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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 requires all limitations of claim 11 and has two issues of indefiniteness. First, “the woven ceramic material” lacks sufficient antecedent basis, because amended claim 11 no longer recites “the woven ceramic material”. It is presumed that Applicant intends to recite “woven ceramic fiber tows”.
Next, as amended, claim 11 expressly requires absence of ceramic matrix material from the fiber tows of the fibrous preform. This contradicts the recitation in claim 17 requiring ceramic matrix to be deposited on and around the woven ceramic [fiber tows]. It is noted that claim 17 is not recited as further transforming the preform of claim 11; rather, it simultaneous requires absence of ceramic matrix and then requires the presence of ceramic matrix. The claim is thus self-contradictory and indefinite. Claim 17 will be interpreted as if it requires further transformation of the article of claim 11.
As claims 18-20 depend on claim 17, and as the respective limitations of the dependent claims do not resolve the aforementioned issue in claim 17, claims 18-20 are also held to be rejected.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 11-16 and 21; and claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over U.S. 2016/0229755 A1 (“Luthra”) per se or further in view of U.S. 2020/0130256 A1 (“Debora”).
Considering claims 11 and 12, Luthra discloses a method of densifying a ceramic matrix composite preform to obtain a ceramic matrix composite (CMC), the method comprising forming a plurality of holes in a preform and subsequently densifying the preform via chemical vapor infiltration (CVI) as to fill both pores present within the preform and in the holes formed in the preform. (Luthra abs. and ¶ 0011). Luthra is analogous art, for it is directed to the same field of endeavor as that of the instant application (CMC).
Luthra discloses that the preform may be in the form of a cloth (viz. woven) layup, in particular ones formed using long fibers of silica carbide. (Id. ¶ 0011, 0025, 0032, and 0042). While not expressly stated in Luthra, Luthra expressly states that the CMC of its disclosure is a continuous fiber reinforced composite (CFCC) and refers to the disclosure of U.S. 7,837,914 (“U.S. ‘914”) re: particular procedures for densifying a preform via CVI to form a SiC-SiC composite. (Id. ¶ 0042, which expressly incorporates by reference teachings of U.S. 7,837,914). As noted in U.S. ‘914, the preform of a CFCC utilizes bundled tows that are woven to formed into a preform, each tow containing a plurality of bundled continuous fibers. (U.S. ‘914 col. 1 line 36-46). As Luthra expressly discloses that its final CMC can be in the form of CFCC, as Luthra discloses the usage of woven preform, and as Luthra incorporates by reference the teachings of U.S. ‘914, the usage of woven fiber tows is considered to be either disclosed with sufficient specificity or alternatively obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of CMC materials, as such a configuration is deemed as background circa the time when application resulting in U.S. ‘914 was filed.
Luthra discloses that each of the holes can 1) be tapered, with larger diameter at the face of the preform and 2) traverse the entire thickness of the preform. (Luthra ¶¶ 0011 and 0032). Taken together, Luthra is considered to have suggested through holes, each of which traversing the entire thickness of the preform and having cross-sectional diameter decreasing as a function of moving further inward of the respective faces of the preform. This thus reads on claims 11 and 12; and claims 17 and 19.
If the foregoing were contested (which is not conceded), it is noted that from the field of composite materials in which a foraminous structure has its through holes filled by another material deposited into the through holes, the tapering of hole cross section diameter moving from opposing surfaces toward an interior is advantageous in achieving both even distribution of deposited material throughout the through hole and improved locking and anchoring between the foraminous structure disparate materials. (Debora ¶¶ 0154-0156). Debora is analogous art, for it is directed to the same field of endeavor as that of the instant application (filled foraminous structures); alternatively, it is analog for attempting to solve an issue solved by the Instant Application (even deposition of material into a through hole). It would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the claimed invention, to have made the through holes in Luthra ones where cross-sectional diameter decreases as a function of moving further inward of the respective faces of the preform, for the advantages mentioned in Debora.
Luthra per se or Luthra in view of Debora renders obvious claims 11 and 12; and claims 17 and 19.
Considering claims 13 and 21, Luthra discloses holes having cross-section shape of circle oval, square, or rectangle. (Id. ¶ 0036). Thus, at least top sides can be straight or curved.
Considering claim 14, Luthra discloses center to center hole spacing of ~0.14 to ~0.45 mm. Some of these fall within the claimed range, while others overlap the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. (See In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379; MPEP § 2144.05).
Considering claim 15, Luthra discloses hole cross-sectional diameter of 50 to 200 µm. (Luthra ¶ 0034). This range overlaps the claimed range.
Considering claim 16, although Luthra does not disclose specific dimensions of the through hole at its narrowest point, as noted in the discussion above, the constriction of diameter affects anchoring of the material deposited into each through hole. It is readily apparent that a lack of sufficient constriction in width at a center of the through hole would not result in as great an interlocking effect, while overly restrictive reduction in cross-sectional width affects passage of material during deposition. Silence of a reference on a quantitative limitation when the reference discloses the general characteristic is not deemed to support patentability unless there is evidence indicating such quantitative limitation is critical. “[W]here 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”; MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Considering claim 18, Luthra discloses that even with cylindrical through holes, densification to porosity below 10% is possible. (Luthra Fig. 2B).
Considering claim 20, Luthra discloses that its CMC is suitable as a turbine component. (Id. ¶ 0002-0004). It is known in the art to deposit of a TBC upon a CMC used as turbine component. (U.S. 7,306,826 col. 1 line 26-34, with U.S. 7,306,826 incorporated by reference into Luthra).
Response to Arguments
In view of amendments to claims 11 and 17, the previously applied prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
Concluding Remarks
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 Zheren Jim Yang whose telephone number is (571)272-6604. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 - 7:30 ET.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/Z. Jim Yang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights