DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-13, drawn to apparatus, classified in C04B35/80.
II. Claims 14-20, drawn to method, classified in C23C16/52.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons:
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus is useable for a materially different process such as a surface treatment or etch process.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
- the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification,
- the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter, and
- the inventions require a different field of search (e.g. different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Mr. Erik Wright on December 2, 2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group 1, claims 1-13. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krebs (2010/0304146).
Krebs teaches a system comprising a reactor, comprising, see Figs. 1 and 12,
- an inlet for receiving a flow of gas, see 110 leading to reactor as depicted,
- an outlet for exiting the gas, see outlet, not specifically noted but on the downstream side of the object and
- a plurality of acoustic wave generators (102) to generate waves in the reactor – see also [0127]. Further in regard to the use of CVI – the use for CVI is intended use particularly wherein the apparatus is taught as useful for vapor deposition and the like [0002-03, 0099].
Regarding claim 11, wherein the gases are not limited, Krebs teaches any number of gases as per Fig. 1.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devlin (5,254,374) in view of Krebs.
Devlin teaches a CVI system, including:
- an inlet, see 20, and the system including a plasma source 7, and
- an outlet, see exhaust including pump 21.
The teachings do not include a plurality of acoustic wave generators, but Krebs, applied above, teachings that such generators are useful in systems such as thin film deposition systems (particularly plasma systems) for the benefits of such acoustic waves [0021]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the plurality of acoustic wave generators of Krebs to the system of Devlin for the noted reasons of improving the process.
Regarding claim 2, the substrate stack 6 comprises a plurality of perforated plates (col 4, lines 14-30). The Office holds that the circular yarn pieces meets the requirements of plates, but if it were determined that they do not, the Office takes Official Notice that in fact perforated plates are well known substrates for such CVI.
Regarding claim 3, there is some space above the substrates, without further structural limitations, this meets the requirements of the claimed mixing zone.
Regarding claims 4 – 6 and 8, there is no teaching per the combined art to position one generator in the premixing zone – but the intent of the generators are to impact the process as described, and as per MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. a rearrangement of parts is obvious without a showing of criticality. In this case it would have been obvious wherein the combined teachings are not limited to arrange one of the generators in any area such as the premixing area. The orientation in any particular direction (claims 5 and 8) is a further obvious rearrangement and is not critical.
Regarding claim 7, further to claim 6, to add additional acoustic wave generators would have been obvious wherein Krebs is not limiting on the number of generators and duplication of parts is obvious without a showing of criticality, MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. In this case, the additional generators perform the same function.
Regarding claim 11, the teachings include any number of gases as per Krebs above, but also at least two gases by Devlin as per Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 12, the two fluid lines are as depicted.
Regarding claim 13, the system includes transducer 22 and pump per Fig. 4.
Claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devlin (5,254,374) and Krebs in view of Kirkpatrick (2019/0092698).
Devlin teaches a CVI apparatus as noted – the apparatus does not have a plurality of perorated plates specifically as required by claim 9 to support a fibrous perform – as noted Devlin teaches a plurality of preforms (yarn) sitting on a plate assembly (col 5, lines 3-30), but does not provide further details. Kirkpatrick, however, teaches a CVI apparatus and includes that a stack of perforated plates to hold a plurality of preformed is an effective manner of treating substrates, Fig. 2 and particularly [0028]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the stack of plates and preform(s) of Kirkpatrick as Devlin is not limiting and Kirkpatrick teaches that the plurality of plates is an effective manner of holding such preforms for a CVI process (and particularly would allow for the treatment of multiple substrates at one time), specifically addressing claims 2 and 9.
Regarding claims 3-8, they are addressed as above and not repeated.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 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. While in general with the use of acoustic generators dampening efforts may be known, there is no specific reason to apply such effects in this application, particularly wherein not taught by Krebs or similar references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is (571)270-5825 and fax is (571)270-6825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Gordon Baldwin, can be reached on 571-272-5166. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715