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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein the shell material partly covers the surface of the core” in line 2. However, claim 1, from which claim 12 depends from, already claims that the shell material covers at least a portion of the surface of the core, and thus partly covers the surface of the core. Therefore, claim 12 does not further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends (claim 1).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tachibana et al. (JP 2018039708 A; herein English machine translation used for all citations).
Regarding claim 1, Tachibana teaches a heat resistant structure comprising a core formed of a C/C composite material; and a shell material covering at least a portion of the surface of the core, wherein the shell is made of metal (Tachibana, Par. 0001, 0006-0007, 0014-0015, and 0025-0027). Tachibana teaches the C/C composite material is formed by layering a plurality of prepregs of C/C material and pressing, and thus teaches the core is formed of a plurality of C/C composite members (Tachibana, Par. 0025-0027).
Regarding claim 2, Tachibana teaches the core is a layered material comprising the plurality of C/C composite members (Tachibana, Par. 0026).
Regarding claim 3, Tachibana teaches the C/C composite member has a rectangular sheet-like shape (Tachibana, Par. 0032 and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Tachibana teaches the C/C composite member is cylindrical or rectangular and thus is a two-dimensional C/C composite member (Tachibana, Par. 0032 and Figs 1-2).
Regarding claims 5-6, modified Tachibana teaches the C/C composite members are disposed/layered within the shell in a lengthwise direction of the shell (Tachibana, Par. 0026 and Figs 1-2; Izumi, Par. 0001, 0006-0008, and Fig. 4). Therefore, when an application of a load is in a direction lengthwise to the direction of the shell, the C/C composite members are disposed so that a direction of a longest side of a cross section of the C/C composite member taken along a widthwise direction thereof is the same direction as the application of the load, satisfying the claim 5 limitation. Furthermore, when the application of a load is in a direction widthwise to the direction of the shell, the C/C composite members are layered in a direction orthogonal to the direction of the application of the load, satisfying the claim 6 limitation.
Regarding claim 7, Tachibana teaches the shell material is a pipe made of metal and the plurality of C/C composite members are filled in the pipe (Tachibana, Par. 0023-0024, 0027-0028, and Figs 1-2).
Regarding claims 8, Tachibana teaches the pipe has a polygonal cross-sectional shape (Tachibana, Par. 0032).
Regarding claim 9, Tachibana teaches the pipe has a cylindrical cross-sectional shape (Tachibana, Par. 0023-0204 and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Tachibana teaches the C/C composite members completely fill the pipe, and thus teaches a filling rate that satisfies the limitation of 70% or more (Tachibana, Par. 0015, 0022-0025, 0027-0028, and Figs 1-3).
Regarding claim 12, Tachibana teaches the shell material covers the surface of the core (Tachibana, Par. 0014-0015 and Figs 1-2).
Regarding claim 13, the limitation of being used under a non-oxidizing atmosphere is considered an intended use limitation. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2106(II)(C) which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Tachinaba discloses a heat resistant structure comprising a core of a C/C composite and a metal shell as presently claimed, it is clear that the heat resistant structure of Tachinaba would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. being used in a non-oxidizing atmosphere, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, Tachinaba teaches a member for a heat treatment furnace, the member comprising the heat resistant structure according to claim 1 (Tachinaba, Par. 0030 and 0039).
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.
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 1-9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tachibana et al. in view of Izumi et al. (JP H08225375 A; herein English machine translation used for all citations).
To note, the rejections to claims 1-4, 7-9, and 11-14 are given as alternatives to the rejections under 35 USC § 102 in view of Tachibana above.
Regarding claim 1, Tachibana teaches a heat resistant structure comprising a core formed of a C/C composite material; and a shell material covering at least a portion of the surface of the core, wherein the shell is made of metal (Tachibana, Par. 0001, 0006-0007, 0014-0015, and 0025-0027).
Tachibana is silent regarding the C/C composite material being a plurality of C/C composite members.
Izumi teaches heat resistant material that comprises a C/C composite material that is comprised of a plurality of C/C composite members (Izumi, Par. 0001, 0006-0008, and 0038).
Tachibana and Izumi are analogous art as they both teach heat resistant materials comprising a C/C composite material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the C/C composite material of Izumi as the C/C composite material of Tachibana. This would allow for a heat resistant material with good thermal conductivity that can be molded into any size and shape (Izumi, Par. 0038).
Regarding claim 2, modified Tachibana teaches the core is a layered material comprising the plurality of C/C composite members (Izumi, Par. 0001, 0006-0008, and Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, modified Tachibana teaches the C/C composite member has a rectangular sheet-like shape (Tachibana, Par. 0032; Izumi, Par. 0011 and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, modified Tachibana teaches the C/C composite member is cylindrical or rectangular and thus is a two-dimensional C/C composite member (Tachibana, Par. 0032 and Figs 1-2; Izumi, Par. 0011 and Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 5-6, modified Tachibana teaches the C/C composite members are disposed/layered within the shell in a lengthwise direction of the shell (Tachibana, Par. 0026 and Figs 1-2; Izumi, Par. 0001, 0006-0008, and Fig. 4). Therefore, when an application of a load is in a direction lengthwise to the direction of the shell, the C/C composite members are disposed so that a direction of a longest side of a cross section of the C/C composite member taken along a widthwise direction thereof is the same direction as the application of the load, satisfying the claim 5 limitation. Furthermore, when the application of a load is in a direction widthwise to the direction of the shell, the C/C composite members are layered in a direction orthogonal to the direction of the application of the load, satisfying the claim 6 limitation.
Regarding claim 7, modified Tachibana teaches the shell material is a pipe made of metal and the plurality of C/C composite members are filled in the pipe (Tachibana, Par. 0023-0024, 0027-0028, and Figs 1-2).
Regarding claims 8, modified Tachibana teaches the pipe has a polygonal cross-sectional shape (Tachibana, Par. 0032).
Regarding claim 9, modified Tachibana teaches the pipe has a cylindrical cross-sectional shape (Tachibana, Par. 0023-0204 and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Tachibana teaches the C/C composite members completely fill the pipe, and thus teaches a filling rate that satisfies the limitation of 70% or more (Tachibana, Par. 0015, 0022-0025, 0027-0028, and Figs 1-3).
Regarding claim 12, modified Tachibana teaches the shell material covers the surface of the core (Tachibana, Par. 0014-0015 and Figs 1-2).
Regarding claim 13, the limitation of being used under a non-oxidizing atmosphere is considered an intended use limitation. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2106(II)(C) which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Tachinaba discloses a heat resistant structure comprising a core of a C/C composite and a metal shell as presently claimed, it is clear that the heat resistant structure of Tachinaba would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. being used in a non-oxidizing atmosphere, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, modified Tachinaba teaches a member for a heat treatment furnace, the member comprising the heat resistant structure according to claim 1 (Tachinaba, Par. 0030 and 0039).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tachibana et al. as applied to claims 1 and 7 under 35 USC § 102 above, in view of Nakagawa et al. (US 5579898 A).
Regarding claim 10, Tachibana teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 1. Tachibana is silent regarding the pipe having a thickness of not less than 0.1 mm and not more than 3 mm.
Nakagawa teaches a heat resistant structure comprising an outer metal shell and a core (substrate) of C/C composite material, wherein the outer metal shell has a thickness of 0.2-3 mm (Nakagawa, Abstract, Col. 1 Lines 30-47 and Fig. 1), which lies within the claimed range of not less than 0.1 mm and not more than 3 mm and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03.
Tachibana and Nakagawa are analogous art as they both teach heat resistant structures comprising a metal shell and a C/C composite material core. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a thickness within the claimed range for the thickness of the shell/pipe of Tachibana. This would allow for satisfactory mechanical strength of the shell (Nakagawa, Col. 3 Lines 8-17).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tachibana et al. in view of Izumi et al. as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, further in view of Nakagawa et al.
To note, the following is given as an alternative to the rejection to claim 10 in view of Tachibana and Nakagawa above.
Regarding claim 10, modified Tachibana teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 1. Modified Tachibana is silent regarding the pipe having a thickness of not less than 0.1 mm and not more than 3 mm.
Nakagawa teaches a heat resistant structure comprising an outer metal shell and a core (substrate) of C/C composite material, wherein the outer metal shell has a thickness of 0.2-3 mm (Nakagawa, Abstract, Col. 1 Lines 30-47 and Fig. 1), which lies within the claimed range of not less than 0.1 mm and not more than 3 mm and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03.
Modified Tachibana and Nakagawa are analogous art as they both teach heat resistant structures comprising a metal shell and a C/C composite material core. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a thickness within the claimed range for the thickness of the shell/pipe of modified Tachibana. This would allow for satisfactory mechanical strength of the shell (Nakagawa, Col. 3 Lines 8-17).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J KESSLER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3075. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-Th.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/THOMAS J KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1782