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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/3/25 has been entered.
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, 3, 5-11, 21-30 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.
In claim 1, it is not clear what is meant by the resin “is configured to be pyrolyzed”. It is not clear how a configured resin differs structurally or chemically from the same resin which has not been so configured. The scope of the claims is not clear. Also, there appears to be a typographical error in claim 29, line 2 which recites “athe”.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, 5-11, 21-30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of copending allowed Application No. 18/356,984 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims a porosity gradient fibrous preform.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 8, 10-11, 21-22, 24-26, 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weaver et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0015595.
Weaver discloses a plurality of preform plies which are associated together to form a preform. The preform can be subject to chemical vapor infiltration processing to define a ceramic matrix composite structure. See paragraph 0004. The plurality of plies can each have a different porosity, wherein the central ply can have a lower porosity than the outer plies. See paragraphs 0019, 0023. Therefore the weight percentage of the resin sequentially decreases from the lower porosity center ply to the outer surface plies. The preform plies can comprise woven or unidirectional fibers and can further comprise a binder. See paragraph 0034. The preform can be made by providing a tow and passing the tow through a bath of a slurry comprising a binder, carrier, fillers and pore formers. The tow can then be formed into the fibrous portion of the preform by laying up into the desired structure and then pyrolyzed to form the pores. The binder should be one which leaves char after pyrolysis or firing, such as phenolics. See paragraph 0040. The carrier is equated with a solvent since it is a liquid which dissolves or carrier the binder. See paragraph 0043. The pyrolysis opens up pores. See paragraph 0046. Since the structure is able to be infiltrated by a vapor, the pores must be interconnected and continuous or else the structure would not be able to infiltrated by the vapor. Since the inner portion has smaller pores, the amount of resin would be higher in the inner portion relative to the outer plies. The resin is not disclosed as being foamable. Since the layers are disposed on top of each other they are necessarily oriented at a angle to each other, since no particular angle is specified, so even if the fibers of adjacent layers are aligned, they are aligned at an angle of zero. Since Weaver discloses multiple plies, the pores would extend across at least three sequential layers and since Weaver teaches that the structure can have a porosity and structure which varies ply by ply, the plies would have different resin weight ratios, with the more porous layers having less resin and the less porous inner layers having more resin. Since Weaver teaches increasing porosity from the center to the outer plies, it teaches that the weight ratio percentage of the resin decreases monotonically.
With regard to claim 8, Weaver does not teach varying the fiber layers, so it is reasonable to expect that the fiber volume of each layer would be uniform.
With regard to claim 10, Weaver discloses a preform. See entire document.
With regard to claim 11, as set forth above, once a structure with a porosity gradient is formed as taught by Weaver, the less porous regions will weigh more than the more porous regions.
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weaver, et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0015595.
Weaver discloses a structure as set forth above.
With regard to claim 7, Weaver does not teach a particular fiber volume, however, since the fibers serve to reinforce the structure, it would have been obvious to have selected the amount of fibers which produced the desired degree of reinforcement.
Claim(s) 3 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weaver as applied to claims above, and further in view of Tran et al, U.S. Patent No. 5,536,562.
Weaver discloses a structure as set forth above which includes solvent and Weaver teaches pyrolyzing to form the open porous network.
However, in the event Weaver does not clearly teach that the solvent provides the porosity, Tran discloses a fibrous substrate which may be in the form of a felt, tow, woven or interlock (which is interpreted as meaning knit) fabric. See col. 7, lines 13-15. The fibrous substrate is infiltrated with a thermosetting or thermoplastic resin. See col. 8, lines 58-65. The resin can include a solvent which is removed from the fibrous substrate to leave a preform having the desired porosity. The solvent can be removed in such a way that the center part of the structure is less dense, than the surface, which corresponds to the claimed gradient. See col. 9, lines 25-63; col. 10, lines 27-50.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed a solvent mixed with the resin form pores in a preform.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weaver as applied to claims above, and further in view of Manicke et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0150663.
Weaver discloses a structure as set forth above.
Weaver differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose that the resin has a particular char value.
However, Manicke et al discloses a composite material comprising impregnating a reinforcing material which can be a fibrous material, (see col. 0015), which is impregnated with a resin system which includes a solvent, (see paragraph 0017), wherein the rein has a high char residue or about 27 vol%, (see paragraph 0018), wherein the solvent is removed, (see paragraph 0020), wherein the structure is pyrolyzed to form a porous fiber structure, which establishes that the resin is configured to be pyrolyzed. See paragraph 0020.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used a resin which was able to be pyrolyzed to form the preform structure and to have impregnated resin into the pore of the porous structure in view of their suitability as taught by Manicke.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weaver and further in view of WO 95/11797.
Weaver does not teach through thickness reinforcements.
However, WO ‘797 teaches providing through thickness reinforcement of preform structures in order to provide improved interlaminar strength. See pages 2-4.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed through thickness reinforcement in the structure of Weaver in order to improve interlaminar strength.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed with the RCE dated 12/3/25 have been carefully considered and are sufficient to overcome the previous rejections. New rejections are set forth above.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP H098586. JP ‘586 discloses a composite material having a gradient porosity. The material comprises a prepreg which includes a filler which reduces the porosity of the structure at the center of the structure. See abstract and paragraph 0005. The structure can fired or pyrolyzed to produce the porosity gradient material having a more dense center and less dense outer portions. See Examples, paragraph 0011. JP ‘586 teaches that resulting materials have improved strength compared to conventional uniform porosity structures. See paragraph 019.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 PM.
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.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights