DETAILED ACTION S tatus of Application 1. The claims 1-8 are pending and presented for the examination. Priority 2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement 3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/22/2023, 09/13/2023, 04/17/2024, and 01/09/2025 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 appl icant regards as his invention. 4. Claim 6 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. The language used in the claim limitations is unclear. The claim states that the “ratio” of “a strength” that is retained after a heat treatment is 80% or more. However, the term ratio is intended in this case to be given as a number less than 1, as it represents the strength after heat treatment divided by the strength before heat treatment. Defining the ratio as “80%” or more is thus improper. Further, the language “at which a strength” is unclear, because this linguistic formulation would be used to indicate that there is some state “at which” the strength has the desired value. It’s use here to seemingly indicate that there is a certain value of strength remaining after heat treatment is thus improper. Finally, the strength comparison of the instant claim seemingly is meant to refer to tensile strength before and after heat treatment, but the use of “ strength” rather than “the tensile strength” renders it unclear if this is the intended property to be covered by the claim limitation. The instant claim 6 is therefore indefinite because of the improper language limitations as discussed above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 5. 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. 6. Claim s 1 and 3 -6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun et al (CN 106904952 A). Regarding claim 1 , Sun et al teaches a fiber-reinforced alumina-silica matrix composite material wherein alumina is the matrix component. Sun et al teaches a continuous alumina fiber component (see claim 4). Sun et al teachers that the inventive composite comprises nano-sized SiO 2 in the form of silica sol with a SiO 2 particles size of 10-100 nm. This is equivalent to the sintering inhibitor component of the instant claim in size and composition, and thus the Sun et al nano-size SiO 2 meets the limitation of a sintering inhibitor having an average particle size of 0.28 µm or less. Each limitation of instant claim 1 is therefore met by the teachings of Sun et al, and the claim is anticipated by the prior art of record. Regarding claim 3 , the Sun et al composite comprises nano-sized SiO 2 that is the sintering inhibitor. Regarding claim 4 , the Sun et al composite comprises alumina fibers. Regarding claim 5 , the Sun et al composite comprises an alumina matrix. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sun et al (CN 106904952 A). Regarding claim 6 , Sun et al teaches that the inventive composite has a tensile strength of 310 MPa (see Abstract). Sun et al does not specify change in tensile strength in terms of percentage of original after heat exposure at 1200 °C for 100 hours. However, as shown above, Sun et al teaches a compositionally and structurally equivalent fiber-reinforced composite as compared to that of the instant claim. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart , 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971). Thus while the tensile strength is not taught in Sun et al after the heat treatment recited in the instant claim, the equivalent prior art composite is considered to inherently possess this property. Each limitation of the claim is thus met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is anticipated by, or in the alternative, rendered obvious by, the Sun et al disclosure. 7. Claim s 1 , 3 -5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun et al (CN 110526728 A) . Regarding claim 1 , Sun et al teaches a fiber-reinforced mullite ceramic-based composite material wherein the mullite component constitutes the matrix (see Abstract). The fiber component is an impregnated fiber cloth, which is considered to be a continuous fiber, and said fiber cloth is selected from silica fibers, alumina fibers, and mullite fibers (see claims 1 and 5). Sun et al teachers that the inventive composite comprises nano-sized SiO 2 (less than 100 nm, see claim 1). This is equivalent to the sintering inhibitor component of the instant claim in size and composition, and thus the Sun et al nano- size SiO 2 meets the limitation of a sintering inhibitor having an average particle size of 0.28 µm or less. Each limitation of instant claim 1 is therefore met by the teachings of Sun et al, and the claim is anticipated by the prior art of record. Regarding claim 3 , the Sun et al composite comprises nano-sized SiO 2 that is the sintering inhibitor. Regarding claim 4 , the Sun et al composite comprises fibers that are selected from silica, alumina, and mullite fibers (see claim 5). Regarding claim 5 , the Sun et al composite comprises a mullite matrix. Regarding claim 7 , the Sun et al composite is prepared by vacuum impregnation of the fibers with a silica/alumina sol, followed by drying and sintering (see claim 1). The sol is prepared by adding silica sol to alumina powder ( ibid. ). The quantitative purity of the silica is not specified by Sun et al. However, the specific measure of purity intended to be claimed is not clear from the instant disclosure, and thus the silica sol component used to be added to the alumina powder is considered to inherently meet this purity limitation. There is not teaching of any impurities or non-silica components, and thus the purity is equivalent to that of the instant claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 8. 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. 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. 9. Claim s 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al (CN 110526728 A) . Regarding claim 2 , the claim differs from Sun et al applied above because Sun et al does not specify the average distance between centers of gravity of sintering inhibitor particles. However, it is apparent from the instant disclosure that this distance property is resultant from the particle size of the sintering inhibitor and the concentration of said sintering inhibitor within the ceramic matrix. As discussed above and in further detail below, Sun et al teaches a sintering inhibitor (silica) that has an equivalent size (50-100 nm) to that of the instant claims and disclosure. Further Sun teaches a concentration of this component in the inventive ceramic matrix composite of 5-15 wt % (see claim 1). The instant Specification discloses exemplary embodiments wherein the inventive composite having the claimed particle distance property is achieved using 3% of the sintering inhibitor component. Sun et al teaches a greater concentration of this component, up to 15%. The distance between centers of gravity of particles would necessarily decrease with increasing concentration, there being more particles within the same area and the particles thus being closer to one another. As such, the Sun et al sintering inhibitor (silica) component particles would necessarily be within 4.5 µm of one another on average, because they are present in greater amounts than those of the exemplary embodiments. This shows that each limitation of instant claim 2 is met by the teachings of Sun et al, though not explicitly taught in the manner of the instant claim. Claim 2 is therefore obvious and not patentably distinct over the prior art of record. Regarding claim 8 , the claim differs from Sun et al applied above because while Sun et al teaches a silica component with a size of less than 100 nm, it does not specify if the silica component has a size in the range of 0.05-30 µm (50-3000 nm). However, because 50% of the Sun et al range for the nano-sized silica component would fall within the range of the instant claim (50-100 nm), routine optimization and experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art would lead to a method wherein silica having a size from the overlapping portion was used. Sun et al teaches silica (sintering inhibitor) with a size range that includes 50-100 nm, and thus teaches and suggests to a skilled artisan methods that use this range. Each limitation of the instant claim 8 is met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct. Conclusion 1 0 . No claim is allowed. 1 1 . The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1 2 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3596 . The exam iner 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 NSW 20 November 2025