DETAILED ACTION
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 1-15 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 recites the limitation "the porosity" in line 7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-15 are rejected for depending from claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the constituent or constituents" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 6-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz et al. (2020/0338840) in view of Lazur (2016/0159702).
Regarding claim 1, Schwartz et al. discloses a method for producing a ceramic matrix composite part (abstract), comprising:
Forming a fiber preform 2 from a plurality of fibrous structures comprising particles, said particles comprising a ceramic material coated with a binder (para 33), and
Sintering said particles in the fiber preform obtained in order to form the ceramic matrix in the porosity thereof (abstract, fig. 1-3, claim 12-13).
Schwartz et al. does not teach the core-shell particles comprising a core portion formed by a core of ceramic material and a shell formed by the adhesive layer, then adhesive defining an outer surface of the core-shell particles and completely coating the core of ceramic material. However, Lazur teaches a coated fiber comprising a core portion 18 formed by a core of ceramic material and a shell 20, 22, 24 (fig. 1-2, abstract, 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 form the ceramic filler coated with binder with a core-shell structure since Lazur teaches that the use of core-shell structure ceramic fibers is known in the art of ceramic matrix composites.
Regarding clam 6, Schwartz et al. discloses wherein the adhesive is soluble or dispersible in water (para 33).
Regarding claim 7, Schwartz e al discloses wherein the adhesive comprises a thermoplastic polymer (para 38).
Regarding claim 8, Schwartz et al. discloses wherein the thermoplastic polymer is PVOH (para 38).
Regarding claim 9, Schwartz et al. discloses wherein the thermoplastic polymer has a molar mass comprised between 1kg/mol and 500 kg/mol (para 38).
Regarding claim 10, Schwartz et al. discloses wherein the adhesive comprises a tackifying resin (para 38).
Regarding claim 11, Schwartz et al. discloses wherein the adhesive further comprises a plasticizer (para 38).
Regarding claim 12, Schwartz et al. discloses wherein the fiber preform is formed by automated fiber placement (para 10, 18, 52, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Schwartz et al. discloses wherein the fibrous structures are fiber rovings 2 (abstract, fig. 1-3, claim 12). Regarding claim 15, Schwartz et al. discloses wherein the plasticizer is selected from phthalates (para 38).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz et al. in view of Lazur as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Delgado et al. (2023/0203217).
Regarding claim 14, Schwartz et al. does not teach wherein the tackifying resin is selected from rosin esters or phenolic terpenes, and mixtures thereof. However, Delgado et al. teaches the tackifying resin may be rosins such as ester of rosin, and terpenes (par a269). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select rosin esters or phenolic terpenes as tackifying resin since Delgado et al. teaches that rosin esters and terpenes are known tackifying resin.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: Regarding claim 2, the prior art does not teach wherein the method further comping obtaining particles, before forming the preform, by hot compression of granules formed of a cohesive assembly comprising the ceramic material cores and the adhesive so as to fragment the granules into the core-shell particles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUE H LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5522. The examiner can normally be reached 1PM - 10PM.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 5702721176. 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.
/X.H.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742