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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The amendment October 10, 2025 has been received and entered. With the entry of the amendment, claims 2, 6, 7 and 14-20 are canceled, and claims 1, 3-5, 8-13 and new claims 21-29 are pending for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on June 25, 2024 is acknowledged.
It is noted that non-elected claims 14-20 are canceled by the amendment of October 10, 2025.
Specification
The objection to the disclosure because at page 1 of the specification, it should be clarified that parent application 16/240,062 is now US Patent No. 11,760,696 is withdrawn due to the amendment of December 18, 2024 making this amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-12, 21, 22 and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 and claim 28 provide that “CMC material includes a total volume, the plurality of first fibers comprise at least 30% of the total volume, the matrix comprises at least 30% of the total volume”. However, the support for these ranges in the disclosure as filed would be at Table 1 of the specification, where examples are given with the CMC fiber at 30 vol% and 40 vol% and the matrix at 30 vol% and 40 vol%. However, other values are not tested, so it is not supported that a range of “at least 30” in general is supported for both the first fibers and the matrix, and the claim contains new matter.
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.
Claim 27 is 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 27 has that the first CTE increasing additive is provided as particles, but parent claim 26 has the first CTE increasing additive is provided as fibers, and claim 27 has that the second CTE increasing additive is provided as fibers, but parent claim 26 has the second CTE increasing additive is provided as particles. This is unclear and indefinite. Did applicant mean that (1) claim 27 is supposed to depend from claim 25, and have opposite requirements than claim 26? (2) Did applicant mean that for claim 27, each CTE increasing additive has both fibers and particles? For the purpose of examination, either is understood to meet the claim requirements, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
The dependent claims do not cure the defects of the claims from which they depend and are therefore also rejected.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 10-12 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim et al (US 2017/0313629) in view of Kumagawa et al (US 6582650) and Nakayasu (US 2001/0008865), EITHER alone OR optionally as evidenced by Rozman et al (US 2011/0128707), Cabal et al (US 2005/0046672), and Nienburg et al (US 2010/0330282).
Claim 1, 10, 11, 23, 24: Shim provides a method of producing a ceramic matrix composite (CMC) material component (note 0004), where a CMC material is produced with providing a plurality of first fibers comprising a first material (such as SiC or silicon nitride, Si3N4) which would have a first coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) value (as noted as a material with such CTE by claim 10, for SiC for example) (note 0016-0018). A matrix is incorporated with the plurality of first fibers, where the matrix comprises a second material (also SiC, for example, note particles 14, for example), having a second CTE value (note 0020, 0027, 0029, 0032). Shim further indicates that a least one CTE increasing additive (such as Al2O3, alumina) having a third CTE value (note alumina as the additive as desired by claims 10, 11) is incorporated in the component (with the materials as above), where the third CTE value can be greater than that of the first CTE value and the second CTE value (when the first and second materials are SiC, for example, noting the materials used in present claims 10, 11 indicating alumina with a greater CTE than SiC) (note 0018, 0020 combinations of Al2O3 and SiC can be used, and note additionally particles 16 in layer 17 also with the same combination of Al2O3 and SiC can be used, 0027, 0032, figure 1, giving a component of the CMC incorporated into the matrix), therefore, a CTE value of CMC material with the first fibers, CTE increasing additive and matrix could be higher than the CTE value of just the matrix and first fibers. An environmental barrier coating (EBC) can be disposed on at least one exposed surface of the modified CMC material, the EBC having a fourth CTE value that can be made of a rare earth monosilicate (note 0048, and would have a CTE value as a specific material, and note EBC material is as desired by claim 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shim to specifically optimize the amount of SiC and alumina used for particles 14, 16 to optimize the amount of each of the materials for the specific article used and the amount present would therefore be large enough to be understood to raise the CTE value of the CMC above the first CTE value or the second CTE value (that is, over that of SiC, and a CMC with just first fibers and matrix). "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Optionally, using the evidentiary references, Shim provides as noted above that the fiber material can be SiC or silicon nitride, and the matrix material can be SiC, and the additive can be alumina. Rozman evidences SiC CTE value of about 4x10-6/oC (note 0014) and alumina value CTE value of about 7 x 10-6/oC (note 0014). Cabal evidences Si3N4 (silicon nitride) CTE value of about 1.55 x10-6/oK (0099). Thus, alumina would be understood to have a CTE value above materials given as optional for the first fibers and matrix material, and an initial CMC material made from the first and second materials would have a lower CTE value than the modified CMC made with the amount of alumina described for use above, as the higher value CTE of the alumina would raise the CTE of the modified CMC, and with the value raised would have a modified CMC CTE value greater than the first or second CTE value.
As to the CTE increasing additive incorporated into the plurality of first fibers, as discussed for claim 1 above, Shim also describes using fibers composed of one or more the listed materials, which includes SiC, silicon nitride and Al2O3 (note 0018).
Moreover, Kumagawa teaches forming silicon carbide fibers, which are conventionally used for reinforcement for ceramics, where such is used in severe environments in an oxidizing atmosphere (note column 1,lines 5-50), where the formed fibers are excellent in oxidation resistance with the containing of oxides (note column 1, lines 45-68), where metal oxide in the form of particles is dispersed/contained in the SiC fiber (that is, incorporated in the fiber itself) (note column 4, lines 1-30, column 3, lines 15-30). The oxide material in the fibers can be alumina (note metal oxide of Al, column 3, lines 1-10, and note example containing alumina at column 6, lines 45-68). The amount of the oxide can be 1-45 wt% of the fiber (note column 3, lines 15-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shim, EITHER alone OR further as evidenced by Rozman and Cabal to use a fiber with incorporated alumina as the silicon nitride fiber material for the CMC as suggested by Kumagawa to provide beneficial further oxygen resistance for the CMC, since Shim indicates that alumina as well as SiC/silicon nitride can be used for the fibers in the CMC if desired, and Kumagawa indicates that when providing SiC reinforcement fibers, it is desirable to actually incorporate alumina in the fibers for desirable oxygen resistance, where similar results would be expected for silicon nitride fibers since used for the same fiber reinforcement. Furthermore, alumina can be considered as the “at least one CTE increasing additive” (as discussed above for claim 1), and the amount of alumina present would be large enough to be understood to raise the CTE value of the CMC above the first CTE value and the second CTE value (that is, over that of SiC and silicon nitride) and the initial CMC as discussed above, and the amount selected above with the desire for alumina and SiC to be present. The CMC material made with the first fibers with CTE increasing additive incorporated in the fibers and the matrix would provide a modified CMC as claimed.
Additionally, as to specifically providing that the modified CMC material includes a total volume, with the plurality of first fibers comprising at least 30 % of the total volume, the matrix comprises at least 30 % of the total volume and the at least one CTE increasing additive comprises 30% of the total volume (claim 1) and the ranges of claims 23, 24,, as discussed above fibers can be provided, CTE increasing additive (including particles that would be in the fibers) and matrix material. Kumagawa indicates that the fibers can contain 1-45 wt% oxide (the alumina, for example) (note column 3, lines 15-40). As discussed for Shim, there can also be alumina particles in pores (note 0020).
Furthermore, Nakayasu describes forming ceramic matrix composites (note the abstract) with desirable high strength, heat resistance, oxidation resistance, etc. (note 0007), where the composite has inorganic fiber for reinforcement, where the fiber can be silicon carbide, silicon nitride, alumina, etc. (note 0047), and where the ceramic can include a matrix of SiC and also oxide such as alumina (note 0011-0015). It is described that the oxide phase (alumina, for example) can be present in an amount of 1-80 wt% (note 0023) and be present as particles or a continuous phase (note 0015) and even as fibers (note 0047) and the inorganic fiber can be present in an amount of 5-85 vol% based on the total CMC (note 0049).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shim in view of Kumagawa, EITHER alone OR further as evidenced by Rozman and Cabal to optimize the amount of each of the materials (first fibers, CTE increasing additive, and matrix) as suggested by Nakayasu to provide a desirable CMC composition, since Shim would indicate how Shim and Kumagawa would suggest how first fibers can be present, additional CTE increasing additive (including in the fibers) and a matrix material, and Nakayasu indicates relative amounts of materials that can be used for desirable CMCs, indicating that one would optimize the specific amounts of each material to provide a desirable product, where the amount of the fiber material can be 5-85 vol% of the total CMC (which would overlap the claimed range) and it would have been obvious to optimize from this range giving a range of at least 30 vol% (in the range of claim 1), and also the 30 vol% of claim 23 and 40 vol% of claim 24. Furthermore, as to the vol% of the amount of the CTE increasing additive such as alumina and the matrix such as SiC, the total of these would include volume that is not the fibers (not including the incorporated CTE increasing additive), and noting how Nakayasu indicates how there is a desirable portion of the additive oxides, one would further be suggested to optimize the amount of each of the CTE increasing additive and matrix, and as well, Kumagawa indicates that the amount of the fiber that is the CTE increasing additive can also be optimized, giving a value in the claimed ranges of claims 1, 23 and 24. The combination would provide all the features of claims 1, 10, 11, 23 and 24.
Claims 10, 12: furthermore, as to the CTE increasing additive being ZrO2-Y2O3, when following the teaching of Kumagawa as discussed for claims 1, 11 above, Kumagawa would suggest using alumina, but as to using zirconia material instead, Kumagawa notes that the metal oxide material in the SiC fibers can be alumina (Al oxide), zirconia (Zr oxide), yttria (Y oxide) or composite oxides of the listed materials (note column 3, lines 1-10), and therefore, it would be expected that instead of alumina, a composite oxide of Zr and Y (that is ZrO2-Y2O3) would be acceptably used for the oxidation resistance additive. The zirconia-yttria material would be understood to have a higher CTE value than the first or second CTE value (of SiC for example) and the initial CMC, noting claims 10, 12). Additionally, Nakayasu also notes that oxides of aluminum, yttrium and zirconia can be used, and including showing oxides in combination (note 0013).
Optionally, using evidentiary references, CTE values of SiC, alumina, silicon nitride from evidentiary references are noted above. Nienburg evidences that ytrria stabilized zirconia CTE value of 10-12.5 x 10-6/K (note 0017-0018). Thus, zirconia-yttria material would be understood to have a higher CTE value than the first or second CTE value (of SiC and carbon/silicon nitride), noting claims 10, 12 and the discussion for claim 1).
Therefore, for the same reasons as in claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shim in view of Kumagawa and Nakayasu, EITHER alone OR as evidenced by Rozman, Cabal and Nienburg to use a fiber with incorporated ZrO2-Y2O3 (zirconia-yttria) as the fiber material for the CMC as suggested by Kumagawa to provide beneficial further oxygen resistance for the CMC, since Shim indicates that alumina or silicon nitride as well as SiC can be used for the fibers provided in the CMC if desired (note 0018), and Kumagawa indicates that when providing reinforcement fibers, it is desirable to actually incorporate zirconia and yttria (including in the form of composite oxides) in the fibers for oxygen resistance as well as alumina. Furthermore, ZrO2-Y2O3 can be considered as the “at least one CTE increasing additive” (noting clam 12), and since Kumagawa indicates that 1-45 wt% of the fibers can be the oxide material, it would have been obvious to optimize the amount of each of the materials from the ranges given, and the amount of fiber present for the specific article and the amount of ZrO2-Y2O3 present would therefore be large enough to be understood to raise the CTE value of the CMC above the first CTE value or the second CTE value (that is, over that of SiC and silicon nitride) and give the CTE of the modified CMC material greater than that the of the initial CMC material CTE. This would give the features of both claims 1, 10 and 12.
Claim 21: as to incorporating the at least one CTE additive into the first fibers to unite the fibers with the additive to form an integrated whole, Kumagawa would suggest such an integrated whole, since the oxide material is contained in the fiber (note column 1, lines 60-68).
Claim 22: As to also providing incorporating the CTE increasing additive into the fibers comprising weaving the additive with the fibers to form plies, Shim further teaches weaving the fibers (which can include alumina and SiC, for example) since the reinforcement material can be provided as layers (plies) of woven fabric (note 0018).
Claims 3-5, and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim in view of Kumagawa and Nakayasu, EITHER alone OR further as evidenced by Rozman, Cabal and Nienburg as applied to claims 1, 10-12 and 21-24 above, and further in view of Kirby et al (US 2013/0167374).
Claims 3-5, 25-27: as to the CTE increasing additive (as a first additive) provided as fibers incorporated with the plurality of first fibers to provide a plurality of fiber tows and are incorporated into the modified CMC, and where a second additive (second CTE increasing additive) is incorporated into the matrix, where the second additive is incorporated into the material in particulate form, Shim provides alumina particles (which here can be considered the second additive) where the alumina is incorporated into the matrix in particulate form (note the discussion for claims 1 and 10-12 above). As to additionally having alumina fibers as the first CTE increasing additive, Shim also indicates that a CTE increasing additive of alumina in the form of fibers can be incorporated in the component, where the third CTE value would be greater than that of the first CTE value and the second CTE value (noting the materials used in present claim 10) (note 0018, a fiber combination of SiC or silicon nitride and alumina can be used in the CMC, since “one or more of the materials listed above” can be used, which would include both SiC and alumina).
As to further incorporating the alumina fibers with the first fibers of SiC or silicon nitride to produce a plurality of fiber tows, Kirby describes forming CMCs using SiC fibers with a ceramic matrix (note 0012-0014), where when providing the fibers to be incorporated into the matrix, the fibers are provided as a plurality tows made up of individual fibers (note 0020-0021, figure 1), where to provide such tows, the individual fibers would have to be combined/incorporated to form the final tow structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shim in view of Kumagawa and Nakayasu, EITHER alone OR further as evidenced by Rozman, Cabal and Nienburg to provide multiple individual alumina and SiC/silicon nitride fibers and incorporate/combine both alumina fibers and SiC/silicon nitride fibers together to produce a plurality of tows of combined material as suggested by Kirby with an expectation of forming a desirable CMC, since Shim indicates that both alumina and SiC/silicon ntride can be used for the fibers can be used to make the CMC, and Kirby indicates that when making a CMC, individual fibers can first be combined/incorporated together to form a plurality of tows used to provide the fibers for the CMC, indicating how individual fibers can be provided and combined, and it would further have been obvious to provide the individual tows with both alumina and SiC/silicon nitride fibers incorporated so that a consistent product is formed with both SiC/silicon nitride and alumina fibers (giving the features of both fibers) evenly provided throughout. As to the alumina being present in amount that elevates the CTE value of the modified CMC above the first or second CTE values (SiC or silicon nitride values) and CMC CTE value without the additive, since Shim indicates generally providing both alumina and SiC/silicon nitride fibers, and it would have been obvious to optimize the total amount of fibers present, and the amount of each of the materials from within the total amount of fibers for the specific article made, and the amount of alumina present would therefore be large enough to be understood to raise the CTE value of the modified CMC above the first CTE value or the second CTE value (that is, over that of SiC or silicon nitride) and above the CMC with only first fibers and matrix CTE value. As well, the total amount of the alumina (from fibers and particles) would be optimized as discussed for claim 1 above, so that the resulting materials provide the vol% values in the claimed range. This would also provide the features of claim 25 and 26, as the amount of particulate CTE increasing additive (second additive) and fiber CTE increasing additive (first additive) would each be optimized, giving a value in the claimed range (note as worded the material of the first and second added can be the same, such as alumina). For claim 27, note the 35 USC 112 rejection above, where if the first CTE increasing additive is now supposed to be particles and the second now supposed to be fibers, the same results of optimization giving the claimed results would occur. If the “first” and “second” CTE additives are now both supposed to have particles and fibers, since the same material of alumina can be used for all, the total amounts would still be optimized, where each material can be simply chosen to be called first and second.
Claims 28 and 29 would be suggested by the combination of references as discussed for claims 3-5 and 24-27 above, where weaving the first CTE increasing additive as fibers with the first fibers to form plies and also providing particles of the second CTE additive (which can be of the same alumina, for example, composition as the first additive) as discussed for claim 22 above, and the particles provided in the fibers as well would also be incorporated into the plies. The matrix can be acceptably SiC as suggested by Shim as discussed for claim 1 above. The optimization of the amounts of material is suggested as discussed for claims 1 and 25-27 above giving the values of claims 28 and 29.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim in view of Kumagawa and Nakayasu, EITHER alone OR further as evidenced by Rozman, Cabal and Nienburg as applied to claims 1, 10-12 and 21-24 above, and further in view of Lee (US 6759151).
Claims 8-9: as to the fourth CTE value and the CTE value of the modified CMC material are sufficiently close to one another such that the EBC is thermo-mechanically stable on the surface of the CMC, and the fourth CTE value is equal to or greater than the CTE value of the modified CMC material, Shim provides the use of the SiC fibers and matrix material, and the alumina (for example) CTE increasing material, and the EBC of rare-earth monosilicate as in claim 10 (note discussion of claims 1, 10 above).
Lee further describes providing a multilayer article that can have an SiC substate that contains ceramic fibers, for example (column 2, lines 40-50, column 4, lines 15-30, and including SiC/SiC composites, note column 8, lines 30-35). An outer layer can be a rare earth monosilicate (note column 6, line 55 to column 7, line 15), It is indicated that when providing such articles, it is desired to control the amount of materials in layers (such as increasing the amount of a material in one layer and decreasing the amounts in another) in order to match the coefficient of thermal expansion between materials, such as between the top coat and the substrate, and an intermediate layer with an outer layer (note column 5, lines 55-68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shim in view of Kumagawa and Nakayasu, EITHER alone OR further as evidenced by Rozman, Cabal and Nienburg to control the amount of materials, including the alumina, SiC, silicon nitride, etc. in the modified CMC composite to be sufficiently close to the fourth CTE value (such as the same) so that the EBC is thermo-mechanically stable on the surface of the modified CMC as suggested by Lee to provide a desirable article, since Shim is providing a modified CMC composite with SiC/silicon nitride fibers and matrix material, and an EBC of a rare earth monosilicate coating, and Lee indicates that in a similar coating system, it is desirable to adjust the components of the layers to provide matching CTE values, such that the CTE of the modified CMC would desirably be the same as the CTE of the EBC layer (4th CTE value), and so match to make the EBC thermo-mechanically stable on the surface of the CMC.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim in view of Kumagawa and Nakayasu, EITHER alone OR further as evidenced by Rozman, Cabal and Nienburg as applied to claims 1, 10-12 and 21-24 above, and further in view of Suyama et al (US 5990025), EITHER alone OR optionally as evidenced by MatWeb.
Claim 13: As to providing a CTE increasing additive of MoSi2, Shim indicates that CMC can contain Mo material (Mo2C), but not specifically MoSi2 (note 0020, 0032).
Suyama provides a method of producing a ceramic matrix material (CMC) component (note column 1, lines 5-15), where a CMC material is produced with providing a plurality of first fibers comprising a first material (such as SiC or silicon ntiride) which would have a first coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) value (as noted as a material with such CTE by claim 10) (note column 5, lines 45-65, column 8, lines 55-65). A matrix is incorporated with the plurality of first fibers, where the matrix comprises a second material (also SiC, for example), having a second CTE value (note column 2, lines 40-50, column 3, lines 40-55, column 8, line 55 to column 9, line 30). At least one CTE increasing additive (such as MoSi2) having a third CTE value (note MoSi2 as the additive as desired by claims 10, 13) is incorporated in the component (giving a modified CMC), where the third CTE value would be greater than that of the first CTE value and the second CTE value when using SiC for both, for example (noting the materials used in present claims 10, 13) (note column 2, lines 40-50, column 3, lines 40-55, column 9, lines 1-30, incorporated into the matrix). The CTE increasing additive would be present within the CMC in an amount that elevates a CTE value of the CMC above the first CTE value at least (note Table 1 with the amount of MoSi2 of 12 or 13 volume % in the matrix considered an amount significant enough to raise the CTE above that of the first CTE value). The MoSi2 reduces the amount of free Si present, to give excellent high temperature strength (note column 2,lines 40-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shim in view of Kumagawa and Nakayasu, EITHER alone OR further as evidenced by Rozman, Cabal and Nienburg to provide MoSi2 (giving a CTE increasing additive) in the matrix as suggested by Suyama to help give high temperature strength to the formed CMC, since Shim indicates making an CMC article with SiC/silicon nitride fibers and SiC matrix material, and Suyama indicates that in a similar article, use of additional MoSi2 in the matrix in an amount that would raise the CTE value of the modified CMC above the first/second CTE value (of SiC) helps provide a desirable high temperature strength to the article, and where the CTE value of the modified CMC with MoSi2 would be greater than the CTE of a CMC with only SiC materials, for example, since the amount of MoSi2 would raise the value of the modified CMC. Additionally, as to the presence of MoSi2, as in claim 13, as discussed for Suyama above, it is also desirable to have MoSi2 present and as an additional material it would be predictably acceptable that it can also be provided in the fibers similarly to the alumina, give the same raised CTE effects, and when treated as alumina, similar the amount would be optimized as discussed for claim 1 above, giving values of the vol% amounts of the fibers, CTE increasing additive and matrix in the same claimed ranges, and additionally, CTE additives like alumina can be present as well, giving a total CTE of 30 vol%.
Optionally, using the evidentiary references, Shim provides as noted above for claim 1 that the fiber material can be SiC or silicon nitride, and the matrix material can be SiC, and CTE values of SiC and silicon nitride are identified by Roman and Cabal as noted for claim 1 above. MatWeb evidences MoSi2 CTE value of 6.5x10-6/oC (page 2). Thus, MoSi2 would be understood to have a CTE value above materials given as optional for the first fibers and matrix material, and a CMC material made from the first and second materials would have a lower CTE value than the modified CMC made with the amount of MoSi2 described for use above, as the higher value CTE of the MoSi2 would raise the CTE of the modified CMC, and with the value raised would have a modified CMC CTE value greater than the first or second CTE value.
Rozman et al (US 2011/0128707) notes SiC CTE value of about 4 x 10-6/oC, and alumina CTE value of about 7 x 10-6/oC (0014). Nienburg et al (US 2010/0330282) notes yttria stabilized zirconia CTE value of 10-12.5 x 10-6/K (note 0017-0018). Bereczik et al (US 2010/0104859) notes MoSi2 CTE value of about 5.5 x 10-6/oF, and Si3N4 CTE value of about 3 x 10-6/oF (note 0023). Sheppard et al (US 2008/0035934) notes silicon nitride as an EBC (note 0008). Cabal et al (US 2005/0046672) notes Si3N4 CTE value of 1.55 x 10-6/oK (note 0099). Minta et al (US 2003/0183638) notes carbon fiber CTE value of -5.6 x 10-7 m/m/K (note 0007). MatWeb notes the MoSi2 CTE value of 6.5 micrometer/m-oC (so 6.5 x 10-6 /oC) (page 2).
Kawanishi et al (US 2015/0292340) also notes how CMC reinforcement fibers can be made of silicon carbide, silicon nitride, aluminum, etc. and mixtures of these fibers and the fibers can be woven into a fabric for use and provided with a ceramic matrix (note 0027-0030).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 10, 2025 have been fully considered.
Note the new 35 USC 112 rejections of the claims due to the amendments to the claims. Note the new reference to Nakayasu added to the rejections using Shim.
As to the 35 USC 103 rejections using Shim as the primary reference, it is argued that the references do not disclose the newly claimed volumes of materials. The Examiner notes this argument, however, Nakayasu has been cited as to the suggestion to optimize the amount/volume of the materials, and therefore the rejections above are maintained.
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 KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 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, 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718