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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 1-4, filed 11/03/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) Fouquet and separately Heidenreich have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Fouquet et al. (US 2016003106 A1), herein Fouquet, in view of Chyung et al. (US 4808460 A), herein Chyung and Heidenreich et al. (EP 3050862 A2) [IDs dated:], herein Heidenreich, in view of Chyung et al. (US 4808460 A), herein Chyung. Chyung is used to teach the use of an adhesive tape.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 8, 12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fouquet et al. (US 2016003106 A1) [IDs dated: 09/04/2024], herein Fouquet, in view of Chyung et al. (US 4808460 A), herein Chyung.
In regards to claims 1 and 16, Fouquet teaches a method of assembling a composite panel comprising disposing an adhesive comprising at least a ceramic precursor resin (i.e., a pliable matrix material) between a ceramic cellular core with hollow cells and the first and second CMC skin sheets [Abstract, 0006, 0018, 0022, 0069, Claims 1, 4, Figs. 1, 11]. After assembly, the sandwich panel is further densified via CVI and bonded together [0006, 0015, 0066].
Fouquet does not expressly teach the adhesive is applied as a tape.
Chyung teaches composite honeycomb core panels comprising ceramics [Abstract]. Chyung teaches the skin elements and the honeycomb core are bonded together with an adhesive tape composition or paste [Col 2 lines 7-35, Col 6 lines 34-41].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have applied the adhesive of Fouquet as a tape as taught by Chyung. One would have been motivated to do so as it would have been applying a known method to improve products in the same way. Further, as it is a known method of adhesive application one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claim 2, Fouquet further teaches the adhesive comprises a ceramic precursor resin, solid filler constituted by a powder of a refractory material, SiC, and a liquid carrier to form a slurry [0063].
In regards to claim 8, modified Fouquet further teaches the adhesive is applied as a slurry tape prior to joining with the skins as such it is expected that fillets will form between the core and the skin sheets [0063].
Alternatively, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have ensured that fillets are formed with the adhesive between the core and the skin sheets. One would have been motivated to do so to improve the adhesive strength between the core and the skins.
In regards to claim 12, Fouquet further teaches the densification is carried out via chemical vapor infiltration [Abstract, 0006, claims 1, 10].
In regards to claim 15, Fouquet further teaches the cellular core wherein the plurality of walls are unitarily and monolithically formed to define the plurality of hollow cells [ 0053, Fig.3 ].
Claims 1, 8, 10-11 and 15-16 are rejected re rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heidenreich et al. (EP 3050862 A2) [IDs dated: 09/04/2024], herein Heidenreich, in view of Chyung et al. (US 4808460 A), herein Chyung.
The Examiner has previously provided a machine translation of (EP 3050862 A2). The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
In regards to claim 1 and 16, Heidenreich teaches a method making a carbide-ceramic component having a sandwich structure [0002, Fig. 1]. The method comprises disposing a joining paste which forms a connection between the cover plates and the core structure body [0034-0035, 0147]. The component is densified after joining via Si liquid infiltration [0148-0149, 0151]. The cover plates and core are produced from C/C-SiC composite which is a CMC material [0077]. The core is a honeycomb [claim 15, 0022, 0132-0134, 0141-0144].
Heidenreich does not expressly teach the adhesive is applied as a tape.
Chyung teaches composite honeycomb core panels comprising ceramics [Abstract]. Chyung teaches the skin elements and the honeycomb core are bonded together with an adhesive tape composition or paste [Col 2 lines 7-35, Col 6 lines 34-41].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have applied the adhesive of Heidenreich as a tape as taught by Chyung. One would have been motivated to do so as it would have been applying a known method to improve products in the same way. Further, as it is a known method of adhesive application one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claim 8, Heidenreich further teaches a fillet is formed comprising the joining paste between the walls of the core and the cover plates [0035, 0040-0041, Fig. 11(c)].
In regards to claims 10-11, Heidenreich further teaches the component is densified after joining via Si liquid infiltration [0148-0149, 0151].
In regards to claim 15, Heidenreich further teaches the cellular core wherein the plurality of walls are unitarily and monolithically formed to define the plurality of hollow cells [claim 15, 0022, 0132-0134, 0141-0144].
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Heidenreich et al. (EP 3050862 A2) [IDs dated: 09/04/2024], herein Heidenreich, in view of Chyung et al. (US 4808460 A), herein Chyung, as applied to claim above 1, and further in view of Polster et al. (US 201400449791) [IDs dated: 09/04/2024], herein Polster.
In regards to claims 2 and 6, Heidenreich does not teach that a liquid is present in the binding paste/tape.
Polster teaches a binding material for carbon composite materials together at their surfaces[Abstract].
Polster teaches the binding material comprises 5 to 50 wt% water, 20 to 80% wt% SiC and 10 to 55% wt% polymer adhesive [Claim 8, 0021, 0022]. Polster teaches it is the water that changes the viscosity of the joining compound and by being present in the described amount lends itself well to being easily applied and producing good results [0023].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formulated the joining paste/tape of modified Heidenreich with water as taught by Polster. One would have been motivated to do so to adjust the viscosity of the joining paste of Heidenreich for easy application while still producing good results. The range of water is expected to overlap the range of the vol% set forth in claim 6.
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).
In regards to claim 3 , Heidenreich does not teach the amount of C powder present in the joining paste. However, Heidenreich teaches the viscosity can be adjusted based on the amount [0042]. Further, the amount of carbon present would affect the overall adhesive properties of the paste.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the amount of C powder for the intended application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
A particular parameter can be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05.II.B.).
It has been held that the discovery of the optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill in the art. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In regards to claim 4, Heidenreich further teaches the powder comprises C and SiC [0042].
In regards to claim 5 , Heidenreich does not teach the amount of C powder present in the joining paste nor the amount of the SiC. However, Heidenreich teaches the viscosity can be adjusted based on the amount of the powders present [0042]. Further, the amount of carbon and SiC present would affect the overall adhesive properties of the paste.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the amount of C powder and SiC powder for the intended application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
A particular parameter can be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05.II.B.).
It has been held that the discovery of the optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill in the art. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Fouquet et al. (US 2016003106 A1) [IDs dated: 09/04/2024], herein Fouquet, in view of Chyung et al. (US 4808460 A), herein Chyung, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kittleson et al. (US 20170122114 A1), herein Kittleson.
In regards to claim 10, Fouquet does not expressly teach that the densification process comprises densifying via melt infiltration.
Kittleson teaches CMC components and methods of producing CMC components [Abstract].
Kittleson teaches that the densification of the CMC components can take place via melt infiltration (MI) or chemical vapor infiltration (CVI) [0031].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the melt infiltration process of Kittleson as the densification process of Fouquet. One would have been motivated to do so as it would have been the use of a known process to improve a similar process/product and yield predictable results.
In regards to claim 13, Fouquet does not expressly teach that the densification process comprises densifying via polymer inflation pyrolysis (PIP).
Kittleson teaches CMC components and methods of producing CMC components [Abstract].
Kittleson teaches that the densification of the CMC components can take place polymer inflation pyrolysis (PIP) or chemical vapor infiltration (CVI) [0031].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the polymer infiltration process of Kittleson as the densification process of Fouquet. One would have been motivated to do so as it would have been the use of a known process to improve a similar process/product and yield predictable results.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Fouquet et al. (US 2016003106 A1) [IDs dated: 09/04/2024], herein Fouquet, in view of Chyung et al. (US 4808460 A), herein Chyung, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hull et al. (US 20180281339 A1), herein Hull.
In regards to claims 14 and 15, Fouquet does not teach that the ceramic cellular core is additively manufactured.
Hull teaches light weight ceramic honeycombs that are additively manufactured [Abstract, 0025, 0028, 0037, Figs. 2-3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the additively manufactured ceramic core of Hull as the cellular core of Fouquet. One would have been motivated to do so as it would have been the simple substitution of one ceramic honeycomb core for another and thus one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. The core of modified Fouquet then has cell walls that are unitarily and monolithically formed.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Heidenreich et al. (EP 3050862 A2) [IDs dated: 09/04/2024], herein Heidenreich, in view of Chyung et al. (US 4808460 A), herein Chyung, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hull et al. (US 20180281339 A1), herein Hull.
In regards to claims 14 and 15, Heidenreich does not teach that the ceramic cellular core is additively manufactured.
Hull teaches light weight ceramic honeycombs that are additively manufactured [Abstract, 0025, 0028, 0037, Figs. 2-3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the additively manufactured ceramic core of Hull as the cellular core of Heidenreich. One would have been motivated to do so as it would have been the simple substitution of one ceramic honeycomb core for another and thus one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. The core of modified Heidenreich then has cell walls that are unitarily and monolithically formed.
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 ELIZABETH A COLLISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1019. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9 am-5 pm.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/ELIZABETH COLLISTER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784