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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 11/17/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered where lined through.
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/17/2025 and 12/18/2025 were filed after the mailing date of the Non-final action on 09/11/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
In the response dated 12/08/2025, applicant has canceled claim 2, amended claims 1, 3, 8 and withdrawn claims 12 and 15. Applicant has further added claim 21, which is dependent on the withdrawn claims, and added claims 22-26.
Newly submitted claim 21 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: see the restriction requirement dated 03/26/2025.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 21 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Upon further consideration, the double patenting rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 1-5, filed 12/08/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 4 and 5 under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Weaver et al. (US 20170015595 A1), herein Weaver under 35 USC § 103 for amended claim 1.
Applicant primarily argues that the prima facie case is not made under Weaver and there is no teaching of equivalence, interchangeability, or suitability for the claimed purpose for the pore formers.
This is not persuasive. Weaver differs from claim 1 by teaching fugitive pore formers in a list of possible pore formers, such that it cannot be said that the fugitive species is anticipated. However, as the fugitive pore formers are taught by Weaver, they are an obvious choice to one or ordinary skill in the art. It is noted that prior art is available for all it contains not just preferred embodiments, See MPEP 2123. Additionally, the “selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [supports] a prima facie obviousness determination.” See MPEP 2144.07 (Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose). It appears applicant was referring to a different section of the MPEP in their arguments Optimization is in 2144.05 (II). Thus, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections remain as set forth below.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weaver et al. (US 20170015595 A1) [IDS dated: 12/31/2024], herein Weaver.
In regards to claims 1 and 4, Weaver teaches a gradient fiber preform comprising a plurality of preform plies having first and second preform plies can be associated together to define a preform [Abstract, claims 16-18, 20, Figs. 2-3]. The plies comprise woven fibers, a binder (i.e., a resin) and pore formers [0034, 0040, 0042, 0045]. Weaver further teaches the first preform ply is a center ply having a first average pore size wherein the second preform ply has a second average pore size, the second average pore size being larger than the first average pore size, as the pore size is larger the volume is larger as well [0026, 0032, Fig. 7, claim 18].
Weaver further teaches that the pore formers are configured to be volatilized (i.e., fugitive) from the porosity gradient fibrous preform to create a path through the porosity gradient fibrous preform for infiltration of a fluid [0027, 0031-0032, 0041, 0045, 0047, Fig. 7]. The binder is also taught to at least partially pyrolyze preform to create a path through the porosity gradient fibrous preform for infiltration of a fluid [0031-0032, 0041-0042, 0046-0048, Fig. 7].
Weaver differs from claim 1 by teaching fugitive pore formers in a list of possible pore formers, such that it cannot be said that the fugitive species is anticipated.
However, it would have been obvious of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed any of the protective layers taught by Weaver, including fugitive pore formers. The motivation for doing so is that the “selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [supports] a prima facie obviousness determination.” See MPEP 2144.07.
In regards to claim 3, Weaver further teaches the composition of the resin and pore former are the same throughout as no mention is made of changing them in each ply [0040]. Weaver teaches the amount of the pore former in each ply and the size is adjusted to change the final average pore size and distribution in a preform ply and in a fabricated preform having a plurality of preform plies [0047, Fig. 7].
It would have been obvious of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have increased the amount of pore former in the outer layers of preform. One would have been motivated to do so as it would allow for better penetration into the center of the preform during CVI. As the pore former is increased, the resin is then sequentially decreased in the outer layer from the center ply.
In regards to claim 5, Weaver further teaches the first preform ply is a center ply having a first average pore size wherein the second preform ply has a second average pore size, the second average pore size being larger than the first average pore size, as the pore size is larger the volume is larger as well [0026, 0032, Fig. 7, claim 18]. Weaver additionally, teaches the amount of the pore former in each ply is controlled and adjusted for the desired distribution [0047].
In regards to claim 22, Weaver further teaches the first preform ply is a center ply having a first average pore size wherein the second preform ply has a second average pore size, the second average pore size being larger than the first average pore size, as the pore size is larger the volume is larger as well [0021, 0026, 0032, Fig. 7, claim 18]. Weaver additionally, teaches the amount of the pore former in each ply is controlled and adjusted for the desired distribution [0047]. As Weaver, teaches the pore formers are present in the in the first layer and thus are greater than 0% and that the second volume is greater than the first [0026, 0032, Fig. 7, claim 18].
In regards to claim 23, Weaver further teaches the plurality of paths are interconnected across the plurality of fabric-resin layers to allow the fluid to infiltrate through an entire thickness of the preform during densification via CVI as Weaver teaches the preform has uniform densification to the center of the preform due to the pore size gradient [0023, 0026, 0028, 0032, Fig. 7, claim 18].
Claims 6, 9-10 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weaver et al. (US 20170015595 A1) [IDS dated: 12/31/2024], herein Weaver, as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Andersson (US 4483889 A).
In regards to claims 6 and 9, Weaver further teaches the first preform ply is a center ply having a first average pore size wherein the second preform ply has a second average pore size, the second average pore size being larger than the first average pore size, as the pore size is larger the volume is larger as well [0026, 0032, Fig. 7, claim 18]. Weaver additionally, teaches the amount of the pore former in each ply is controlled [0047]. Weaver teaches the pore former is fugitive but does not expressly teach it is configured to expand or to expand to at least 2x of the original volume [0045, 0047].
Anderson teaches a porous composite substrate comprising a curable resin, reinforcing fibers and a plurality of pores that are formed by pore forming material which are expandable microspheres [Abstract, Col 2 lines 45-68, Col 3 lines 1-20 ]. The microspheres allow for the control of the final pore size to be 2-5 times that of the original microsphere size upon heating [Col 1 lines 47-51, Col 3 lines 2-10, claim 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the expandable microspheres of Andersson as the pore former of Weaver. One would have been motivated to do so as Andersson teaches the microspheres are conventionally known pore formers for fiber reinforced preforms and thus one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claim 10, Andersson further teaches the hollow microspheres include a blowing agent captured in a thermoplastic polymer [Col 1 lines 7-10, Col 2 lines 58-8, Col 3 lines 1-20].
In regards to claim 26, Weaver further teaches the first preform ply is a center ply having a first average pore size wherein the second preform ply has a second average pore size, the second average pore size being larger than the first average pore size, as the pore size is larger the volume is larger as well [0026, 0032, Fig. 7, claim 18]. Weaver additionally, teaches the amount of the pore former in each ply is controlled [0047]. Weaver teaches the pore former is fugitive but does not expressly wherein the plurality of pore formers includes: a first subset of pore formers in a first fabric-resin layer of the plurality of fabric-resin layers, the first subset of pore formers is configured to expand by a first percentage in response to being heated; and a second subset of pore formers in a second fabric-resin layer of the plurality of fabric- resin layers, the second subset of pore formers is configured to expand by a second percentage greater than the first percentage in response to being heated concurrently with the first subset of pore formers. [0045, 0047].
Anderson teaches a porous composite substrate comprising a curable resin, reinforcing fibers and a plurality of pores that are formed by pore forming material which are expandable microspheres [Abstract, Col 2 lines 45-68, Col 3 lines 1-20 ]. The microspheres allow for the control of the final pore size to be 2-5 times that of the original microsphere size upon heating [Col 1 lines 47-51, Col 3 lines 2-10, claim 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the expandable microspheres of Andersson as the pore former of Weaver. One would have been motivated to do so as Andersson teaches the microspheres are conventionally known pore formers for fiber reinforced preforms and thus one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Additionally, as Weaver teaches he second average pore size being larger than the first average pore size. It would have been obvious to do so by using pore formers of Anderson that expand at different percentages to create the different pores sizes.
Claims 7-8 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weaver et al. (US 20170015595 A1) [IDS dated: 12/31/2024], herein Weaver, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Watson et al. (US 20130071603 A1).
In regards to claim 7, Weaver teaches the pore former is fugitive and is a polymer [0045, 0047]. Weaver further teaches the resin binder at least partially pyrolyzes in the preform to create a path through the porosity gradient fibrous preform for infiltration of a fluid [0031-0032, 0041-0042, 0046-0048, Fig. 7].
However, Weaver does not teach wherein the plurality of pore formers include a plurality of hollow microspheres, a wall of each microsphere of the plurality of microspheres includes a polymer resin configured to be compatible with the resin in the plurality of fabric-resin layers, the polymer resin in each microsphere of the plurality of microspheres and the resin in the plurality of fabric-resin layers are configured to combine together during curing, and the plurality of hollow microspheres and the resin in the plurality of fabric-resin layers are configured to pyrolyze to create interconnected pores through the porosity gradient fibrous preform.
Watson teaches a fiber reinforced preform comprising fiber, resin and pore formers [Abstract, 0021]. Watson teaches such pore formers include microballoons (i.e., hollow microspheres) comprising resin that is same or similar to that of the preform materials to ensure compatibility [0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the microballoons which are compatible with the preform materials as taught by Watson as the pore formers of Weaver. One would have been motivated to do so as Watson teaches the microballoons are conventionally known pore formers for fiber reinforced preforms and thus one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. As the microballoons are taught to be compatible with the materials of the preform, it is expected that the materials combine together during curing and pyrolyze to create interconnected pores through the porous gradient preform.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have ensured the even pore formers are used in order to form interconnected pores through the porous gradient preform. One would have been motivated to do so proper infiltration during CVI.
In regards to claim 8, Weaver teaches the pore former is fugitive and is a polymer [0045, 0047]. Weaver further teaches the resin binder at least partially pyrolyzes in the preform to create a path through the porosity gradient fibrous preform for infiltration of a fluid [0031-0032, 0041-0042, 0046-0048, Fig. 7].
However, Weaver does not teach wherein the plurality of pore formers include a plurality of hollow microspheres, each microsphere includes a polymer resin configured to volatilize during pyrolysis to create a plurality of voids in the porosity gradient fibrous preform, and the plurality of voids are interconnected to create a path for infiltration of a fluid.
Watson teaches a fiber reinforced preform comprising fiber, resin and pore formers [Abstract, 0021]. Watson teaches such pore formers include microballoons (i.e., hollow microspheres) comprising resin that is same or similar to that of the preform materials to ensure compatibility [0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the microballoons which are compatible with the preform materials as taught by Watson as the pore formers of Weaver. One would have been motivated to do so as Watson teaches the microballoons are conventionally known pore formers for fiber reinforced preforms and thus one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. As the microballoons are taught to be compatible/similar/same with the materials of the preform, it is expected that the materials combine together during curing and pyrolyze to create interconnected pores through the porous gradient preform.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have ensured the even pore formers are used in order to form interconnected pores through the porous gradient preform. One would have been motivated to do so proper infiltration during CVI.
In regards to claim 25, Weaver teaches the pore former is fugitive and is a polymer [0045, 0047]. Weaver further teaches the resin binder at least partially pyrolyzes in the preform to create a path through the porosity gradient fibrous preform for infiltration of a fluid [0031-0032, 0041-0042, 0046-0048, Fig. 7].
However, Weaver does not teach wherein the plurality of pore formers include a plurality of hollow glass microspheres.
Watson teaches a fiber reinforced preform comprising fiber, resin and pore formers [Abstract, 0021]. Watson teaches such pore formers include microballoons (i.e., hollow microspheres) comprising glass [0022-0023].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the glass microballoons as taught by Watson as the pore formers of Weaver. One would have been motivated to do so as Watson teaches the glass microballoons are conventionally known pore formers for fiber reinforced preforms and thus one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weaver et al. (US 20170015595 A1), herein Weaver, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Fujiokai et al. (US 20210016549 A1), herein Fujioka.
In regards to claim 11, Weaver teaches the fibers are the same in the plies and thus they are uniform in the preform [0014, 0034, 0040-0041] However, Weaver does not expressly teach the percentage of fiber volume of the preform.
Fujioka teaches a porous preform comprising fiber and resin [Abstract].
Fujioka teaches the fiber reinforces the porous body and is present at 0.5% to 55% volume of the porous body. This range is sufficient for reinforcing the body as well as allowing for bending characteristics [0039-0040]. This overlaps the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have ensured the preform of Weaver to have a volume percent of fibers within the range taught by Fujioka. One would have been motivated to do so based on the range’s suitability for sufficient for reinforcing the body as well as allowing for bending characteristics.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Additionally, as taught by Fujioka the fiber volume effects the strength of the preform.
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the fiber volume for the intended application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
A particular parameter can be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05.II.B.).
It has been held that the discovery of the optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill in the art. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weaver et al. (US 20170015595 A1) [IDS dated: 12/31/2024], herein Weaver, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gissinger et al. (Predicting char yield of high-temperature resins), herein Gissinger.
In regards to claim 24, Weaver teaches that the polymer contributes to the formation of the porosity gradient via pyrolysis and the polymer is a low char type. Weaver does not expressly teach the range of char yield for a low char type.
Gissinger teaches a method of predicting char yield of high-temperature resins [Title]. Gissinger teaches the low char type result in a yield of less than 50% [Introduction Pg. 336]. This overlaps the claimed range.
Thus, the teaching of Weaver is considered to be that of a char yield of 50% or less, which overlaps the claimed range.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
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 ELIZABETH A COLLISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1019. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9 am-5 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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 COLLISTER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784