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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 as amended limits the coating to a “metallic coating material comprises at least one of iridium, rhenium, chromium, chromium aluminide, platinum, platinum aluminide, copper, or combinations thereof.” The specification does not disclose coatings that include the listed metals and another metal, i.e. nickel (claim 8), or another non-metallic coating of boron nitride, silicon carbide, silicon nitride (claim 9); or another organic material silane, siloxane, polyvinyl acetate, epoxy, urethane, polyvinyl alcohol, polyethylene glycol (claim 10). The specification does not disclose such a coating with a combination of materials.
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 8 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 8 recites the limitation "nickel" in line 2. The metal coatings listed in claim 1 from which claim 8 depends, do not include nickel.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mazany et al (US 20040182285 - US 7094285) in view of Davidovits et al (US 5798307) and in view of Brun et al (US 5552352).
Mazany is directed to inorganic matrix compositions comprised of a modified alkali silicate composition for forming an inorganic polymer matrix having improved mechanical properties. The modified alkali silicate matrix is made by reacting an alkali silicate (or its precursors such as an alkali hydroxide, a SiO2 source and water), a non-silicate network former and/or reactive glass, water and optionally one or more multivalent cation(s) selected from Groups 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 or 16 of the periodic table such as an alkaline earth salt, water and optional processing aids. The composite can be shaped by compression molding as well as other known fabrication methods.
Mazany teaches the mechanical properties of a composite structure with the inorganic polymer matrix composition can be enhanced provided there is sufficient interaction between the matrix and the reinforcement. Mazany teaches treating the fiber surfaces with organic or metallization [0108]. Mazany teaches a composite structure incorporating the inorganic polymer matrix composition provides an enhanced level of mechanical strength if the reinforcement exhibits some degree of oxophilic character at the matrix-reinforcement interface. Carbon and/or graphite fibers are inherently nonpolar and hydrophobic but can be treated in a variety of ways to develop regions of hydrophilic character such as the application of sizing or other coatings (generally organic polymers such as epoxies or organosilanes) or through the use of surfactants. Metallization of the fiber can develop an oxophilic surface that will significantly enhance the interfacial strength of the composite structure. Chemical, thermal and electrolytic oxidation of carbon, graphite and/or polymeric reinforcements can also enhance oxophilicity and thus the interfacial strength and mechanical properties of the composite structure. Furthermore, the fiber can be sized with an organic polymer combined with an inorganic oxide particulate such as a glass frit, reactive glass frit, silica, alumina, zirconia and similar oxide-based materials. This imparts an oxophilic character to the surface of the reinforcement. Ensuring that the surface of the reinforcement media has sufficient irregularity and/or roughness to promote a beneficial mechanical interaction can also enhance the interface between the matrix and the reinforcement [0108].
Mazany teaches curing the inorganic polymer matrix [0011], [0012].
As to claims 1, 2 and 20, Mazany does not use the term geopolymeric. The composition is equated with a geopolymer as evidenced by Davidovits. Davidovits teaches the geopolymers have a polyalimino-silicate phase (col. 3, lines 55-60). As Mazany teaches the reaction produces (--Si-O-Al-O--), the inorganic polymer of Mazany is equated with a geopolymer as claimed.
Mazany teaches claimed invention of a geopolymer matrix with a treated fiber reinforcement.
Mazany teaches metal coated carbon or metal coated glass fibers and the metal can be nickel. Mazany differs and does not teach the fiber reinforcement is coated with a metallic coating of iridium, rhenium, chromium, chromium aluminide, platinum, platinum aluminide, copper.
Brun is directed to a silicon carbide composite with coated fiber reinforcement. Brun teaches the coated fibers can have a second layer coating of iridium (ABST); (col 9, 57-67). The fibers are carbon, silicon carbide (ABST). The coated fibers impart significant toughness to the composite and reduce brittle fracture (col. 10, lines 27-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a iridium coating on the fibrous reinforcement fiber motivated to improve the toughness and reduce brittle fracture.
As to claim 3, Mazany teaches the amount of fibers is 2 to 60 vol% which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claim 5, Mazany teaches carbon fibers can be chopped fiber, wound filament [0127].
As to claim 6, Mazany teaches the fibers are carbon.
As to claim 7 and 9, Mazany teaches metal coated carbon or metal coated glass fibers [0012], [0104]. Reinforcing fibers may include nickel fibers, glass fibers, carbon fibers, graphite fibers, mineral fibers, oxidized carbon fibers, oxidized graphite fibers, steel fibers, metallic fibers, metal-coated carbon fibers, metal-coated glass fibers, metal-coated graphite fibers, metal-coated ceramic fibers, nickel-coated graphite fibers, nickel-coated carbon fibers, nickel-coated glass fibers, quartz fibers, ceramic fibers, silicon carbide fibers, stainless steel fibers, titanium fibers, nickel alloy fibers, brass-coated steel fibers, polymeric fibers, aramid fibers, basalt fibers, alkaline resistant glass fibers and/or other fibers known to those knowledgeable in the arts. Combinations of these various fibers can also be used. These fibers can also be coated and/or treated. Examples of suitable coatings to be used on the fibers, include but are not limited to, vapor deposited metal and metal alloys, chemically deposited metal and metal alloys, metals and metal alloys applied in a molten state, electrolytically applied metals and metal alloys, organic polymer coatings, inorganic-organic polymer hybrid coatings, metal oxides, phosphates, metal phosphates, silicates, organic polymer-silicate and organic polymer-silica hybrids and functionalized siloxanes [0104].
Mazany differs and is not specific with regard to two materials in the coatings.
Brun teaches two layers of coatings wherein one coating is a metal oxide and the other is the iridium coating. Brun teaches the metal oxides can be
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the coated fibers motivated to increase the toughness and reduce the brittleness of the ceramic composite.
As to claim 8, Mazany teaches metallic coatings such as nickel. Brun teaches two coating layers.
As to claim 9, Mazany differs and does not teach both coatings. Brun teaches additional metal oxide coatings. Brun does not teach the claim oxides of boron nitride, silicon carbide or silicon nitride. Brun teaches the metal oxides do not break at the plane of fracture but instead pull out and the stress transmitted through the composite by a crack in the matrix is distributed along the length of the fibers and this diminishes the stress at the crack tip and reduces propagation of the crack through the matrix (col. 10, lines 27-44). Davidovits teaches special treatment of vapor phase deposition of silicon carbide or silicon nitride (col. 2, lines 6-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ oxide coated fibers motivated to improve the toughness and reduce brittleness.
As to claim 10, Mazany teaches polymer coatings on the fibers can be epoxies or organosilanes [0108].
Brun teaches additional coatings of iridium and metal oxides improve the toughness and reduce brittleness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the coated fibers motivated to increase the toughness and reduce the brittleness of the ceramic composite.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazany et al (US 20040182285 - US 7094285) in view of Davidovits et al (US 5798307) and in view of Brun et al (US 5552352) and in view of Akono et al (WO 2021155108 cited as US 20230072824).
As to claim 4, Mazany differs and does not teach the porosity.
Akono is directed to a carbon fiber reinforced geopolymer composite with reduced porosity, high elastic moduli, high strength and high fracture toughness (ABST).
Akono teaches the porosity is less than 7.5% [0006]. Akono teaches the densification of the geopolymer matrix due to carbon nanotubes which reduces the porosity [0061].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to densify the geopolymer matrix motivated to reduce the porosity and increase the strength of the composite.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazany et al (US 20040182285 - US 7094285) in view of Davidovits et al (US 5798307) and in view of Brun et al (US 5552352) in view of Stempin et al (US 5132254).
As to claim 9, Mazany teaches non-metallic coating such as ceramics such as metal oxides but differs and is not specific to boron nitride, silicon carbide or silicon nitride.
Stempin is directed to ceramic matrix composite articles comprising a matrix phase composed of a silicate glass or glass-ceramic and a matrix reinforcement material disposed within the matrix comprising carbon fibers are described, wherein the fibers are provided with a protective boron nitride surface coating (ABST).
Stempin teaches the invention improves the oxidation resistance of a composite material formed of a glass or glass-ceramic matrix material which contains a matrix reinforcement material including a multiplicity of carbon fibers. Broadly characterized, that method comprises applying a boron nitride surface coating to the surfaces of the carbon fibers, such coating being unexpectedly effective to improve the strength and/or toughness of the composite under stress at high temperatures and under oxidizing conditions (col. 2, lines 43-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide for a boron nitride coating on a carbon fiber motivated to improve the strength and toughness of the composite at high temperatures.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, with respect to the 35 USC 102/103 rejection over Mazany are persuasive and the rejection is withdrawn.
New grounds of rejection is presented under 35 USC 103 over Mazany in view of Davidovits and Brun.
Applicant argues that Mazany does not teach the metallic coating comprising one of the claimed metals which is persuasive and resulted in new grounds of rejection including Brun.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gong et al (US20200031717)
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 JENNIFER A STEELE whose telephone number is (571)272-7115. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNIFER A STEELE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights