DETAILED ACTION
The claims 1-20 are pending and presented for the examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/26/2024 and 04/08/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 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 1 contains a limitation to “SiC + carbon preforms.” However, the compositional nature of said preforms is not clear from this terminology. It is unclear if the preforms contain both silicon carbon and free carbon, or if carbon is introduced by reaction bonding, or if one preform comprises SiC and the other carbon. Any quantitative limits to the amount of each component are not specified. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim limited thusly are ambiguous, and the claim is indefinite under USC 112.
Claim 2 is further indefinite because it contains a negative limitation that no glue or adhesive is used, but the definitions of glue and adhesive are not sufficiently specified and can encompass a broad range of additives. Thus, the specific component(s) not present is unclear. Further, bonding via diamond powder would necessarily create an adhesive layer, and it is not clear how this can agree with the negative limitation of the claim.
Claim 5 states that silicon is reacted away from the bond line. The meaning of this limitation is unclear. The limitation could mean that the amount of silicon that is reacted by the bonding process decreases way from the bond line, in the direction toward the bulk of the ceramic member, or it could mean the opposite, because “reacted away” can imply greater reacting away from said line. The limitation could also be interpreted as meaning that some amount of silicon at a position away from the bond line reacts. Because of this ambiguities, the metes and bounds of claim 5 are further indefinite under USC 112.
Claims 6-9 are similarly indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by a quantitative amount of silicon being reacted “away” from the bond line. This could be interpreted as indicating that these amounts of reacted silicon are located in the bulk of the members rather than between, or that these amounts of silicon are present in a concentration (reaction) gradient increasing or decreasing away from said bond line.
Claim 12 is further indefinite because the term “high” surface area is relative and is not quantitatively defined. The coverage of the claim limitation to surface area is thus unclear.
Claim 15 is further indefinite because it states that the diamond powder is dry, but as this is a solid particulate, it would always be considered dry by its nature. The intended limitation appears to be a negative limitation indicating the lack of an addition vehicle or solvent used with the diamond powder, but merely indicating that the diamond is “dry” does not preclude other components’ presence.
Claim 18 contains the phase “the silicon”, but as this is the first mention of “silicon” in the claim chain there is not proper antecedent basis for the term. It is not clear to what silicon component heat is being applied.
Claims 3-4, 10-11, 13-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are also rejected under USC 112 as depending from the claims discussed above that are indefinite.
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, 3, 5, 11-12, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suyama et al (US 2008/0131665 A1) in view of Elliot et al (WO 2019/240941 A1) and Jones (GB 12245210).
Regarding claim 1, Suyama et al teaches a method of forming a reaction-bonded SiC ceramic member comprising the steps of producing two SiC ceramic members to be joined (see paragraph 0073 and Table 1), placing between them a particulate comprising SiC (see claim 1) on bonding surfaces of said members, and assembling and reaction bonding the two members having SiC particulate therebetween by heat treatment and infiltration (see claim 14). The resultant joined members have a bond line between the two starting pieces (see Figs. 1 and 2).
Claim 1 differs from Suyama et al because Suyama teaches a bonding material comprising carbon black particulate rather than diamond powder. However, because the use of diamond powder as a filler in a brazing material used to join ceramic members was known in the art at the time of the instant filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Suyama et al in view of Elliot et al in order to use diamond powder rather than carbon black powder when joining the Suyama ceramic members. Elliot et al teaches a brazing process for joining ceramic members, and teaches that the members can be used to produce equipment for such purposes as semiconductor manufacture. Suyama et al is also drawn to a process for joining ceramic members to produce articles used in semiconductor manufacture. Elliot et al teaches that the brazing composition comprises a carbon component that can be provided by carbon black or diamond (see paragraphs 0080 and 0082). This teaching would show one of ordinary skill in the art that carbon black and diamond were known to be able to be used interchangeably as the carbon-providing component in brazing compositions used to join ceramic members. One of ordinary skill would have therefore been motivated to use the equivalent diamond powder with the Suyama et al joining method by such factors as material availability and cost. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification because, as discussed above, Suyama et al and Elliot et al are both drawn to methods of joining ceramic members to produce articles used in semiconductor manufacture.
Suyama et al teaches a process of bonding two SiC members, but does not teach that the members each have a surface channel such that, when joined, the resultant article has internal channels. However, this type of method was known in the art at the time of the instant filing, and it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Suyama et al in view of Jones in order to use the Suyama method to join two members having surface channels. Jones teaches a method of forming turbine blade components through the joining of two members each having a surface channel thereon, so as to form a resultant blade with internal channels (see page 1, lines 20-30). The Jones teaching shows that forming turbine blades from two halves in this manner was a known method in the art, and as Suyama et al teaches that the inventive joining method can be used to form turbine components (see paragraph 0045), one would have had motivation to use this more specific method and structure of Jones with said Suyama et al method. Each limitation of instant claim 1 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 3, Suyama et al teaches joining two ceramic components, and as modified in view of Jones as discussed above, the method would be used to join two halves of a turbine blade.
Regarding claim 5, as shown above, Suyama et al in view of Elliot et al teaches a method wherein equivalently composed SiC members are joined via a component comprising diamond powder, and thus the equivalent reactive bonding necessarily take place as compared to the method of the instant claim. Silicon reacting away from the bond line would thus necessarily be present in the process taught by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 11, Suyama et al does not teach any excess silicon present after reaction bonding, and as discussed above, the method taught by Suyama et al in view of Elliot et al involves equivalently composed SiC members being joined via a component comprising diamond powder, and thus the equivalent reactive bonding necessarily take place to the method of the instant claim. No excess silicon in the channels would thus result.
Regarding claim 12, Elliot et al teaches a diamond powder component, and as discussed above, the term “high surface area” is qualitative and does not impart any particular limit on the diamond powder surface area size. The Elliot et al diamond powder therefore necessarily meets the further limitation of the instant claim 12.
Regarding claim 15, as discussed above, merely indicating that the diamond is “dry” does not preclude other components’ presence. Diamond powder is considered dry by its solid particulate nature. Thus, this further limitation is met by the teachings of the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 17, the application method taught by Suyama et al in view of Elliot et al wherein the brazing component is placed directly on the members to be joined is considered to meet the limitation that the diamond powder is directly applied, as the component is directly placed.
Regarding claim 18, Suyama et al teaches joining the ceramic members by reactive bonding involved melting a silicon component (see paragraph 0015).
Regarding claim 19, Suyama et al teaches heat application under vacuum (see paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 20, as discussed above, Suyama et al in view of Elliot et al and Jones teaches a method of forming a ceramic component that is equivalent to that of instant claim 1. As such, the prior art of record also teaches a SiC component formed by such a method, and claim 20 is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Conclusion
11. No claim is allowed.
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NOAH S WIESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
NSW16 January 2026