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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Hall does not teach that the formation of silicon nodules and their removal. However, applicant notes that the formation of silicon nodules is a typical and expected part of silicon infiltration as the silicon expands when cooled and bulges out [0005]. Absent note to the contrary, this would be the expected process of Hall. Indeed, the subsequent machining required by Hall implies as much. The examiner notes that “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom" see MPEP 2144.01. Applicant additionally argues that the cooling step in Hall is not controlled and not homogeneous. As claim 1, stipulates no range or rate, the cooling of Hall would be controlled at least to the same extent as that of applicant. As to homogeneous temperature, the examiner first notes that whether cooling is homogeneous or heterogeneous is one of only 2 possibilities. Furthermore, assuming that the cooling of Hall is heterogeneous would require assuming that different parts of the composite are cooled at different rates (in other words exposed to different temperatures simultaneously in order to cool at different rates) which is a much more complex assumption than the generic cooling of Hall. One of ordinary skill in the art would certainly interpret generic cooling as the part being subjected to a single cooling environment/temperature not an environment with multiple temperatures required by applicant’s interpretation. Furthermore, applicant notes that the cooling is between 1000-1500 C [0034] with less than 5 C/min [0035] both of which also describe the cooling step of Corman [col 8 line 9-36]. Hence, Corman would demonstrate this cooling feature to the same extent as applicant.
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 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hall (US 2018/0362413),
As to claim 9, Hall teaches a method for manufacturing a CMC composite part, comprising the steps of: - providing an intermediate part (14a) according to any one of an intermediate part made from CMC composite material, having at least one working area (the external surface) intended, once the part has been finalized, to be in contact with a working fluid of a turbomachine [0036] (however this merely describes an intended use and not an actual structural component of the intermediate part), comprising a reinforcement (12), a matrix (18), including a ceramic material [0037], and at least one insert (14a), which is made from a material different from that of the reinforcement (12) and the matrix and having a diameter comprised between 0.1 and 1 mm [0042] and which is designed to promote migration of liquid silicon within the intermediate part during a step of densifying the intermediate part, in which said at least one insert is provided in an area of the intermediate part that is not a working area [0056, 0042, 0052-0054] as explained above and densifying the intermediate part by penetration of liquid silicon into the intermediate part [0056]. Hall teaches comprising, during the densification step, a sub-step of controllably cooling the intermediate part, and a. in which a homogeneous temperature is imposed on the entire intermediate part during the cooling sub-step [0056, 0069]. As Hall performs the silicon infiltration and does so via sacrificial fibers (the insert) in the same manner as the applicant, the same silicon nodules would result and machining recited by Hall would remove them [0056, 0069]. As the cooling in Hall makes no mention of the use of multiple simultaneous cooling temperature, Hall’s cooling would be homogeneous [0056, 0069].
As to claim 10, Hall teaches the step of providing the intermediate part comprises a step of weaving a preform, the weaving step comprising the simultaneous three- dimensional weaving of two types of fibers the materials of which are different, the first type of fiber forming the three-dimensional structure of the preform intended to form the reinforcement of the intermediate part and the second type of fiber forming at least one insert of the intermediate part [0039, Fig 3].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
Claim 9, 10, 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Hall (US 2018/0362413) in view of Corman (US 5952100). Note this is an alternate rejection of claims 9 and 10
As to claim 9, Hall teaches a method for manufacturing a CMC composite part, comprising the steps of: - providing an intermediate part (14a) according to any one of an intermediate part made from CMC composite material, having at least one working area (the external surface) intended, once the part has been finalized, to be in contact with a working fluid of a turbomachine [0036] (however this merely describes an intended use and not an actual structural component of the intermediate part), comprising a reinforcement (12), a matrix (18), including a ceramic material [0037], and at least one insert (14a), which is made from a material different from that of the reinforcement (12) and the matrix and having a diameter comprised between 0.1 and 1 mm [0042] and which is designed to promote migration of liquid silicon within the intermediate part during a step of densifying the intermediate part, in which said at least one insert is provided in an area of the intermediate part that is not a working area [0056, 0042, 0052-0054] as explained above and densifying the intermediate part by penetration of liquid silicon into the intermediate part [0056]. Hall teaches comprising, during the densification step, a sub-step of controllably cooling the intermediate part, and a. in which a homogeneous temperature is imposed on the entire intermediate part during the cooling sub-step [0056, 0069]. As Hall performs the silicon infiltration and does so via sacrificial fibers (the insert) in the same manner as the applicant, the same silicon nodules would result and machining recited by Hall would remove them [0056, 0069]. As the cooling in Hall makes no mention of the use of multiple simultaneous cooling temperature, Hall’s cooling would be homogeneous [0056, 0069].
In the alternative, Corman teaches a fiber reinforced silicon-silicon carbide matrix composite wherein silicon melt infiltration includes a cooling period wherein the cooling occurs at 3 C/min and then at a rate of 5 C/min [col 8 line 9-36] as this avoids thermal cracking and provides protection in dry and wet environments at high temperatures [col 2 line 56-67, col 1 line 45-55]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Hall and had a cooling ramp period of 3 C/min or 5 C/min, as suggested by Corman, in order to avoids thermal cracking and provides protection in dry and wet environments at high temperatures.
As to claim 10, Hall teaches the step of providing the intermediate part comprises a step of weaving a preform, the weaving step comprising the simultaneous three- dimensional weaving of two types of fibers the materials of which are different, the first type of fiber forming the three-dimensional structure of the preform intended to form the reinforcement of the intermediate part and the second type of fiber forming at least one insert of the intermediate part [0039, Fig 3].
As to claim 12, Hall does not explicitly state the cooling sub-step comprises at least one cooling ramp of less than 50C/min.
Corman teaches a fiber reinforced silicon-silicon carbide matrix composite wherein silicon melt infiltration includes a cooling period wherein the cooling occurs at 3 C/min and then at a rate of 5 C/min [col 8 line 9-36] as this avoids thermal cracking and provides protection in dry and wet environments at high temperatures [col 2 line 56-67, col 1 line 45-55]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Hall and had a cooling ramp period of 3 C/min or 5 C/min, as suggested by Corman, in order to avoids thermal cracking and provides protection in dry and wet environments at high temperatures.
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 ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights