Detailed Correspondence
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/03/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ amendment of the claim, filed on 03/03/2026, in response to the rejection of claims 1, 4-7, and 10-13 from the final office action (12/03/2025), by amending claims 1 and 14 is entered and will be addressed below.
The examiner notices claim 1 is the same as discussed during interview.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14 and 17-18 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-7 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The newly added limitation “wherein each tooling assembly of the first plurality of tooling assemblies, the second plurality of tooling assemblies, and the third plurality of tooling assemblies is sized to enclose a fibrous preform such that each of the plurality of porous walls is spaced apart from the fibrous preform to allow gas flow about the fibrous preform” does not have support in Applicants’ Specification.
Applicants assert that description of [0010]-[0011], particularly Figs. 1 and 2 show the walls 32 are spaced apart from the preform 30.
The examiner cannot find anywhere in [0010] and [0011] expressly teaches “space apart” relationship. Fig. 1 does not show walls 32 and Fig. 2 does not show preform 30.
Furthermore, [0011] clearly states that “Connectors 34 can have various geometries for forming tooling assemblies 28 having different polyhedral shapes, such as a square, rectangular, or triangular prism, or an octahedron, to name a few non-limiting examples. In an alternative embodiment, walls 32 can include curvature and be at least partially complementary to a shape of preform 30 (e.g., an airfoil and platform(s)) arranged, for example, as two halves. In such an embodiment, connectors 34 can be clips, bands, or other suitable connector for holding the halves together”, therefore, Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 are each example of different shape of the tooling assemblies. There is no express teaching of the preform 30 being spaced apart from walls 32.
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 1-3 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crutchfield (US 11932941, hereafter ‘941), in view of Malshe et al. (US 20060199013, hereafter ‘013), Thebault et al. (US 5217755, hereafter ‘755), and Ritchey (US 20210101841, hereafter ‘841). (US 6237596 is evidenced for flow rate through porous material). (US 6206531 is evidenced for a PPI value of reticulated vitreous carbon).
‘941 teaches some limitations of:
Claim 1: FIG. 1 illustrates an example furnace 10 having a furnace working zone 12. Furnace may be a CVI/CVD furnace (col. 6, lines 32-33), preheater 16 may be part of a larger load assembly or retort for processing parts disposed within furnace working zone 12 (col. 6, lines 58-60), Load assembly 60 also includes a plurality of fixtures 68 configured to be positioned within spaces 66 and 76. Each fixture of plurality of fixtures 68 may be configured to contain a part or parts 88 to be treated by reactive gases flowing through load assembly 60 (Figs. 6-7, col. 12, lines 3-7), load assembly 60 may include any suitable number of levels (e.g., spaces 66, 76) (col. 11, lines 56-57), Preheater 16 may use energy from furnace working zone 12 and/or plurality of heating elements 14 to heat reactant gases flowing through preheater 16. In some examples, reactant gases enter preheater 16 through central inlet 18 directly from raw material storage at or near room temperature and exit plurality of apertures 110 in outlet diffuser plate 108 (col. 10, lines 43-49, including the claimed “An arrangement of tooling assemblies within a CVI reactor having a plurality of levels sequentially disposed between an inlet and an outlet of the reactor, the arrangement comprising: a first plurality of tooling assemblies disposed in a first level of the reactor closest to the inlet” Fig. 6 shows each level has about 10 fixtures 68),
each fixture of plurality of fixtures 68 may include a plurality of perforations 84 configured to allow gas to flow from outside of each fixture to inside of each fixture. Perforations 84 may be positioned uniformly throughout fixtures 68, or may be positioned at selected locations of fixtures 68 to guide reactant gases to part or parts 88 positioned within fixtures 68 (col. 12, lines 57-64, Fig. 7 shows at least two perforations 84 surrounding each part 88), Each fixture of plurality of fixtures 68 may include multiple sections, which are configured to be clamped by at least one clamp 82. At least one clamp 82 is configured to retain the multiple sections of the fixture with respect to each other, and to retain the multiple sections of the fixture surrounding part or parts 88 (col. 12, lines 19-24, including the claimed “each of the first plurality of tooling assemblies comprising: a plurality of porous walls having a first porosity and a first thickness; and at least one connector securing the plurality of porous walls together; and a second plurality of tooling assemblies disposed in a second level of the reactor further from the inlet than the first level, each of the second plurality of tooling assemblies comprising: a plurality of porous walls having a second porosity and a second thickness; and at least one connector securing the plurality of porous walls together”),
load assembly 60 may include any suitable number of levels (e.g., spaces 66, 76) (col. 11, lines 56-57, Fig. 6 shows four levels, including the claimed “a third plurality of tooling assemblies disposed in a third level between the first level and the second level, each of the third plurality of tooling assemblies comprising: a plurality of porous walls having at third porosity and at third thickness; and at least one connector securing the plurality of porous walls together“).
‘941 does not teach the other limitations of:
Claim 1: (1A) wherein the second porosity is greater than the first porosity and the third porosity is greater than the first porosity and less than the second porosity: and
(1B) wherein the second thickness is less than the first thickness and the third thickness is less than the first thickness and greater than the second thickness;
(1C) and wherein each tooling assembly of the first plurality of tooling assemblies, the second plurality of tooling assemblies, and the third plurality of tooling assemblies is sized to enclose a fibrous preform such that each of the plurality of porous walls is spaced apart from the fibrous preform to allow gas flow about the fibrous preform.
‘013 is analogous art in the field of chemical vapor infiltration (CVI) ([0110]). ’013 teaches that A low flow velocity can cause depletion of precursors downstream, and a high velocity can prevent adequate coating formation leading to significant thickness non-uniformity ([0246], 4th sentence).
‘755 is analogous art in the field of Chemical Vapor Infiltration Method Utilizing Substantially Diffusive Conditions (title). ’755 teaches that In the example of FIG. 2, the porous substrates are inside a rigid cylindrical envelope constituting a bell 50 standing on a tray 52, both being made of graphite, for example. The bell 50 constitutes a permeable wall because of holes 54 formed through its side wall 50a, and through its top wall 50b … By having no holes in the tray 52 facing the incoming gas flow, and by forming holes solely in the side wall 50a parallel to the direction of incidence of the gas flow, and also in the top wall 50b, the already greatly attenuated impact effect that the gas flow may have on the porous substrate(s) 12 is further reduced, thereby further reducing any possible deposition thickness gradient (col. 4, lines 13-29). It is possible to make a permeable wall that has a permeability gradient, with its permeability increasing in the gas flow direction. In the example of FIG. 2, this may be achieved by increasing the number and/or the diameter of the holes 54 on going from the tray 52 to the top wall 50b, which may itself be omitted (col. 4, lines 30-35, i.e. increasing porosity in the gas flow direction), In the example of FIG. 1, the permeable wall is a cloth envelope 40 which is closed like a bag, surrounding the porous substrate(s) 12 and held apart therefrom (col. 3, lines 57-59, Fig. 2 also shows that the porous substrates 12 is apart from the porous bell 50).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have known that the precursor depletion downstream from the inlet 18 in ‘941, as taught by ‘013, and to have applied an increasing the number and/or the diameter of the holes, or the porosity, to attenuate the impact of the precursor depletion downstream (the limitation of 1A), as taught by ‘755, for the purpose of reducing deposition thickness gradient, as taught by ‘755 (col. 4, lines 28-29). Furthermore, to have replaced the fixture 68 that restrain the parts 88 of ‘941 with porous bell 50 that is spaced apart from the porous substrates 12 of ‘755 (the limitation of 1C), for its suitability to perform CVI with predictable results. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.07.
Note US 20030049374 cited in conclusion also teaches substrate SB spaced apart from the porous walls 64, 66 (Fig. 2).
‘841 is analogous art in the field of ASSEMBLY FOR CHEMICAL VAPOR INFILTRATION OF A FIBER PREFORM (title). ’841 teaches that the thickness of the sacrificial preform 108 may be selected to correspond to diffusion depths associated with the formation and deposition of excess coating material 114 in conventional CVI ([0013], 2nd sentence).
US 6237596 is evidenced for Darcy’s law (col. 3, equation (2), the flux of gas is inverse proportional to the distance between samplings, which is thickness of the porous material).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have known that the precursor depletion downstream from the inlet 18 in ‘941, as taught by ‘013, and to have applied an increasing a decreasing thickness to increase the flow rate through the porous material to attenuate the impact of the precursor depletion downstream (the limitation of 1B), as taught by ‘841, for the purpose of selecting thickness to correspond to diffusion flow, as taught by ‘841 ([0013], 2nd sentence).
The combination of ‘941, ‘013, ‘755, and ‘841 further teaches the limitations of:
Claim 11: the permeable wall may be made of carbon (carbon felt or cloth) or of graphite (a rigid perforated graphite envelope) (‘755, col. 2, lines 39-41, includes the claimed “wherein the plurality of porous walls of each of the first, second, and third plurality of tooling assemblies are formed from graphite”).
Claim 12: load assembly 60 may be formed from graphite (‘941, col. 13, lines 27-28, as clamp 82 is part of the load assembly, it would be obvious to have adopted graphite clamp, includes the claimed “wherein the at least one connector of at least one of the first, second, and third plurality of tooling assemblies is formed from graphite”).
Claim 4: Referring now to FIG. 1A, the assembly 100 comprises a tool 102 having through-holes 104 for passage of gaseous reactants during CVI. The fiber preform 106 is constrained within the tool 102 for deposition of reaction products from the gaseous reactants, and a sacrificial preform 108 is disposed between the fiber preform 106 and the tool 102. The sacrificial preform 108 is gas permeable to allow for diffusion of the gaseous reactants into the fiber preform 106 ([0012]), the sacrificial preform 108 may comprise carbon fibers (e.g., a carbon fiber fabric or carbon fiber mat), … and/or a carbon foam (e.g., reticulated vitreous carbon foam). To facilitate ease of use and assembly, the sacrificial preform 108 is preferably flexible and/or deformable (‘841, [0014], last two sentences, obvious to replacing the graphite permeable wall of ‘755 with reticulated vitreous carbon of ‘841, for the purpose of flexibility, includes the claimed “wherein the plurality of porous walls of each of the first, second, and third plurality of tooling assemblies are formed from reticulated vitreous carbon”).
Claim 5: each of the perforations 84 at each level intrinsically having a pores-per-inch (PPI) value (includes the claimed “wherein: the plurality of porous walls of the first tooling assembly has a first pores-per-inch value; the plurality of porous walls of the second tooling assembly has a second pores-per-inch value; and the plurality of porous walls of the third tooling assembly has a third pores-per-inch value”).
Claim 6: It is possible to make a permeable wall that has a permeability gradient, with its permeability increasing in the gas flow direction. In the example of FIG. 2, this may be achieved by increasing the number and/or the diameter of the holes 54 on going from the tray 52 to the top wall 50b, which may itself be omitted (‘755, col. 4, lines 30-35, when applied to multi levels of tools/fixtures 68 of ‘941, would have the claimed “ wherein the first pores-per-inch value is different from the second pores-per-inch value, and wherein the second pores-per-inch value is different from the third pores-per-inch value”).
Claim 7: as ‘755 teaches PPI is an effect parameter, it is obvious to optimize the PPI value to achieve desired permeability gradient (including the claimed “wherein each of the first, second, and third pores-per-inch values ranges from 5 to 100”, note US 6206531 is evidenced that reticulated vitreous carbon having about 80 pores per inch, … Preferred pores per inch values for this material are from about 45 to 100, col. 4, lines 48-55, see also col. 6, lines 8-9).
Claim 10: ‘841 teaches the thickness is an effect parameter, the selection of thickness of the perforations 84 is optimized by permeability as well as porosity at each level, including the claimed “wherein each of the first, second, and third thicknesses range from 0.0625 in to 0.25 in”.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘941, ‘013, ‘755, and ‘841 as being applied to claim 2 rejection above, further in view of Okawa et al. (US 20110272598, hereafter ‘598).
The combination of ‘941, ‘013, ‘755, and ‘841 does not expressly teach the limitations of:
Claim 13: wherein each of the first, second, and third plurality of tooling assemblies have a polyhedral geometry.
‘941 further teaches that Each fixture of plurality of fixtures 68 may have a shape and size selected based on a shape and size of the part or parts 88 which the corresponding fixture is configured to at least partially surround. Depending on the part or parts 88 to be restrained by each fixture of plurality of fixtures 68, the fixtures 68 may be the same or may be different. For instance, plurality of fixtures 68 may include a three-dimensional polygon shape, a shape with complex curvature in one or more axis,
combinations thereof, or the like (col. 12, lines 10-18). It would have been obvious to change the shape a cube (a polyhedral).
‘598 is analogous art in the field of “chemical vapor infiltration” carbon containing gases are entered into the pores of silica aerogels and silica aerogels are doped with iron or nickel ([0034]). ’598 teaches that The device may comprise in certain aspects, a polyhedron, e.g., a cube (tetrahedron) ([0021], 3rd sentence, see also claim 12).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted a polyhedron device/object of ‘598 as the infiltration parts 88 of ‘941, for the purpose of coating silica aerogels, as taught by ‘598.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regarding to USC 103 rejection, Applicants argue that Crutchfield ‘941 teaches that “Each fixture of plurality of fixtures 68 may restrain the part or parts 88 relative to load assembly”, see the bottom of page 7, stating Thebault ‘755 teaches porous substrates 12 can be inside a bell, see the 2nd last paragraph of page 8, and then summarized that the combination does not teach “each of the plurality of porous walls is spaced apart from the fibrous preform to allow gas flow about the fibrous preform”, see the last complete paragraph of page 9.
This argument is found not persuasive.
Fig. 2 of ‘755 clearly shows that the porous substrates 12 are spaced apart from the porous bell 50. ‘755 also expressly states that “In the example of FIG. 1, the permeable wall is a cloth envelope 40 which is closed like a bag, surrounding the porous substrate(s) 12 and held apart therefrom” (col. 3, lines 57-59). This clearly demonstrate leaving space between porous substrate and porous wall is suitable for CVI process.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note US 20030049374 is cited for substrate SB spaced apart from the porous walls 64, 66 (Fig. 2).
US 4201691 is cited for “As the flow rate through each perforation is inversely proportional to the thickness of the flow distribution means in communication with it, the thicker the flow distribution means the slower the dispersion flow from that perforation and so on” (col. 6, lines 16-20), including filtering gas in porous material (col. 10, lines 40-48).
US 20050205015 is cited for “the gas injection holes to the gas flow may be smaller in the upstream of the gas flow in the shower plate and the conductance of the gas injection holes to the gas flow may be larger in the downstream of the gas flow in the shower plate” (Fig. 1, [0100]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEATH T CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1870. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:00 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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/KEATH T CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights