DETAILED ACTION
The claims 1-18 are pending and presented for the examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/24/2023 and 05/09/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 10 contains extraneous words after “composite of claim 7” and before “the refractory filaments” that appear to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites that the atmospheric conditions can include “vacuum pressure” but then lists pressures of up to 100 psi, said pressure being much higher than what would constitute a vacuum to one of ordinary skill in the art. The claim limitations are thus indefinite under USC 112.
Claim 14 is indefinite as dependent from indefinite claim 13 and containing the unclear limitations therein.
Claim 18 is indefinite because it recites “preceramic polymers” as one option for the “ceramic material” of claim 17, and a preceramic polymer is not a type of ceramic material. This incompatibility of terms renders indefinite said claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3, 5, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Delehouze et al (US 2021/0062343 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Delehouze et al teaches a method of coating a continuous fiber comprising contacting the fiber with a precursor to the coating component while said precursor is in a supercritical phase so as to effect coating by supercritical phase (fluid) deposition (see claim 1). Delehouze et al teaches that the interphase (interface) coating is silicon carbide in embodiments (see claim 5), and that the continuous fibers that are coated are also silicon carbide (see claim 1). Delehouze et al teaches that heating of the fiber is undertaken so as to effect conversion of the precursor to the desired coating composition, and as such this would result in a carbonized form of the organometallic precursor (see paragraph 0050). The resultant interface coating inherently surrounds a surface of the silicon carbide fiber (refractory filament), and Delehouze et al teaches that the inventive coated fibers are used in composite (refractory) materials (see paragraph 0019). Each limitation of instant claim 1 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is anticipated by Delehouze et al.
Regarding claim 2, Delehouze et al teaches a silicon carbide refractory filament.
Regarding claim 3, Delehouze et al teaches that the interphase coating can be a carbide of silicon.
Regarding claim 5, Delehouze et al teaches an embodiment wherein yarns (tows) of several fibers are formed together (see paragraph 0051).
Regarding claim 11, Delehouze et al teaches a method of coating a continuous fiber comprising contacting the fiber with a precursor to the coating component while said precursor is in a supercritical phase so as to effect coating by supercritical phase (fluid) deposition (see claim 1). Delehouze et al teaches that the interphase (interface) coating is silicon carbide in embodiments (see claim 5), and that the continuous fibers that are coated are also silicon carbide (see claim 1). Delehouze et al teaches that heating of the fiber is undertaken so as to effect conversion of the precursor to the desired coating composition, and as such this would result in a carbonized form of the organometallic precursor (see paragraph 0050). The resultant interface coating inherently surrounds a surface of the silicon carbide fiber (refractory filament), and Delehouze et al teaches that the inventive coated fibers are used in composite (refractory) materials (see paragraph 0019). Each limitation of instant claim 11 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is anticipated by Delehouze et al.
Regarding claim 16, Delehouze et al teaches an embodiment wherein yarns (tows) of several fibers are formed together (see paragraph 0051).
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kmetz et al (US 8986845 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Kmetz et al teaches a ceramic matrix composite comprising fibers having thereon an interface coating (see column 2, lines 30-40 and Fig. 2). Kmetz et al teaches an embodiment comprising carbide fibers on a silicon nitride interface coating thereon (see claims 4 and 8). The limitations of the instant claim pertaining to method of formation of the interface layer are process limitations in this product claim. These product-by-process limitations only hold patentable weight in distinguishing the instantly claimed refractory material over an equivalent material formed by a differing method in as much as they exclude prior art materials made by method that could not lead to the instantly claimed composition and structure. This is not the case with the Kmetz et al refractory material; the product-by-process limitations do not impart any particular structural or compositional limitations on the claimed material that would not be present in that of Kmetz. Kmetz et al teaches a refractory fiber having an interface coating thereon, each of said fiber and coating components meeting the compositional limitations of the instant claim; the differing method of application of the coating is not shown to render the resultant coating any different in the instantly claimed product. As such, each limitation of claim 1 is met by Kmetz et al, and the claim is anticipated by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 2, Kmetz et al teaches a silicon carbide fiber component.
Regarding claim 3, Kmetz et al teaches a silicon nitride interface coating component.
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.
Claims 4, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delehouze et al (US 2021/0062343 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the claim differs from Delehouze et al as applied above because Delehouze et al does not teach the depth to which the interface coating is present beneath the coated fiber’s surface. However, as discussed above, Delehouze et al teaches coating a fiber comprised of the same material as that of the instant claims with an interface coating that is also composed equivalently to that of the instant claims, using the same supercritical deposition and heating method. The resultant coating would necessarily, then, also penetrate beneath the surface to the same degree. Thus, the Delehouze et al coating would necessarily be present beneath the fiber surface at a depth of greater than 0% to 20%. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Each limitation of claim 4 is met by the teachings of Delehouze et al, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 12, Delehouze et al teaches that the supercritical coating component can be selected from a list that includes alcohols and specifically ethanol. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at a method wherein the supercritical fluid component is used to carry the taught organometallic precursor and the fluid is ethanol through routine experimentation and optimization with the small and finite list presented by Delehouze et al.
Regarding claim 15, the claim differs from Delehouze et al as applied above because Delehouze et al does not teach the depth to which the interface coating is present beneath the coated fiber’s surface. However, as discussed above, Delehouze et al teaches coating a fiber comprised of the same material as that of the instant claims with an interface coating that is also composed equivalently to that of the instant claims, using the same supercritical deposition and heating method. The resultant coating would necessarily, then, also penetrate beneath the surface to the same degree. Thus, the Delehouze et al coating would necessarily be present beneath the fiber surface at a depth of greater than 0% to 20%. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Claims 6-10 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delehouze et al (US 2021/0062343 A1) in view of Andersson et al (US 5290737).
Regarding claim 6, the claim differs from Delehouze et al as applied above because Delehouze et al does not specifically teach assembling the fibers or yarns into a broadgood. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Delehouze et al in view of Andersson et al in order to form the inventive coated fibers into a woven sheet (broadgood) because Andersson et al teaches a similar fiber and its use as a reinforcing component for a composite matrix, and teaches that thus forming the fibers into a sheet is advantageous for these applications. Andersson et al teaches a process of producing a coating on reinforcing fibers, said coating being produced from a precursor and thereafter converted to a nitride or carbide such as SiC. Andersson et al teaches that subsequently these fibers can be woven into the form of sheets of cloth (see column 2, lines 55-60 and Figs. 1A-1C) for application as reinforcing fibers or preforms for composites. These cloth forms meet the limitations imparted by the term broadgood. One of ordinary skill would have had motivation to for the Delehouze et al fibers into woven cloth sheets such as is taught by Andersson et al because Andersson et al teaches that is an advantageous method of shaping composite articles. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification because Delehouze et al and Andersson et al are drawn to similar methods of coating and using ceramic fibers. Each limitation of claim 6 is thus met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 7, Delehouze et al teaches coated ceramic fibers and their use in ceramic matrix composites. Delehouze et al teaches a method of coating a continuous fiber comprising contacting the fiber with a precursor to the coating component while said precursor is in a supercritical phase so as to effect coating by supercritical phase (fluid) deposition (see claim 1). Delehouze et al teaches that the interphase (interface) coating is silicon carbide in embodiments (see claim 5), and that the continuous fibers that are coated are also silicon carbide (see claim 1). Delehouze et al teaches that heating of the fiber is undertaken so as to effect conversion of the precursor to the desired coating composition, and as such this would result in a carbonized form of the organometallic precursor (see paragraph 0050). The resultant interface coating inherently surrounds a surface of the silicon carbide fiber (refractory filament), and Delehouze et al teaches that the inventive coated fibers are used in composite (refractory) materials (see paragraph 0019).
As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Delehouze et al in view of Andersson et al in order to form the inventive coated fibers into a woven cloth sheet (broadgood) for said applications in ceramic matrix composites. Thus Delehouze et al in view of Andersson et al teaches a plurality of refractory filaments assembled together in the form of a broadgood, said refractory filaments meeting each compositional and structural limitation of the instant claim 7. Each limitation of instant claim 7 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 8, Delehouze et al teaches a silicon carbide refractory filament and that the interphase coating can be a carbide of silicon.
Regarding claim 9, the claim differs from Delehouze et al as applied above because Delehouze et al does not teach the depth to which the interface coating is present beneath the coated fiber’s surface. However, as discussed above, Delehouze et al teaches coating a fiber comprised of the same material as that of the instant claims with an interface coating that is also composed equivalently to that of the instant claims, using the same supercritical deposition and heating method. The resultant coating would necessarily, then, also penetrate beneath the surface to the same degree. Thus, the Delehouze et al coating would necessarily be present beneath the fiber surface at a depth of greater than 0% to 20%. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding claim 10, as discussed above, Delehouze et al teaches gathering the fibers to be coated into yarn (tows), and obvious modification in view of Andersson et al would lead to a broadgood woven from said fibers or tows.
Regarding claim 17, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Delehouze et al in view of Andersson et al in order to form a woven cloth sheet (broadgood) from the inventive fibers, for use in a ceramic matrix composite.
Regarding claim 18, Andersson et al teaches that the matrix can be alumina (see column 5, lines 35-45).
Conclusion
14. No claim is allowed.
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NOAH S WIESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
NSW16 February 2026