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 .
EXAMINER’S NOTE
This action is made non-final due to the new grounds of rejection presented herein.
Response to Arguments
The response dated 12/16/2025 is acknowledge. In the response, applicant has added claims 21-22 and 11 and 20 were canceled. Claims 1-10, 12-19 and 21-22 are pending with claims 8-10 and 12-19 remaining withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 1-3, filed 12/16/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC § 102 in view of Gray et al. (US 20230242451 A1) 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Gopi et al. (US 20160326644 A1), herein Gopi and Gray et al. (US 20230242451 A1), herein Gray, in view of Gopi et al. (US 20160326644 A1), herein Gopi.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2 ,5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gopi et al. (US 20160326644 A1), herein Gopi.
In regards to claims 1-2 and 7, Gopi teaches a gas outlet plate for using in CVD processes [Abstract, claims 1-2, 0007]. The plate comprises a body having two broad side faces and a number of gas openings that extend through the body [0007, 0018, Fig. 2]. The side faces as well as the gas openings have a coating layer [0007, 0026, Fig. 2]. The coating is a ceramic material which is taught by example to be silicon carbide [0007, 0028]. It is noted that for densification by CVI of a fiber preform of a CMC is considered an intended use, the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The surface of the plate is deemed to be configured to be disposed adjacent to the fiber preform or any other material.
In regards to claim 5, Gopi further teaches the coating is a ceramic material which is taught by example to be silicon carbide [0007, 0028].
Gobi does not expressly teach the ceramic coating is polymer derived.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used any type of ceramic precursors for SiC including those derived from polymers. 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.
Additionally, it is noted that the claim as written is drawn to the final coating of the ceramic. The limitation polymer derived is then a product by process limitation. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure comprising a ceramic coating. The reference suggests such a product.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopi et al. (US 20160326644 A1), herein Gopi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gray et al. (US 20230242451 A1), herein Gray
In regards to claim 3, Gopi does not teach wherein the coating comprises an inner layer formed of the ceramic material and an outer layer disposed on the inner layer, the outer layer formed of hexagonal boron nitride, turbostratic boron nitride, or graphite. Gobi does teach that the coating comprises silicon carbide but does not teach an outer layer of hexagonal boron nitride, turbostratic boron nitride, or graphite [0007, 0028].
Gray teaches a tool suitable for use in making a ceramic matrix composite part. The tool includes a graphite body. The graphite body includes multiple gas access through holes [Abstract, 0033, 0044, 0063, Fig. 2]. The tool is coated as are the inner surface of the holes with a coating comprising graphite [0013, 0031, 0044, 0079-0081, claim 5]. The coating prevents the bonding of the preform to the tool during CVI processing by sealing the pores in the surfaces [0012].
Gray teaches the coating a first coating and a second coating [0032, 0040, 0042, 0059]. The first coating comprises a carbide or nitride flakes or powder [0040]. The second coating comprises graphite [0040, 0042]. The second coating is a release layer [0059, 0066].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have added the second graphite coating of Gray to the coating of Gobi. One would have been motivated to do so by the provided release properties of the coating. Additionally, as Gray teaches it is conventionally known to apply a release layer to a coating layer for tools and thus one would have expected to have predictable results and similar benefits.
In regards to claim 21, Gopi does not teach the thickness of the coating.
Gray further teaches the coating thickness for each layer or the combined layers can be equal to or between 10 and 200 microns [0032]. 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 thickness of the coating Gobi is in the range taught by Gray. One would have been motivated to do so as it is conventionally known range for a coating layer for tools and thus one would have expected to have a reasonable expectation of success and similar benefits.
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).
In regards to claim 22, Gopi does not teach the limitations for claim 22. Gobi does teach that the coating comprises silicon carbide but does not teach an outer layer of hexagonal boron nitride, turbostratic boron nitride, or graphite [0007, 0028].
Gray teaches a tool suitable for use in making a ceramic matrix composite part. The tool includes a graphite body. The graphite body includes multiple gas access through holes [Abstract, 0033, 0044, 0063, Fig. 2]. The tool is coated as are the inner surface of the holes with a coating comprising graphite [0013, 0031, 0044, 0079-0081, claim 5]. The coating prevents the bonding of the preform to the tool during CVI processing by sealing the pores in the surfaces [0012].
Gray teaches the coating a first coating and a second coating [0032, 0040, 0042, 0059]. The first coating comprises a carbide or nitride [0040]. The second coating comprises graphite [0040, 0042]. The second coating is a release layer [0059, 0066].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have added the second graphite coating of Gray to the coating of Gobi. One would have been motivated to do so by the provided release properties of the coating. Additionally, as Gray teaches it is conventionally known to apply a release layer to a coating layer for tools and thus one would have expected to have predictable results and similar benefits.
Gray further teaches the coating thickness for each layer or the combined layers can be equal to or between 10 and 200 microns [0032]. 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 thickness of the coating Gobi is in the range taught by Gray. One would have been motivated to do so as it is conventionally known range for a coating layer for tools and thus one would have expected to have a reasonable expectation of success and similar benefits.
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).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopi et al. (US 20160326644 A1), herein Gopi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sun et al. (A review on the preparation and application of BN composite coatings), herein Sun.
In regards to claim 6, Gopi further teaches the coating is a ceramic material [0007, 0028].
Gray does not expressly teach that the ceramic is hexagonal boron nitride (h-BN).
Sun teaches h-BN composite coatings [Abstract].
Sun teaches BN has remarkable physical and chemical properties such as oxidation resistance, corrosion resistance, self-lubrication, high dielectric properties, thermal vibration resistance, and non-wetting with most metals and semiconductors [3–6]. The h-BN layers are bound by feeble van der Waals forces, allowing the layers to slide readily against each other. Therefore, h-BN is applied as a solid lubricant or sinter, either as a release agent, or as a suspension or powder. The introduction of BN materials into composite materials can not only retain the advantages of BN ceramics, but also overcome the shortcomings of single-phase BN materials, such as poor mechanical characteristic and difficult to manufacture large-shaped components. The coatings are used as anti-oxidation and corrosion-resistant coatings, thermal insulation coatings, wear-resistant coatings, sealing coatings, etc., and are used in the steel industry, metallization industry, battery industry, etc. [Introduction].
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 h-BN coating of Sun as the ceramic coating of Gobi. One would have been motivated to do so based on the lubrication and resistance properties afforded by the h-BN.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray et al. (US 20230242451 A1), herein Gray, in view of Gopi et al. (US 20160326644 A1), herein Gopi.
In regards to claim 1, Gray teaches a tool suitable for use in making a ceramic matrix composite part. The tool includes a graphite body. The graphite body includes multiple gas access through holes [Abstract, 0033, 0044, 0063, Fig. 2]. The tool is coated with a coating comprising graphite [0013, 0031, 0044, 0079-0081, claim 5]. The coating prevents the bonding of the preform to the tool during CVI processing by sealing the pores in the surfaces [0012]. Gray does not expressly teach that the holes are coated.
Gopi teaches a gas outlet plate for using in CVD processes [Abstract, claims 1-2, 0007]. The plate comprises a body having two broad side faces and a number of gas openings that extend through the body [0007, 0018, Fig. 2]. The side faces as well as the gas openings have a coating layer [0007, 0026, Fig. 2]. The coating is a ceramic material [0007, 0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have coated the holes of the tool of Gray with a coating as taught by Gopi. One would have been motivated to do so as Gray teaches the tool needs sealing and thus all surface that are touched by the vapors should be sealed. Additionally, it would be the application of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way and obtain predictable results.
In regards to claim 2, Gray teaches the coating comprises a carbide or nitride flakes or powder [0040].
Gray does not expressly teach that the carbide is SiC nor that the nitride is silicon nitride.
However, it would have been used SIC or silicon nitride particles in the coating of Gray. One would have been motivated to do so as SiC and silicon nitride are conventionally known carbides and nitrides for use in coating in CVI processes. Additionally, 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, Gray teaches the coating a first coating and a second coating [0032, 0040, 0042, 0059]. The fist coating comprises a carbide or nitride flakes or powder [0040].
Gray does not expressly teach that the carbide is SiC nor that the nitride is silicon nitride.
However, it would have been used SIC or silicon nitride particles in the coating of Gray. One would have been motivated to do so as SiC and silicon nitride are conventionally known carbides and nitrides for use in coating in CVI processes. Additionally, 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.
The second coating comprises graphite [0040, 0042].
While Gray does not teach a singular example of the instantly claimed first and second coatings, Gray teaches conventionally known coatings comprised of the claimed ceramic and graphite materials. Accordingly, this it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine these features as this is considered a conventionally known combination of features known to form coatings for tooling and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claim 4, Gray teaches the coating a first coating and a second coating [0032, 0040, 0042, 0059]. The fist coating comprises a graphite [0040, claims 5]. The second coating comprises a carbide or nitride [0040, 0042].
Gray does not expressly teach that the carbide is SiC nor that the nitride is silicon nitride which are ceramics.
However, it would have been used SIC or silicon nitride particles in the coating of Gray. One would have been motivated to do so as SiC and silicon nitride are conventionally known carbides and nitrides for use in coating in CVI processes. Additionally, 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.
While Gray does not teach a singular example of the instantly claimed first and second coatings, Gray teaches conventionally known coatings comprised of the claimed ceramic and graphite materials. Accordingly, this it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine these features as this is considered a conventionally known combination of features known to form coatings for tooling and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claim 5, Gray teaches the coating comprises a carbide or nitride flakes or powder [0040].
Gray does not expressly teach that the carbide is SiC nor that the nitride is silicon nitride or similar ceramic.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used SiC or silicon nitride particles in the coating of Gray. One would have been motivated to do so as SiC and silicon nitride are conventionally known carbides and nitrides for use in coating in CVI processes. Additionally, 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.
Gray does not expressly teach the ceramic particles or powder are polymer derived.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used any type of ceramic particles including those derived from polymers as the particles or powder of Gray. 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.
Additionally, it is noted that the claim as written is drawn to the final coating of the ceramic. The limitation polymer derived is then a product by process limitation. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure comprising a ceramic coating. The reference suggests such a product.
In regards to claim 7, Gray teaches the coating is more than one portions or the tool [0019, 0031]. Gray further teaches the coating seals the tool [0019].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have ensured all portions including the second surface of the tool are coated with the first coating. One would have been motivated to do so protect the tool from any gas or moisture infiltration during usage.
In regards to claim 21, Gray further teaches the coating thickness for each layer or the combined layers can be equal to or between 10 and 200 microns [0032]. 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 thickness of the coating Gobi is in the range taught by Gray. One would have been motivated to do so as it is conventionally known range for a coating layer for tools and thus one would have expected to have a reasonable expectation of success and similar benefits.
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).
In regards to claim 22, Gray teaches the coating a first coating and a second coating [0032, 0040, 0042, 0059]. The fist coating comprises a carbide or nitride flakes or powder [0040].
Gray does not expressly teach that the carbide is SiC nor that the nitride is silicon nitride.
However, it would have been used SIC or silicon nitride particles in the coating of Gray. One would have been motivated to do so as SiC and silicon nitride are conventionally known carbides and nitrides for use in coating in CVI processes. Additionally, 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.
The second coating comprises graphite [0040, 0042].
While Gray does not teach a singular example of the instantly claimed first and second coatings, Gray teaches conventionally known coatings comprised of the claimed ceramic and graphite materials. Accordingly, this it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine these features as this is considered a conventionally known combination of features known to form coatings for tooling and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Gray further teaches the coating thickness for each layer or the combined layers can be equal to or between 10 and 200 microns [0032]. 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 thickness of the coating Gobi is in the range taught by Gray. One would have been motivated to do so as it is conventionally known range for a coating layer for tools and thus one would have expected to have a reasonable expectation of success and similar benefits.
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).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray et al. (US 20230242451 A1), herein Gray, in view of Gopi et al. (US 20160326644 A1), herein Gopi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sun et al. (A review on the preparation and application of BN composite coatings), herein Sun.
In regards to claim 6, Gray teaches the coating a first coating and a second coating [0032, 0040, 0042, 0059]. The fist coating comprises nitride flakes or powder or graphite [0040].
Gray does not expressly teach that the nitride is hexagonal boron nitride (h-BN).
Sun teaches h-BN composite coatings [Abstract].
Sun teaches BN has remarkable physical and chemical properties such as oxidation resistance, corrosion resistance, self-lubrication, high dielectric properties, thermal vibration resistance, and non-wetting with most metals and semiconductors [3–6]. The h-BN layers are bound by feeble van der Waals forces, allowing the layers to slide readily against each other. Therefore, h-BN is applied as a solid lubricant or sinter, either as a release agent, or as a suspension or powder. The introduction of BN materials into composite materials can not only retain the advantages of BN ceramics, but also overcome the shortcomings of single-phase BN materials, such as poor mechanical characteristic and difficult to manufacture large-shaped components. The coatings are used as anti-oxidation and corrosion-resistant coatings, thermal insulation coatings, wear-resistant coatings, sealing coatings, etc., and are used in the steel industry, metallization industry, battery industry, etc. [Introduction].
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 h-BN of Sun as the nitride of Gray. One would have been motivated to do so based on the lubrication and resistance properties afforded by the h-BN.
Conclusion
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