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 1-18, 25-28 in the reply filed on 7/3/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-11, 13-15, 25, 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamberlain et al (US 20160102022) in view of Kanai et al (JP H0967165).
Chamberlain is directed to a ceramic matrix composite materials and processes for making said composite materials are disclosed (ABST). Chamberlain teaches a silicon carbon fiber preform that has a fiber interface coating of 1-10 volume percent of the total composite and then a silicon carbide matrix that is 10-30% of the total composite and then slurry additive in the matrix at 10-30% of total composite as well as melt infiltration additives at 5-20 volume % of the total composite.
The matrix comprises silicon carbide as well as yttrium in an oxide form as well as aluminum oxide [0007]. The matrix slurry can contain alumina oxide [0034], [0046].
The fiber interface layer is formed by CVI [0033].
Chamberlain differs and does not include an oxide in the matrix of at least two of the oxides.
Kanai is directed to a silicon carbon ceramic and its production. Kanai teaches a silicon carbon ceramic that is excellent in strength and fracture toughness and is formed with multiple oxides including alumina and mullite (pdf translation page 3). Kanai teaches the silicon carbon ceramics include carbon power silicon carbide powder, alumina and zirconia and rare earth oxide (Ln2O3 wherein L is Y, La, Ce, Sm Ho, Er and Yb).
As to claims 1 and 13 and 25, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include at least 2 or more of the oxides motivated to improve the strength and fracture toughness of the silicon carbide matrix.
As to claim 2 and 26, Chamberlain and Kanai teach alumina and mullite.
As to claims 6 and 14 and 28, Chamberlain and Kanai teach silicon carbide in the matrix is particulate as the silicon carbide is in slurry.
As to claim 7, Chamberlain teaches the volume fraction of silicon carbide 5% to 70% [0033].
As to claim 8, Chamberlain teaches the SiC fibers are a preform that is made by weaving [0031].
As to claim 9, Chamberlain teaches the fiber preform is 15-45% of the composite [0031].
As to claim 10, Chamberlain teaches the SiC matrix is 5-70% and the slurry additive (oxides) are 10-30 volume percent [0035].
As to claim 11, Chamberlain teaches SiC and oxide phases where the oxide phases can be ytterbium oxide and alumina and can be in volume of 3-100%. Chamberlain does not teach cordierite, mullite or sapphirine.
Kanai teaches alumina and mullite in a SiC matrix.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the oxides on the claimed volume percentage motivated to improve the strength and fracture toughness of the silicon carbide matrix.
As to claim 12, Chamberlain and Kanai differ and do not teach periclase, spinal and forsterite.
As to claim 15, Chamberlain teaches the silicon carbide is present in 5-70% and the slurry additives (oxides) are present in 10-30 volume %.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the oxides on the claimed volume percentage motivated to improve the strength and fracture toughness of the silicon carbide matrix.
Claims 4, 5, 12 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamberlain et al (US 20160102022) in view of Kanai et al (JP H0967165) and (JP 5959853).
As to claims 4 and 12 and 27, Chamberlain and Kanai differ and do not teach periclase oxide.
JP ‘853 teaches the present invention relates to a method for producing a ceramic matrix material for friction parts of brakes, in particular disc brakes, and to a ceramic matrix material produced by this method. JP’853 teaches the abrasive comprises powdered silicon carbide. However, materials with hardness properties that function as abrasives, such as boron carbide, silicon, zircon, zirconium oxide (zirconia), periclase, corundum and spinel can also be used.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute periclase for the other abrasive particles motivated to produce an abrasive brake material.
As to claim 5, Chamberlain and Kanai differ and do not teach at least one of spinel and forsterite.
JP ‘853 teaches the present invention relates to a method for producing a ceramic matrix material for friction parts of brakes, in particular disc brakes, and to a ceramic matrix material produced by this method. JP’853 teaches the abrasive comprises powdered silicon carbide. However, materials with hardness properties that function as abrasives, such as boron carbide, silicon, zircon, zirconium oxide (zirconia), periclase, corundum and spinel can also be used.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute periclase for the other abrasive particles motivated to produce an abrasive brake material.
Claims 3, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamberlain et al (US 20160102022) in view of Kanai et al (JP H0967165) and Ketcham (US 5338598).
As to claim 3, Chamberlain and Kanai differs and do not teach cordierite and sapphirine.
Ketcham is directed to sintered polycrystalline ceramic reinforcing members in a co-sintered, inorganic, preferably ceramic matrix, formed by disposing arrays of green reinforcement precursor structures in a matrix preform and then consolidating the preform by compacting, debindering, and pressureless sintering, the resulting co-sintered composites exhibiting zero open porosity, high density, and improved work-of-fracture characteristics, are described (ABST).
Ketcham teaches that the various types of sinterable polycrystalline ceramics which may be employed, examples of such ceramics include zirconia, stabilized or partially stabilized zirconia, hafnia, alumina, .beta.-alumina, .beta.''-alumina, silica, titania, magnesia, mullite, spinel, chromium oxide, sialon, nasicon, silicon, zirconium, tungsten, and titanium carbides, silicon, titanium and aluminum nitrides, titanium diboride, zircon, cordierite, forsterite, perovskites, pyrochlores, garnets, and monticellite, as well as mixtures or other combinations thereof. In the case of the zirconia and stabilized zirconia compositions which are preferred, a variety of stabilizers including any of the well-known alkaline earth oxide and rare earth oxide stabilizers, alone or in combination, may be present (col. 4, lines 65-68, col. 5, lines 1-11).
The ceramic tapes offer the advantage of crack deflection (col. 6, lines 48-60).
As to claim 3, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute any of the known oxides for alumina and mullite motivated to improve the strength and crack resistance of the ceramic
As to claim 16, Chamberlain is directed to a ceramic matrix composite materials and processes for making said composite materials are disclosed (ABST). Chamberlain teaches a silicon carbon fiber preform that has a fiber interface coating of 1-10 volume percent of the total composite and then a silicon carbide matrix that is 10-30% of the total composite and then slurry additive in the matrix at 10-30% of total composite as well as melt infiltration additives at 5-20 volume % of the total composite.
The matrix comprises silicon carbide as well as yttrium in an oxide form as well as aluminum oxide [0007]. The matrix slurry can contain alumina oxide [0034], [0046].
The fiber interface layer is formed by CVI [0033].
Chamberlain differs and does not include an oxide in the matrix of at least two of the oxides of periclase or spinal and forsterite or enstatite.
Kanai is directed to a silicon carbon ceramic and its production. Kanai teaches a silicon carbon ceramic that is excellent in strength and fracture toughness and is formed with multiple oxides including alumina and mullite (pdf translation page 3). Kanai teaches the silicon carbon ceramics include carbon power silicon carbide powder, alumina and zirconia and rare earth oxide (Ln2O3 wherein L is Y, La, Ce, Sm Ho, Er and Yb).
Kanai teaches the combination of oxides improves the strength and fracture toughness.
Chamberlain in view of Kanai differs and does not include an oxide in the matrix of at least two of the oxides of periclase or spinal and forsterite or enstatite.
Ketcham is directed to sintered polycrystalline ceramic reinforcing members in a co-sintered, inorganic, preferably ceramic matrix, formed by disposing arrays of green reinforcement precursor structures in a matrix preform and then consolidating the preform by compacting, debindering, and pressureless sintering, the resulting co-sintered composites exhibiting zero open porosity, high density, and improved work-of-fracture characteristics, are described (ABST).
Ketcham teaches that the various types of sinterable polycrystalline ceramics which may be employed, examples of such ceramics include zirconia, stabilized or partially stabilized zirconia, hafnia, alumina, .beta.-alumina, .beta.''-alumina, silica, titania, magnesia, mullite, spinel, chromium oxide, sialon, nasicon, silicon, zirconium, tungsten, and titanium carbides, silicon, titanium and aluminum nitrides, titanium diboride, zircon, cordierite, forsterite, perovskites, pyrochlores, garnets, and monticellite, as well as mixtures or other combinations thereof. In the case of the zirconia and stabilized zirconia compositions which are preferred, a variety of stabilizers including any of the well-known alkaline earth oxide and rare earth oxide stabilizers, alone or in combination, may be present (col. 4, lines 65-68, col. 5, lines 1-11).
The ceramic tapes offer the advantage of crack deflection (col. 6, lines 48-60).
As to claim 16, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute any of the known oxides for alumina and mullite motivated to improve the strength and crack resistance of the ceramic composite.
As to claim 17, Chamberlain teaches the volume fraction of silicon carbide is 5% to 70% [0033].
As to claim 18, Chamberlain teaches the SiC matrix is 5-70% and the slurry additive (oxides) are 10-30 volume percent [0035].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A STEELE whose telephone number is (571)272-7115. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNIFER A STEELE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights