jessen (US 5,961,661).
Regarding claim 1, Jessen discloses a ceramic structure prepared by arranging tows of fugitive and reinforcing fibers parallel to each other to form a fiber preform, contacting the preform with a matrix precursor that deposits around the fibers, removing the preform from the precursor wherein the fibers are coated with precursor, drying the preform to solidify the precursor on the fibers and to convert the precursor to a matrix form and removing the fugitive fibers from the preform to form channels therein), see abstract. Note that the ceramic structure corresponds to a composite co-fiber and the fugitive fibers correspond to sacrificial yarns. The reference further discloses the fugitive fibers are removed by vaporization or other approaches such as chemical etching, see col. 3 lines 12-17.
Regarding claim 2, the reference discloses the reinforcing fibers can be made from materials selected from silicon carbide, alumina, and silicon nitride, see col. 2 lines 31-36.
Regarding claim 3, the reference discloses the fugitive fibers as a polymeric material, see col. 3 lines 12-15.
Regarding claim 4, note that claim 3 does not require ceramic or metal fibers. As such, the limitations of claim 4 regarding ceramic or metal fibers are not required to be met by the prior art given the prior art discloses polymeric fibers, see above discussion.
Regarding claim 5, given the reference discloses the fugitive fibers as a polymeric material, the reference is considered to disclose a thermoplastic and/or thermoset material, see col. 3 lines 12-15.
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 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jessen (US 5,961,661).
Regarding claim 6 and 7, the reference does not specifically disclose the claimed weight ratio of the fugitive fiber (i.e. sacrificial yarn). The reference does, however, disclose adjusting the amount and arrangement of fibers in order to maximize the strength of the structure, see col. 3 lines 18-52. Note that 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 amount of fugitive fibers in order to achieve the desired mechanical properties absent a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 8, the reference discloses the tows are arranged so that channels pass through the ceramic structure from one end thereof to the opposite, which renders an amount effective to create a percolating volume fraction, see col. 3 lines 53-67. Alternatively, the reference renders obvious an amount of up to 80% fugitive fibers by volume, which is considered to render obvious an amount effective to create a percolating volume fraction, see col. 3 lines 46-52.
Claims 9 and 12-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jessen (US 5,961,661) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Read (US 2020/0011190).
Jessen discloses the composite co-fiber of claim 1 comprising sacrificial yarn, see above discussion. The reference, however, fails to disclose that the sacrificial yarn is present in a larger amount at an outer periphery of the co-fiber relative to the amount present in the center of the composite co-fiber.
Read discloses a space filler for forming a fibrous preform comprising a ceramic material, see abstract. The ceramic material may define a plurality of pores with the pores forming a plurality of interconnected channels through the ceramic material, see abstract and [0005]. Additionally, the reference discloses that the ends of the ceramic material may comprises pores having a greater diameter as compared to pores in a middle or interior section [0047]. The density (or volume) of ceramic material may be greater in the interior section as compared to a density (or volume) of ceramic material at the ends [0047]. The increased pore volume may increase gas flow to the interior section and to interior areas of the preform during the densification process [0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for the structure of Jessen to have a larger amount of fugitive fibers at the outer periphery of the structure in order to have a high density of pores/channels formed during the removal of the fugitive fibers thereby allowing more gas flow to the interior areas during densification.
Regarding claims 12-14, Jessen fails to disclose the structure as the claimed articles.
Read discloses various components of a gas turbine engine may comprise ceramic matrix composites [0002]. Forming complex geometries using CMC can lead to spaces between regions or plies of the CMC preforms [0002]. Space fillers, sometimes referred to as “noodles,” may be utilized to fill theses spaces and maintain the preform shape [0002]. However, regions of CMCs in which space fillers are present tend to be thicker than the adjacent areas making densification more challenging [0002]. For example, space fillers are frequently fabricated from tow, and the fiber packing arrangement of the tow is different than the surrounding plies [0002]. The space filler may comprise a ceramic material defining a plurality of pores [0003].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for the structure of Jessen to be used as a space filler in gas turbine engines as a suitable structure for filling spaces formed by the complex geometries of CMCs used in the engines.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jessen (US 5,961,661) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harris (US 2019/0177240).
Jessen discloses the composite co-fiber of claim 1 comprising sacrificial yarn, see above discussion. The reference, however, fails to disclose that the sacrificial yarn as a water soluble polymer and as selected from the claimed polymers.
Harris discloses a method of making a ceramic tow that includes commingling a plurality of ceramic fibers with a fugitive fiber to form a single ceramic tow and then removing the fugitive fiber to form a porous ceramic preform, see abstract. Examples of the fugitive fiber include polyvinyl alcohol [0016].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for the fugitive fibers of Jessen to comprise PVA in order to provide a fugitive fiber capable of being nested between ceramic fibers and a fiber that decomposes at a temperature at which the ceramic fibers do not thermally decompose, see Harris [0016]. Note that polyvinyl alcohol corresponds to a water soluble polymer, see Applicant’s specification [0054].
Conclusion
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