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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11, in the reply filed on 6/4/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3010024 to Ishibashi et al. (“Ishibashi”, of record) in view of Maag, et al. (“Maag”, entitled “LlNlNG METAL TUBES BY CREEP FORMING”, 1971).
Regarding 1, Ishibashi teaches a method for metallizing the inner face of a tube made of a ceramic or a ceramic matrix composite (para [0001], Fig. 1, para [0018]-[0020] [0024] [0026]). Ishibashi teaches plating a metallic tube on the inner face of the ceramic or ceramic matrix composite tube (para [0018]-[0020], [0024] [0026], forming by plating, i.e., plating the metal layer onto the inner surface of the SiC/ceramic tube).
Ishibashi teaches the suitable process of plating also including the step of creeping of the metallic tube by applying to this tube an internal pressure (para [0026], applying increasing internal pressure), Ishibashi teaches that the creep resulting in an increase in the outer diameter of the metallic tube until the outer face of this tube plates on the inner face of the ceramic or ceramic matrix composite tube (para [0026], the metal tube is extended, i.e., the outer diameter increased).
Ishibashi does not specifically teach the creeping of the metallic tube by applying to this tube an internal pressure and a heating, as instantly claimed.
Maag teaches a method of lining metal tubes by creeping that includes biaxial creep of an internally pressured metal tube as a means of applying force at high temperature (i.e., applying an internal pressure and a heating), so that the metal tube is compressed against the inside surface of a concentric out tube that encompasses the inner tube (page 1, last para, and page 2, last para). Maag teaches creeping of the metallic tube by applying an internal pressure and a heating that results the metal lining tube firmly attached with no measurable clearance between the metal lining tube and the outer tube (page 1, last para, and page 2, last para, page 13, summery para).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ishibashi in view the teachings of Maag, to include the step of creeping of the metallic tube by applying to this tube an internal pressure and a heating as taught by Maag (page 1, last para, and page 2, last para), for the benefit of effectively firmly bonding the metal lining tube with no measurable clearance between to the outer tube as taught by Maag (page 1, last para, and page 2, last para, page 13, summery para), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory process that the is the same as instantly claimed.
Regarding claims 6-7, Ishibashi teaches the suitable material for the metallic tube includes zirconium (Zr) (para [0026]), meeting the claimed material limitations of claims 6-7.
Regarding claim 8, Ishibashi teaches its ceramic tube is of suitable material includes silicon carbide (SiC) tube (para [0025]) and fibrous reinforcement composite, meeting the claimed material limitations.
Regarding claims 9-10, Ishibashi teaches the suitable material for the fibrous reinforcement include silicon carbide fibers (para [0025]), meeting the claimed material limitations of claims 9-10.
Regarding claim 11, Ishibashi teaches before the plating step, an insertion of the metallic tube into the ceramic or ceramic matrix composite tube (para [0026]).
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over o Ishibashi in view of Maag as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Nesterenko et al. (US 2006/0240640; “Nesterenko”).
The limitations of claim 1 are taught by Ishibashi and f Maag as discussed above.
Regarding claims 2-4, modified Ishibashi as discussed above teaches a process including the process of creeping of the metallic tube by applying to this tube an internal pressure and a heating (taught by Maag), but does not specifically teach applying an isostatic pressurization of the metal tube, in the same manner as instantly claimed in claims 2-4.
Nesterenko relates to bonding method, and in particular, Nesterenko teaches a method of bonding/joining adjacent components together using isostatic pressure assisted bonding (para [0001] [0006] [0012]). Nesterenko teaches application of isostatic pressure simultaneously with heat treatment at suitable pressures, temperatures and times improves the weak bond and produces strengthened bonding (para [0014]), and that conditions may be optimized for different materials, including for direct bonding of adjacent components having a large thermal mismatch, and that using isostatic pressure results in a uniform application of pressure (para [0014]). Nesterenko teaches the isostatic pressurization comprises an intake of a gas, in particular, an inert gas (para [0014], the suitable gas medium is an inert gas medium), meeting the limitations of claims 2-4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modified Ishibashi in view the teachings of Nesterenko, to include the step of applying an isostatic pressurization of the metal tube onto the inner face of the ceramic composite tube, and in the suitable gas medium such as an inert gas medium as taught by Nesterenko (para [0006] [0012] [0014]), for the benefit of strengthened bonding between the metal tube and the inner face of the ceramic composite tube as taught by Nesterenko (para [0014]), because Nesterenko teaches isostatic pressurization produces strengthened bonding for different materials, including for direct bonding of adjacent components having a large thermal mismatch (para [0014]), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory process that the is the same as instantly claimed, in claims 2-4.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over o Ishibashi in view of Maag as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Wang (CN 112460996; “Wang”).
The limitations of claim 1 are taught by Ishibashi and f Maag as discussed above.
Regarding claim 5, modified Ishibashi as discussed above teaches a process including the step of heating of the metallic tube, but does not specifically teach the heating of the metallic tube is carried out by Joule effect.
Wang teaches a heating device of which heating is carried out by Joule effect that provide ultra-fast heating reaction (page 7, first and second para).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modified Ishibashi in view the teachings of Wang, to include the step of the heating that is carried out by Joule effect as taught by Wang (page 7, first and second para), for the benefit of ultra-fast heating reaction as taught by Wang (page 7, first and second para), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory process that the is the same as instantly claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAN LAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM-4PM.
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 5712728935. 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.
/YAN LAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights