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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/23/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to the extent that they apply to the current rejection. Applicant argues that the annealing described in Regis would not result in the crosslinking and the article being non-meltable as the cross linking. However, as the annealing is in the same range and with the same materials, the same properties would result. Applicant’s arguments in regards to Regis not disclosing cross linking begs the question what is different about applicant’s crosslinking given Regis teaches the same temperature and materials in the annealing step. The examiner presumes inclusion of “for a duration sufficient…. By inducing irreversible crosslinking” in the amendment to be an argument that the time period for annealing in Regis would be inadequate to induce crosslinking given it is shorter (approx. 6 hours) relative to the at least 24 hours listed in the specification and claims 8 ad 9. First, presumably the temperature would induce some degree of cross linking at 6 hours even if significantly less than that which would result from 24 hours. Second, allegation of unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the claimed invention 716.02(d). Third, this point is moot, as the Cebe and Gantenbein references would render the amendment obvious as well with Gantenbein even noting the improvement in the mechanical properties resulted from crosslinking. In regard to applicant’s other arguments, the examiner reiterates “Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention,” see MPEP 2145 II. Furthermore, evidence of unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the claimed invention, see MPEP 716.02(d). Applicant notes several features missing from one or more of the references. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As applicant has not noted any reason why the provided motivations would be inadequate or any limitation that was missing from the combinations of references, applicant is engaging in mere piecemeal analysis instead of what would be suggested by the cited prior art’s combined teachings.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 10-12, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapiro (US 2019/0299522) in view of Regis (Characterization of thermally annealed PEEK and CFR-PEEK composites: structure-properties relationships), Nakae (US 2019/0118462), Cramer (Properties of SiC-Si made via binder jet 3D printing of SiC powder, carbon addition, and silicon melt infiltration), and Cebe (Annealing Study of poly(etheretherketone)).
As to claim 1 Chapiro teaches a method for manufacturing a fiber-reinforced infiltrated matrix composite article [Abstract], the method comprising the steps of: providing filament feedstock of PEEK [0339-0341], additively manufacturing a fiber-reinforced thermoplastic article via fused filament fabrication (FFF) which is definitionally fusing successive layers of fiber feedstock together [Fig 42, 0363, 0329-0335, 0350-0353, Fig 1-16]; pyrolyzing the non-meltable article to give a pyrolyzed article having a carbon matrix [Fig 42, 0363-0366]; and infiltrating the pyrolyzed article with an infiltration agent to produce a fiber-reinforced infiltrated matrix article [Fig 42, 0363-0366]. Chapiro teaches the step of infiltrating the pyrolyzed article with the infiltration agent comprises reactive melt infiltration of the pyrolyzed article with silicon to form silicon carbide [0304, 0305, 0327, 0376].
Chapiro teaches a carbon fiber reinforced PEEK composite. Chapiro does not explicitly state the fiber-reinforced thermoplastic article is thermally annealed at an annealing temperature between 300 to 320°C.
Regis teaches the thermally annealing CFR-PEEK [Abstract] annealing temperatures of CFR-PEEK including 300 C[Table 1, 2, Fig 10]; this annealing temperature “was found to have an impact on PEEK and CFR PEEK mechanical properties, indicating that increase in crystallinity had a strengthening effect in the presence of fiber reinforcement” [Page 129]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Chapiro and included a annealing temperature of 300C, as suggested by Regis, as annealing “was found to have an impact on PEEK and CFR PEEK mechanical properties, indicating that increase in crystallinity had a strengthening effect in the presence of fiber reinforcement.”
Cebe teaches that PEEK is commonly used as a composite material [1 Introduction] and provides different methods of annealing the substance wherein it is annealed for 24 hours for 302 or 320 C [Table III, IV, Results and discussion 3.1] which resulted in “increased density, greater crystal perfection.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Chapiro and annealed the PEEK article for 24 hours at 302 or 320C as suggested by Cebe in order to result in “increased density, greater crystal perfection.”
As Cebe anneals the same material for the same amount of time and temperature, applicant’s claimed properties would result
Chapiro teaches the fiber-reinforced thermoplastic article is additively manufactured using an article feedstock comprising PEEK filaments [0274] containing at least 20% by volume of chopped carbon fibers [0341-0340, 0120, 0122, 0123]. However, Chapiro does not teach that the fibers are PAN based fibers
Nakae teaches a method for making a 3D printed object [Abstract, 0003, 0005] wherein a thermoplastic matrix such as PEEK [0033] along with PAN-based carbon fibers are used to produce a high mechanical strength quickly [0008]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Chapiro and made the carbon fibers be PAN based carbon fibers, as suggested by Nakae, as these fibers had proven compatibility with PEEK and were known to result in a product of good mechanical strength and production speed.
Chapiro teaches resin matrices of phenol, PEEK, PEI [0354] and pyrolyzing the non-meltable article as explained above, but does not explicitly state heating the non-meltable article to a pyrolysis temperature of between 800 to 900°C, heated at a rate of 1 C/min, the pyrolysis temperature at a pyrolysis time of from 10 to 90 minutes.
Cramer teaches a method of 3D printing to produce SiC-Si composite wherein phenolic resins are used as the resin matrix [Abstract, 2.2 Printing] the article is pyrolyzed as 850 C at a rate of 1 or 2 C/min for 30 minutes as this had proven successful at carbonizing the resin [2.2 Printing, 2.3 Phenolic resin impregnation and pyrolysis (IP)]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Chapiro and performed pyrolysis such that non-meltable article to a pyrolysis temperature of between 800 to 900°C, heated at a rate of 1 C/min, the pyrolysis temperature at a pyrolysis time of from 10 to 90 minutes, as suggested by Cramer, as this had successfully carbonized the resin to create a composite.
As to claim 5, Chapiro teaches the fiber-reinforced thermoplastic article is additively manufactured by a FFF machine comprising a nozzle and bed [Fig 1-8], has a raster angle of 00 to 90°[Fig 18, 20, 21, 0190, 0192]. However, the raster angle is just a manner of operating a device and not a structural limitation.
As to claims 8, Chapiro teaches a carbon fiber reinforced PEEK composite. Chapiro does not explicitly state the fiber-reinforced thermoplastic article is thermally annealed at an annealing temperature between 300 to 320°C for 24-72 hours.
Cebe teaches that PEEK is commonly used as a composite material [1 Introduction] and provides different methods of annealing the substance wherein it is annealed for 24 hours for 302 or 320 C [Table III, IV, Results and discussion 3.1] which resulted in “increased density, greater crystal perfection.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Chapiro and annealed the PEEK article for 24 hours at 302 or 320C as suggested by Cebe in order to result in “increased density, greater crystal perfection.”
As to claims 10-12, Chapiro teaches resin matrices of phenol, PEEK, PEI [0354] and pyrolyzing the non-meltable article as explained above, but does not explicitly state heating the non-meltable article to a pyrolysis temperature of between 800 to 900°C, heated at a rate of 1 C/min, the pyrolysis temperature at a pyrolysis time of from 10 to 90 minutes.
Cramer teaches a method of 3D printing to produce SiC-Si composite wherein phenolic resins are used as the resin matrix [Abstract, 2.2 Printing] the article is pyrolyzed as 850 C at a rate of 1 or 2 C/min for 30 minutes as this had proven successful at carbonizing the resin [2.2 Printing, 2.3 Phenolic resin impregnation and pyrolysis (IP)]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Chapiro and performed pyrolysis such that non-meltable article to a pyrolysis temperature of between 800 to 900°C, heated at a rate of 1 C/min, the pyrolysis temperature at a pyrolysis time of from 10 to 90 minutes, as suggested by Cramer, as this had successfully carbonized the resin to create a composite.
As to claims 14-16, Chapiro teaches reactive silicon melt infiltration, but does not explicitly state 1450 C for 30 min under a vacuum of ~0.1 Pa
Cramer teaches a method of 3D printing to produce SiC-Si composite wherein phenolic resins are used as the resin matrix [Abstract, 2.2 Printing] the article is subjected to silicon reactive melt infiltration at 1450 C for 30 min under a vacuum of ~0.1 Pa [2.4 Silicon reactive melt infiltration] as this produced a strong SiC composite with optimal mechanical properties [4 Conclusion]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Chapiro and performed reactive melt infiltration at 1450 C for 30 min under a vacuum of ~0.1 Pa, as suggested by Cramer, as this produced a SiC composite with optimal mechanical properties.
As to claims 17-19, Chapiro does not explicitly state the method further comprises heating the fiber-reinforced infiltrated matrix composite article to a post-infiltration heating temperature in argon for a post- infiltration heating time, the post-infiltration heating temperature is from 1600 to 1750 C, the post-infiltration heating time is from 2 to 6 hours.
Cramer teaches a method of 3D printing to produce SiC-Si composite wherein phenolic resins are used as the resin matrix [Abstract, 2.2 Printing] the article is subjected to silicon reactive melt infiltration at 1450 C for 30 min under a vacuum of ~0.1 Pa and then a post infiltration heating is done argon at 1670C for 4 hours in order to “minimize silicon volatization” and “reduce the viscosity of the silicon to maximize infiltration and increase the SiC content” [2.4 Silicon reactive melt infiltration] as this produced a strong SiC composite with optimal mechanical properties [4 Conclusion]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Chapiro and then a post infiltration heating is done argon at 1670C for 4 hours, as suggested by Cramer, in order to “minimize silicon volatization” and “reduce the viscosity of the silicon to maximize infiltration and increase the SiC content”.
As to claim 20, Chapiro does not explicitly state the method further comprises repeating one of the steps of pyrolyzing the non-meltable article.
Cramer teaches a method of 3D printing to produce SiC-Si composite wherein phenolic resins are used as the resin matrix [Abstract, 2.2 Printing] the article is subjected to multiple pyrolysis steps [2.3 Phenolic resin impregnation and pyrolysis (IP)] as this produced a strong SiC composite with optimal mechanical properties [4 Conclusion]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Chapiro and repeated the pyrolysis step, as suggested by Cramer, as this produced a SiC composite with optimal mechanical properties.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapiro (US 2019/299522) in view of Regis (Characterization of thermally annealed PEEK and CFR-PEEK composites: structure-properties relationships), Nakae (US 2019/0118462), Cebe (Annealing Study of poly(etheretherketone)), and Cramer (Properties of SiC-Si made via binder jet 3D printing of SiC powder, carbon addition, and silicon melt infiltration), as applied to claims 1, 5, 8, 10-12, 14-20 above, and in further view of Ning (Additive manufacturing of carbon fiber reinforced thermoplastic composites using fused deposition modeling, Composites Part B: Engineering).
As to claim 4, Chapiro does not teach that the fibers have a diameter between 5-10 um and an avg length of 100 um.
Ning teaches a method of additive manufacturing carbon fiber reinforced composites [Abstract] wherein 100 um length fiber is utilized that has a fiber diameter of 7.2 um [Page 371 2.1 experimental set-up procedures] which significantly improves tensile strength and young’s modulus [page 376, 4. Conclusions]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Chapiro and made the fibers has 100 um avg length and diameter of 7.2 um, as suggested by Ning, as this fiber dimensions significantly improves tensile strength and young’s modulus.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapiro (US 2019/299522) in view of Regis (Characterization of thermally annealed PEEK and CFR-PEEK composites: structure-properties relationships), Nakae (US 2019/0118462), Cebe (Annealing Study of poly(etheretherketone)), and Cramer (Properties of SiC-Si made via binder jet 3D printing of SiC powder, carbon addition, and silicon melt infiltration), as applied to claims 1, 5, 8, 10-12, 14-20 above, and in further view of Gantenbein (US 2021/0323219). Note this is an alternative rejection of claim 8.
As to claims 8 and 9, Chapiro teaches a carbon fiber reinforced PEEK composite. Chapiro does not explicitly state the fiber-reinforced thermoplastic article is thermally annealed for 36-60 hours.
Gantenbein teaches that complex morphology PEEK that is 3D printed [Abstract, 0050, 0012, 0029, 0032] including carbon fiber reinforcement [0040] and the printed object is annealed for 48 hours [0014, 0044, 0052, claim 4] as this resulted in a part with good recyclability and mechanical properties [0010]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Chapiro and annealed the PEEK article for 48 hours as suggested by Gantenbein in order to result in a part with good recyclability and mechanical properties.
Claims 1, 5, 8-12, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapiro (US 2019/0299522) in view of Regis (Characterization of thermally annealed PEEK and CFR-PEEK composites: structure-properties relationships), Nakae (US 2019/0118462), Cramer (Properties of SiC-Si made via binder jet 3D printing of SiC powder, carbon addition, and silicon melt infiltration), and Gantenbein (US 2021/0323219).
As to claim 1 Chapiro teaches a method for manufacturing a fiber-reinforced infiltrated matrix composite article [Abstract], the method comprising the steps of: providing filament feedstock of PEEK [0339-0341], additively manufacturing a fiber-reinforced thermoplastic article via fused filament fabrication (FFF) which is definitionally fusing successive layers of fiber feedstock together [Fig 42, 0363, 0329-0335, 0350-0353, Fig 1-16]; pyrolyzing the non-meltable article to give a pyrolyzed article having a carbon matrix [Fig 42, 0363-0366]; and infiltrating the pyrolyzed article with an infiltration agent to produce a fiber-reinforced infiltrated matrix article [Fig 42, 0363-0366]. Chapiro teaches the step of infiltrating the pyrolyzed article with the infiltration agent comprises reactive melt infiltration of the pyrolyzed article with silicon to form silicon carbide [0304, 0305, 0327, 0376].
Chapiro teaches a carbon fiber reinforced PEEK composite. Chapiro does not explicitly state the fiber-reinforced thermoplastic article is thermally annealed at an annealing temperature between 300 to 320°C.
Regis teaches the thermally annealing CFR-PEEK [Abstract] annealing temperatures of CFR-PEEK including 300 C[Table 1, 2, Fig 10]; this annealing temperature “was found to have an impact on PEEK and CFR PEEK mechanical properties, indicating that increase in crystallinity had a strengthening effect in the presence of fiber reinforcement” [Page 129]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Chapiro and included a annealing temperature of 300C, as suggested by Regis, as annealing “was found to have an impact on PEEK and CFR PEEK mechanical properties, indicating that increase in crystallinity had a strengthening effect in the presence of fiber reinforcement.”
Chapiro teaches a carbon fiber reinforced PEEK composite. Chapiro does not explicitly state the fiber-reinforced thermoplastic article is thermally annealed for 36-60 hours.
Gantenbein teaches that complex morphology PEEK that is 3D printed [Abstract, 0050, 0012, 0029, 0032] including carbon fiber reinforcement [0040] and the printed object is annealed for 48 hours at 270C and induces cross linking [0014, 0044, 0052, claim 4] as this resulted in a part with good recyclability and mechanical properties [0010]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Chapiro and annealed the PEEK article for 48 hours as suggested by Gantenbein in order to result in a part with good recyclability and mechanical properties. While Gantenbein teaches 270 C, the cross linking still explicitly results which suggests applicant’s claimed ranged is not critical see MPEP 716.02(d) and 2144.05 III A.
While Cramer would teach the claimed temperature range, Gantenbein’s temperature range is close enough to the claimed range that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect them to have the same properties, see MPEP 2144.05 I. Indeed the reference suggests as much given its disclosure of cross-linking, see above.
Chapiro teaches the fiber-reinforced thermoplastic article is additively manufactured using an article feedstock comprising PEEK filaments [0274] containing at least 20% by volume of chopped carbon fibers [0341-0340, 0120, 0122, 0123]. However, Chapiro does not teach that the fibers are PAN based fibers
Nakae teaches a method for making a 3D printed object [Abstract, 0003, 0005] wherein a thermoplastic matrix such as PEEK [0033] along with PAN-based carbon fibers are used to produce a high mechanical strength quickly [0008]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Chapiro and made the carbon fibers be PAN based carbon fibers, as suggested by Nakae, as these fibers had proven compatibility with PEEK and were known to result in a product of good mechanical strength and production speed.
Chapiro teaches resin matrices of phenol, PEEK, PEI [0354] and pyrolyzing the non-meltable article as explained above, but does not explicitly state heating the non-meltable article to a pyrolysis temperature of between 800 to 900°C, heated at a rate of 1 C/min, the pyrolysis temperature at a pyrolysis time of from 10 to 90 minutes.
Cramer teaches a method of 3D printing to produce SiC-Si composite wherein phenolic resins are used as the resin matrix [Abstract, 2.2 Printing] the article is pyrolyzed as 850 C at a rate of 1 or 2 C/min for 30 minutes as this had proven successful at carbonizing the resin [2.2 Printing, 2.3 Phenolic resin impregnation and pyrolysis (IP)]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Chapiro and performed pyrolysis such that non-meltable article to a pyrolysis temperature of between 800 to 900°C, heated at a rate of 1 C/min, the pyrolysis temperature at a pyrolysis time of from 10 to 90 minutes, as suggested by Cramer, as this had successfully carbonized the resin to create a composite.
As to claim 5, Chapiro teaches the fiber-reinforced thermoplastic article is additively manufactured by a FFF machine comprising a nozzle and bed [Fig 1-8], has a raster angle of 00 to 90°[Fig 18, 20, 21, 0190, 0192]. However, the raster angle is just a manner of operating a device and not a structural limitation.
As to claims 8 and 9, Chapiro teaches a carbon fiber reinforced PEEK composite. Chapiro does not explicitly state the fiber-reinforced thermoplastic article is thermally annealed for 36-60 hours.
Gantenbein teaches that complex morphology PEEK that is 3D printed [Abstract, 0050, 0012, 0029, 0032] including carbon fiber reinforcement [0040] and the printed object is annealed for 48 hours [0014, 0044, 0052, claim 4] as this resulted in a part with good recyclability and mechanical properties [0010]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Chapiro and annealed the PEEK article for 48 hours as suggested by Gantenbein in order to result in a part with good recyclability and mechanical properties.
As to claims 10-12, Chapiro teaches resin matrices of phenol, PEEK, PEI [0354] and pyrolyzing the non-meltable article as explained above, but does not explicitly state heating the non-meltable article to a pyrolysis temperature of between 800 to 900°C, heated at a rate of 1 C/min, the pyrolysis temperature at a pyrolysis time of from 10 to 90 minutes.
Cramer teaches a method of 3D printing to produce SiC-Si composite wherein phenolic resins are used as the resin matrix [Abstract, 2.2 Printing] the article is pyrolyzed as 850 C at a rate of 1 or 2 C/min for 30 minutes as this had proven successful at carbonizing the resin [2.2 Printing, 2.3 Phenolic resin impregnation and pyrolysis (IP)]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Chapiro and performed pyrolysis such that non-meltable article to a pyrolysis temperature of between 800 to 900°C, heated at a rate of 1 C/min, the pyrolysis temperature at a pyrolysis time of from 10 to 90 minutes, as suggested by Cramer, as this had successfully carbonized the resin to create a composite.
As to claims 14-16, Chapiro teaches reactive silicon melt infiltration, but does not explicitly state 1450 C for 30 min under a vacuum of ~0.1 Pa
Cramer teaches a method of 3D printing to produce SiC-Si composite wherein phenolic resins are used as the resin matrix [Abstract, 2.2 Printing] the article is subjected to silicon reactive melt infiltration at 1450 C for 30 min under a vacuum of ~0.1 Pa [2.4 Silicon reactive melt infiltration] as this produced a strong SiC composite with optimal mechanical properties [4 Conclusion]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Chapiro and performed reactive melt infiltration at 1450 C for 30 min under a vacuum of ~0.1 Pa, as suggested by Cramer, as this produced a SiC composite with optimal mechanical properties.
As to claims 17-19, Chapiro does not explicitly state the method further comprises heating the fiber-reinforced infiltrated matrix composite article to a post-infiltration heating temperature in argon for a post- infiltration heating time, the post-infiltration heating temperature is from 1600 to 1750 C, the post-infiltration heating time is from 2 to 6 hours.
Cramer teaches a method of 3D printing to produce SiC-Si composite wherein phenolic resins are used as the resin matrix [Abstract, 2.2 Printing] the article is subjected to silicon reactive melt infiltration at 1450 C for 30 min under a vacuum of ~0.1 Pa and then a post infiltration heating is done argon at 1670C for 4 hours in order to “minimize silicon volatization” and “reduce the viscosity of the silicon to maximize infiltration and increase the SiC content” [2.4 Silicon reactive melt infiltration] as this produced a strong SiC composite with optimal mechanical properties [4 Conclusion]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Chapiro and then a post infiltration heating is done argon at 1670C for 4 hours, as suggested by Cramer, in order to “minimize silicon volatization” and “reduce the viscosity of the silicon to maximize infiltration and increase the SiC content”.
As to claim 20, Chapiro does not explicitly state the method further comprises repeating one of the steps of pyrolyzing the non-meltable article.
Cramer teaches a method of 3D printing to produce SiC-Si composite wherein phenolic resins are used as the resin matrix [Abstract, 2.2 Printing] the article is subjected to multiple pyrolysis steps [2.3 Phenolic resin impregnation and pyrolysis (IP)] as this produced a strong SiC composite with optimal mechanical properties [4 Conclusion]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Chapiro and repeated the pyrolysis step, as suggested by Cramer, as this produced a SiC composite with optimal mechanical properties.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapiro (US 2019/299522) in view of Regis (Characterization of thermally annealed PEEK and CFR-PEEK composites: structure-properties relationships), Nakae (US 2019/0118462), Cramer (Properties of SiC-Si made via binder jet 3D printing of SiC powder, carbon addition, and silicon melt infiltration) and Gantenbein (US 2021/0323219), as applied to claims 1, 5, 8-12, 14-20 above, and in further view of Ning (Additive manufacturing of carbon fiber reinforced thermoplastic composites using fused deposition modeling, Composites Part B: Engineering).
As to claim 4, Chapiro does not teach that the fibers have a diameter between 5-10 um and an avg length of 100 um.
Ning teaches a method of additive manufacturing carbon fiber reinforced composites [Abstract] wherein 100 um length fiber is utilized that has a fiber diameter of 7.2 um [Page 371 2.1 experimental set-up procedures] which significantly improves tensile strength and young’s modulus [page 376, 4. Conclusions]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Chapiro and made the fibers has 100 um avg length and diameter of 7.2 um, as suggested by Ning, as this fiber dimensions significantly improves tensile strength and young’s modulus.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759