DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
Acknowledgement is made of amendments filed 05/21/2026. Upon entering the amendments, claim 16 is canceled, claims 19-20 are added, and claims 1-2, 7, 10-11, 13, and 17 are amended. The claims 1-15 and 17-20 are pending and presented for the examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 has been amended to overcome the objections previously set forth. These objections have therefore been withdrawn.
Rejections Over USC 112 Withdrawn
Claim 13 has been amended to overcome the indefiniteness rejection set forth in the previous office action. Therefore, these grounds of rejection are withdrawn for said claim 13 and claim 14 depending therefrom. While the remarks state that claim 18 has been amended to overcome the previously issued indefiniteness rejection, this does not appear to actually be the case, as the claim is not amended, and therefore the indefiniteness rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-15 and 17-20 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 claims contain 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 amended independent claim 1 is drawn to a refractory material that is now described as “radio frequency (RF) transmissive”. The original disclosure as shown in the Specification does not contain any mention or description of a refractory material that is radio frequency transmissive. The only discussion in the Specification of the disclosed material’s relation to radio waves is a single mention of CMCs in general being useful in applications having radio wave transparency (paragraph 0001 of the Specification). This does not constitute a disclosure of a RF transmissive composite because this single mention is drawn to ceramic matrix composites in general, and is not in any way specific to applicant’s disclosed or claimed refractory material. Further, it is a single mention of one possible use for CMCs amount a long list of other, disparate uses, all other uses not being described as requiring radio wave transparency. Finally, the instant claim 1 has been amended such that it covers RF transmissive materials, not only transparent materials. This is a broader distinction that would cover any degree of transmission, not only fully transparency, and thus there would need to be separate support for a transmissive material in the Specification. No such support exists. The amendments to instant claim 1 therefore constitute new matter and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim 11 has been amended equivalently to claim 1, and these amendments constitute new matter for the same reasons as discussed above. There is not support in the original Specification for a method of making a refractory material wherein the material is RF transmissive. The claim is therefore also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as depending from said claims 1 and 11 and therefore containing the new matter of the amended independent claims.
New claims 19 and 20 contain limitations that the woven filaments and tow/broadgood are RF transparent. These limitations are new matter that was not disclosed in the instant Specification. As discussed above, the Specification contains only a single mention of radio wave transparency, and this is only a description of a property that one use among many of CMCs in general may have. It is not a description of a property that the filaments or tow/broadgood of the instantly disclosed material actual have. Thus, applicant’s Specification does not contain any sufficient support for woven filaments, tows, or broadgoods that are themselves RF transparent, and new claims 19-20 contain new matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C.112(a).
6. 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.
7. Claim 18 is 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 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
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, and 10-11 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). An embodiment is taught wherein yarns (tows) of several fibers are formed together (see paragraph 0051). 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). These materials are the same as those instantly claimed for the filament and coating components, and as such the resultant coated fiber tow would inherently have equivalent properties; thus, the coated fiber yarn (tow) would inherently be RF transmissive to at least some degree, and the new limitation added by the amendment is met.
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 7, Delehouze et al teaches that the inventive coated fibers and yarn are used in ceramic matrix composites (see paragraph 0019). In such configurations, a ceramic matrix material would be composited with and encapsulate the tow taught by Delehouze et al. As discussed above, the equivalently composed fibers taught by Delehouze et al have the same material as filament and coating portions as compared to those of the instantly claimed, and the yarn (tows) and composites formed therefrom would thus inherently have at least a degree of transmissiveness to radio frequency wavelengths. The further limitations added by the amendments are therefore met by the Delehouze et al teachings.
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 10, as discussed above, Delehouze et al teaches gathering the fibers to be coated into yarn (tows) and applying the inventive coating method thereto.
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). An embodiment is taught wherein yarns (tows) of several fibers are formed together (see paragraph 0051). 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). These materials are the same as those instantly claimed for the filament and coating components, and as such the resultant coated fiber tow would inherently have equivalent properties; thus, the coated fiber yarn (tow) would inherently be RF transmissive to at least some degree, and the new limitation added by the amendment is met.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Claims 4, 9, 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 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 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).
13. Claims 6 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.
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).
Response to Arguments
14. Applicant’s arguments filed 05/21/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Delehouze et al does not teach treating a tow or broadgood. However, as discussed above and in the previous Office Action, Delehouze et al teaches an embodiment wherein the inventive apparatus and method are used to coat a fiber yarn. This yarn would be structurally equivalent to a tow and would constitute a tow in terms of falling within the instant claim coverage. As such, contrary to applicant’s assertion, a treated tow is, in fact, taught by the previously applied prior art.
Applicant further argues that Delehouze et al teaches that lossy dielectric materials are used for the filaments, and contends that this would not lead to refractories that are transparent to RF signals. This is not persuasive because Delehouze et al teaches filaments and coatings that are each found in instant dependent claims. These equivalent materials could not behave differently in the Delehouze et al coated filaments and tows as compared to those of the instant claims, and thus there is no basis for applicant’s contention that Delehouze et al supposedly uses “lossy” materials. These materials (i.e. the silicon carbide discussed above in the rejections) cannot be “lossy” when used by Delehouze et al but RF transmissive or transparent when instantly claimed.
This argument and applicant’s further contention that the Delehouze et al method would not function if the filaments were RF transparent or lossless are also not commensurate in scope with what is claimed. Claims 1-15 and 17-18 are drawn to materials that are transmissive, rather than transparent. As such, whether or not the Delehouze et al filaments are RF transparent, or if the Delehouze et al method would function with RF transparent filaments, is not relevant to the patentability of said claims. These claims require only RF transmissive material, and as discussed above, the equivalently composed materials used by Delehouze et al for the filaments and coating would necessarily have some degree of transmissiveness. 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).
Applicant’s arguments regarding the amended claims are therefore not persuasive.
Claim 7 has been broadened by the amendments. The claim now depends from instant claim 1 and the fiber portion can now be either a broadgood or a tow. As discussed above, Delehouze et al teaches a fiber tow in a ceramic matrix composite, and thus Delehouze et al alone now teaches each limitation of the amended claim. The new rejection under USC 102(a)(1) is therefore necessitated by the amendments broadening the scope of the claim such that Delehouze et al teaches each limitation.
Claim 8 depends from the aforementioned claim 7 and contains only further limitations found in Delehouze et al. The 102(a)(1) rejection of said dependent claim 8 is thus also resultant from the broadening amendments.
For the same reasons, instant claim 9 is now rejected over Delehouze et al alone. The claim depends from claim 7, which as discussed above has been broadened such that Delehouze et al teaches each limitation. The further limitations of claim 9 are the same as those of instant claim 4, and thus they are similarly obvious from the Delehouze et al teachings. The new ground of rejection of claim 9 over Delehouze et al alone is therefore resultant from the broadening amendment of claim 7.
Claim 10 depends from the aforementioned claim 7 and contains only further limitations found in Delehouze et al. The 102(a)(1) rejection of said dependent claim 10 is thus also resultant from the broadening amendments.
Conclusion
15. No claim is allowed.
16. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
17. 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
NSW10 August 2026
Prosecution Insights