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
Applicant’s amendments, filed 5/20/2026, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendment to claim 1 and 7, the cancellation of claims 2-6 and the addition of new claims 21-30. Claims 1, 7-12 and 21-30 are pending in the instant application. In view of the amendment to claim 7 the examiner has withdrawn the 35 USC 112 2nd paragraph rejection of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 5/20/2026, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the debulking at various stages “can reduce the migration of ceramic particles from intermediate or midplane zones … into the surface zones” is noted, but unpersuasive as mere recognition of additional benefits of debulking process well known in the prior art. "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." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
As cited herein, JP 333, also disclosing a CMC and laying up multiple prepregs, discloses preforms are formed by laying up multiple plies of prepreg and debulking to form the laminated preform (see Background, “The resulting multiple plies of prepreg are stacked and debulked to form a laminate preform, a process referred to as “lay-up”) and therefore taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to debulk as claimed, as such is a well-known process to form the CMC preform using multiple plies of pregregs.
For the sake of compact prosecution, examiner cites here GB-2507080-A, which discloses laying up pre-impregnated plies with resin (similar to that of JP 333 and JP 866) and discloses:
It is typically necessary to carry out consolidation and/or debulking of the material at set points during the deposition process. Such steps are taken to ensure a desired density and/or volume fraction of the composite product is achieved, at least in part by minimising any voids in the material, as well as to promote the intended substrate orientation and/or geometry. For some materials, typically for materials/components in which a high degree of precision is required, it is standard practice to carry out frequent debulking/consolidation processes. This is particularly the case when accuracy in the external dimensions and/or fibre volume fraction is required.
As is evident from GB 070, frequent debulking process is well known during the laying up process to ensure desire density and volume fraction of composite and control the voids therein.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-H0985866-A, hereinafter JP 866 taken collectively with JP 2007119333, hereinafter JP 333.
JP 866 discloses a method of forming a ceramic matrix composite (page 0002, “A ceramic matrix composite”), the method comprising: preparing a plurality of fibrous ceramic plies by: applying a binder solution loaded with ceramic particles to each of a first subset of plies (0011, “Prepreg 1 obtained by adding 30 wt% of C powder having an average particle size of 2 μm as a filler”); and applying the binder solution without ceramic particles to each of a second subset of plies (0011 “the filler-free prepreg 2 in which the open fiber material 3 ply is impregnated in phenol); arranging the plurality of plies to form a preform with a gradient along a thickness direction of the preform by: stacking the first subset of plies to form a first zone of the preform; and stacking individual ones of the second subset of the plies on both sides of the first zone to form a second zone on each side of the first zone, wherein loading of the ceramic particles is higher in the first zone than in the second zones (Examples, Figure 2 and accompanying text, 0011, “in which the pore ratio was increased from the center of the plate thickness to the outer surface in a tilted manner”); and densifying the preform with a ceramic matrix (CVI, see 0016, “When pulse CVI was carried out to deposit and fill SiC inside")
JP 866 generally discloses forming a CMC with a plurality of prepregs with varying filler amounts; however, fails to explicitly discloses the claimed third zone. However, JP 866 discloses “producing a tilted pore composite material preform in which the pore ratio is gradually increased from the center of the plate thickness to the outer surface.” And arranging multiple zones with multiple varying particles amounts and porosity to produce the gradient in the pores from the surface to the center. JP 866 discloses the particle loading will affecting the porosity, the more particles the less porosity and the desire to form a prepreg with pore gradient/particle loading gradient. As such, JP 866 explicitly disclose the particle loading is a result effective variable, directly affecting the porosity suitable for further processing. Therefore taking the level of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, as the goal is to provide porosity gradient from the center to the exterior (with exterior with no particles), it would have been obvious to have included a middle ply (claimed third zone) with a controlled/varying amount of filler to achieve the benefit of providing a porosity gradient from the outer no filler plies (highest porosity) to the central plies (lowest porosity).
Additionally, as noted above, the prior art discloses a first, second and third zone as claimed (see Figures) and explicitly illustrates the desire of porosity gradient and the effect of the ply filler loading on the porosity and therefore determination on the particle loading and therefore taking the reference for its entire teaching and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art it would have been obvious to determine the particle loading of the first, second and third zones as claimed through routine experimentation to properly provide the desired porosity gradient for CVI applications.
JP 866 discloses all that is taught above and discloses laying up preformed to form a CMC of multiple layers of prepregs; however, fails to disclose debulking. However, JP 333, also disclosing a CMC and laying up multiple prepregs, discloses preforms are formed by laying up multiple plies of prepreg and debulking to form the laminated preform (see Background, “The resulting multiple plies of prepreg are stacked and debulked to form a laminate preform, a process referred to as “lay-up”) and therefore taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to debulk as claimed, as such is a well-known process to form the CMC preform using multiple plies of pregregs.
Claim 8: JP 866 discloses CVI (CVI, see 0016, “When pulse CVI was carried out to deposit and fill SiC inside").
Claim 10: JP 866 discloses fillers includes e.g. SiC, BC, alumina (“ filler for reducing the pore ratio is C powder that does not evaporate even when fired, carbides such as SiC, TiC, and B4 C, nitrides such as ZrN and TiN, Al2 O3, and Y2” )
Claim 12: JP 866 discloses each of the first subset and the second subset of plies are impregnated with the binder solution (example).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 866 taken collectively with US Patent 10443386 by Matsumoto et al.
JP 866 with JP 333 discloses CMC layup using a slurry of polymer binder alone or with ceramic particles to form prepregs; however, fails to disclose the claimed binder solution. However, Matsumoto, also in the art of CMC prepreg layup by laying up formed prepregs (Figure 4 and accompanying text, abstract) and discloses forming prepregs and discloses the tows are impregnated with a slurry of a organic binder, solvent ceramic particles (see column 6, lines 30-65 binders with ceramic particles included at column 7, lines 14-25). Matsumoto discloses the slurry can include PVA or PVB in a solvent and including what can reasonably be considered the broadly drafted “dispersant” (see column 7, line 20-65, column 8, lines 4-45, e.g. precursor, plasticizer and/or part of the solvent can be considered a dispersant). As such, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to have utilized the binder slurry as outlined by Matsumoto with a reasonable expectation of predictable results, as JP 866 discloses plies impregnated with binder slurry with particles and Matsumoto discloses binder slurry for impregnation of plies include a binder slurry including PVA or PVB, solvent and dispersant.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 866 with JP 333 taken collectively with WO 2020209848 A1, hereinafter WO 848.
JP 866 with JP 333 discloses all that is taught above and discloses impregnation with a slurry/binder; however fails to disclose spraying and pipetting technique. However, WO 848 discloses tows for forming CMC can be include tows impregnated by a polymer binder slurry with filler ceramic particles via a bath or spray impregnation (0005, 0006) and therefore using the known and suitable technique for applying the binder to impregnate the tows prior to the layup process would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. A predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to achieve a predictable result is prima facie obvious. See KSR Int’l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-30 are allowed.
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the cited or reviewed prior art discloses or makes obvious removing particles that have migrated to the second zone during debulking by brushing technique or pressurized stream of air as instantly claimed when taking the totality of the claims into consideration (i.e. second subset of plies without particles in second zone and first subset with particles in first zone and stacking a debulking as claimed).
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 DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights