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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claimed filed on February 04, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1 and 18 are currently amended. Claims 1 – 18 are pending an under examination. The amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejections.
New Grounds of Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 5, 8 – 10, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer (US 3,991,248), in view of Austin et al. (US 6,617,270 B1).
PNG
media_image1.png
695
989
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Bauer teaches a ceramic preform (e.g., upper and lower mating parts 38 and 40 of fixture 36 FIG. 7; first and second mating parts 48 and 50 of fixture 46 FIG. 8) comprising (see the annotated copy of Bauer FIGs. 7 and 8 below):
PNG
media_image2.png
565
1093
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the above annotated figure, the annotations were added by the examiner to facilitate the discussion of Bauer. In the above figure, S1-- is a first surface; S2 is a second surface opposite the first surface; Z1 is a first zone comprising: a first plurality of z-channels (42, 52) extending between and opening to the first surface S1-- and the second surface S2, wherein the first plurality of z-channels (42, 52) spans a first thickness T1 defined between the first surface S1 and the second surface S2; and
a first weave architecture (e.g., see FIG. 8 first mating part 48, the apertures 52 on the left side have a different weave architecture i.e., slanted); and
a second zone Z2 comprising: a second plurality of z-channels (42, 52) extending between and opening to the first surface S1 and the second surface S2, wherein the second plurality of z-channels (42, 52) spans a second thickness T2 defined between the first surface S1 and the second surface S2; and
a second weave architecture (e.g., see FIG. 8 first mating part 48, the apertures 52 on the top and bottom right side have a different weave architecture i.e., vertical);
wherein the first plurality of z-channels are different from the second plurality of z-channels (e.g., FIG. 8 apertures 52 on the left side are different from the apertures 52 on the right side); and
wherein the second thickness T2 is greater than the first thickness T1 and/or the second weave architecture (e.g., FIG. 8 apertures 52 on the left side of first mating part 48) is different from the first weave architecture (e.g., FIG. 8 apertures 52 on the top and bottom right side of first mating part 48).
Bauer does not explicitly disclose the ceramic preform be a fibrous ceramic preform.
Bauer, however, discloses that the ceramic preform (e.g., compression fixture) “is preferably constructed from a metal, ceramic or refractory material such as graphite”, comprised, inter alia, spaced backup plates 14 having a plurality of apertures 16 extending therethrough and a plurality of radially extending grooves 18, face plates 20 having a plurality of apertures 22, and discloses that “the grooves and apertures in the parts of the fixture are arranged to permit circulation of gases through the substrate during the bonding step soon to be described.” (Col. 5 lines 38 – 56, Col. 8 lines 19 – 24, Col. 10 lines 53 – 55, Col. 20 lines 65 – 66).
Austin et al. teaches methods of making a porous ceramic matrix (Col. 1 lines 32 – 48), wherein the pore-forming material is particulate may be selected from a variety of substances e.g., carbon fibre or powder, chopped fibres of polyester (analogous to the claimed “fibrous ceramic preform”), and may be used to control porosity and pore size distribution in the matrix (Col. 2 lines 5 – 16), said matrices can be of complex shape that can be used as preforms of dual phase ceramic particulate/ceramic matrix composites and aeration and diffusion plates (analogous to Bauer’s fixtures, e.g., “Fixture face plates had a randomly oriented 1/8 inch diameter hole pattern to enhance gas diffusion.” Bauer Col. 20 lines 65 – 66); “gas and liquid filters; cross flow micro-filtration elements; and the like.” (Austin et al. Col. 3 lines 20 – 36).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a fibrous ceramic composition, as suggested by the prior art, comprising refractory materials (e.g., Bauer teaches ceramic or refractory material, Austin et al. teaches refractory particles), and at least one pore forming material (e.g., Austin et al. teaches carbon fibre and/or chopped fibers of polyester), for the purpose of making the ceramic preform diffusion plates of Bauer as a fibrous ceramic preform of dual phase ceramic particulate/ceramic matrix composites, as taught by Austin et al., since it have held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Regarding claim 2, Bauer/Austin teaches the preform of claim 1, wherein each of the first plurality of z-channels is spaced apart from an adjacent one of the first plurality of z-channels a first distance (e.g., see Bauer FIG. 8 left apertures 52), and wherein each of the second plurality of z-channels is spaced apart from an adjacent one of the second plurality of z-channels a second distance (e.g., see Bauer FIG. 8 right apertures 52).
Regarding claim 3, Bauer/Austin teaches the preform of claim 2, wherein the second distance is different from the first distance (see Bauer FIG. 8).
Regarding claim 4, Bauer/Austin teaches the preform of claim 1, wherein the first zone Z1 corresponds to the first thickness T1, and wherein the second zone Z2 corresponds to a second thickness Z2 (see the annotated figures above).
Regarding claim 5, Bauer/Austin teaches the preform of claim 4, wherein the second thickness T2 is greater than the first thickness T1 (see the annotated figures above).
Regarding claim 8, Bauer/Austin teaches the preform of claim 1, wherein each of the first plurality of z-channels (42) is oriented normal to the first surface S1 and the second surface S2 (e.g., see Bauer FIG. 7).
Regarding claim 9, Bauer/Austin teaches the preform of claim 8, wherein each of the second plurality of z-channels (e.g., apertures 52 on the left side) is oriented at an angle with respect to the first surface and the second surface (see Bauer annotated FIG. 8 above).
Regarding claim 10, Bauer/Austin teaches the preform of claim 9, wherein a ceramic material corresponding to the first zone has a first architecture, and wherein the ceramic material corresponding to the second zone has a second architecture different from the first architecture (e.g., see Bauer FIG. 8, the ride side of the preform has a different architecture from the left side of the preform).
Regarding claim 18, Bauer teaches a method of forming a CMC component from a ceramic preform, the method comprising:
predetermining an arrangement of a first plurality of z-channels and a second plurality of z-channels in the preform (e.g., see Bauer FIG. 8 left and right side apertures 52), the preform comprising a first surface S1 and a second surface S2 opposite the first surface (see the above annotated FIGs. 7 and 8 above);
forming the first plurality of z-channels in a first zone Z1 of the preform, wherein the first zone of the preform comprises a first weave architecture (see the above annotated figures and the discussion of claim 1 above), and wherein the first plurality of z-channels extends between and opens to the first surface S1 and the second surface S2 and spans a first thickness T1 defined between the first surface and the second surface (see the above annotated figures and the discussion of claim 1 above);
forming the second plurality of z-channels in a second zone Z2 of the preform (see the above annotated figures), wherein the second zone of the preform comprises a second weave architecture (see the above annotated figures and the discussion of claim 1 above), and wherein the second plurality of z-channels extends between and opens to the first surface and the second surface and spans a second thickness defined between the first surface and the second surface (see the above annotated figures and the discussion of claim 1 above), the second plurality of z- channels being different from the first plurality of z-channels (e.g., Bauer FIG. 8 apertures 52 are different on the left side of the preform from the right side apertures 52); and
densifying the preform with a ceramic matrix (e.g., Bauer Col. 3 lines 19 – 21 “The bonded substrate can then be densified to the degree desired by further controlled interstitial deposition of a pyrolytic material.”), wherein the second thickness T2 is greater than the first thickness T1 and/or the second weave architecture is different from the first weave architecture (see the above Bauer annotated figures).
Bauer does not specifically disclose, wherein the ceramic preform is a fibrous ceramic preform.
Austin et al. teaches methods of making a porous ceramic matrix (Col. 1 lines 32 – 48; Col. 2 lines 5 – 16; Col. 3 lines 20 – 36), analogous to the claimed “fibrous ceramic preform”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the method of Bauer by selecting a fibrous ceramic composition, as suggested by the prior art, comprising refractory materials (e.g., Bauer teaches ceramic or refractory material, Austin et al. teaches refractory particles), and at least one pore forming material (e.g., Austin et al. teaches carbon fibre and/or chopped fibers of polyester), for the purpose of making the ceramic preform diffusion plates of Bauer as a fibrous ceramic preform of dual phase ceramic particulate/ceramic matrix composites, as taught by Austin et al., since it have held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Regarding claim 20, Bauer/Austin teaches the method of claim 18, wherein the step of densifying the preform with the ceramic matrix is carried out using at least one of chemical vapor infiltration, melt infiltration, and polymer infiltration and pyrolysis (Bauer Col. 2 lines 43 – 68, cont. Col. 3 lines 1 – 22, Col. 12 lines 4 – 34; Austin et al. [0036]).
Claim(s) 6 – 7 and 11 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer (US 3,991,248), in view of Austin et al. (US 6,617,270 B1), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Petervary et al. (US 2005/0017389 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 6, Bauer/Austin teaches the preform of claim 5, except for, wherein each of the first plurality of z-channels has a first diameter, and wherein each of the second plurality of z-channels has a second diameter.
Petervary et al. teaches methods of forming selectively porous preforms (Abstract [0008, 0025 – 0028, 0036]), with the porosity [analogous to the claimed z-channels] being provided “according to a selected size, direction, and porosity rather than being generally random according to a natural process.” [0001] – [0007].
[0031] discloses that the laminate 10 could be formed to have pores formed therein that include pores of various sizes (FIG. 4B), and that this may be desirable if the laminate 10 is to be used to cover to adjacent sections requiring a different size pore in each section, and that it may also be used to vary the rate of material transport across different portions of the laminate 10.
[0021] further discloses an embodiment wherein the “formed pore includes an angled pore 27 which is formed at a selected angle θ to a side of the laminate 10”, to “allow the material to flow to a selected area relative to the laminate”, and may also be formed such that material flows only from a second side 14a to the first side 12a, and “are positioned in any selected area of the laminate 10.” (see FIGs. 1, 4A – 4C).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify in the same way some/all of the plurality of z-channels (e.g., Bauer’s apertures 42 in Z1), in the fibrous ceramic preform of Bauer/Austin to have a first diameter, and wherein each of the second plurality of z-channels (e.g., Bauer’s apertures 42 in Z2) has a second diameter, for the purpose of, as suggested by Petervary et al., to vary the rate of material transport across different portions of the preform. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 7, Bauer/Austin/Petervary teaches the preform of claim 6, wherein the second diameter is different from the first diameter (e.g., see Petervary FIGs. 4A – 4C).
Regarding claim 11, Bauer/Austin teaches the preform of claim 1, except for, further comprising: a third zone having a third plurality of z-channels, wherein the third plurality of z-channels are different from the first plurality of z-channels and the second plurality of z-channels.
Bauer, however, teaches a second mating part 50 (similar to the claimed third zone) having a third plurality of z-channels (52), wherein the third plurality of z-channels are different from the first plurality of z-channels and the second plurality of z-channels (see Bauer FIG. 8, [0021 – 0025]).
Petervary et al. teaches a fibrous ceramic preform (laminate 10) comprising pores 20 (z-channels) in three different zones (see FIG. 1), wherein the pores in the preform are different from each other, i.e., the pores 20 are formed such that a uniform density or porosity is formed in a selected area such as a first set of pores 22, the pores may be formed such that a non-porous area 24 is also formed, the pores 20 may be formed to include desired physical characteristics such as being uni-directional pores 26 that allow the flow of a flowable material from a first side 12a to a second side 14a, the pore could be an angled pore 27 which is formed at a selected angle to allow the material to flow to a selected area relative to the laminate 10 [0021].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify by duplicating the zones in the fibrous ceramic preform of Bauer/Austin (e.g., modified Bauer upper mating part 38 of fixture 36) with a third zone having a third plurality of z-channels, wherein the third plurality of z-channels are different from the first plurality of z-channels and the second plurality of z-channels, for the purpose of, as suggested by the prior art of Petervary et al., provide the preform with z-channels (e.g., uniform density pores 22, uni-directional pores 26, angled pores 27) formed such that a uniform density or porosity is formed in a selected area, e.g., a third zone, different from the z-channels in the first and second zone, e.g., such as pores 27 which is formed at a selected angle to allow the material to flow to a selected area relative to the preform. See MPEP 2143 (I) (G).
Regarding claim 12, Bauer/Austin/Petervary teaches the preform of claim 11, wherein the first zone Z1 corresponds to the first thickness T1, and wherein the second zone Z2 corresponds to a second thickness T2 (see the annotated FIG. 7 of Bauer above).
Regarding claim 13, Bauer/Austin/Petervary teaches the preform of claim 12, wherein the second thickness T2 is greater than the first thickness T1 (see the annotated FIG. 7 of Bauer above).
Regarding claim 14, Bauer/Austin/Petervary teaches the preform of claim 13, wherein each of the first plurality of z-channels has a first diameter, and wherein each of the second plurality of z-channels has a second diameter (e.g., see Petervary FIGs. 4A – 4C).
Regarding claim 15, Bauer/Austin/Petervary teaches the preform of claim 14, wherein the second diameter is different from the first diameter (e.g., see Petervary FIGs. 4A – 4C).
Regarding claim 16, Bauer/Austin/Petervary teaches the preform of claim 15, wherein each of the first plurality of z-channels or the second plurality of z-channels is oriented normal to the first surface and the second surface (e.g., see Bauer FIG. 7 above).
Regarding claim 17, Bauer/Austin/Petervary teaches the preform of claim 16, wherein each of the third plurality of z-channels (e.g., Bauer FIG. 8 apertures 52 on the left side, and modified Bauer/Austin with Petervary et al. pores 27) is oriented at an angle with respect to the first surface and the second surface.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer (US 3,991,248), in view of Austin et al. (US 6,617,270 B1), as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Pinchot (US 2005/0082351 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 19, Bauer/Austin teaches the method of claim 18, except for, wherein the step of predetermining the arrangement of the first plurality of z-channels and the second plurality of z-channels is carried out using at least part of a physical preform, or a computer generated preform.
Pinchot teaches a method of manufacturing a micro-reactor [0023] comprising a plurality of channels (see e.g., FIG. 3) made of materials such including ceramics, among others [0025].
Pinchot at [0031] discloses an embodiment wherein “the method of manufacturing the micro-reactor or one or more portions of the micro-reactor includes 1) generating a computer image of the micro-reactor or the one or more portions of the micro-reactor, 2) sectioning the computer generated image, 3) forming sections of the micro-reactor or the one or more portions of the micro-reactor from a metal material based on each of the drawing sections, and 4) connecting the individual sections to form the micro-reactor or the one or more portions of the micro-reactor that substantially matches the computer generated drawing of the micro-reactor or the one or more portions of the micro-reactor. By using this novel manufacturing technique, micro-reactor or the one or more portions of the micro-reactor has very precise dimensions that can be manufactured having very low error tolerances.”
Pinchot at [0021] discloses that “Computer modeling of reactors has increased in popularity due to increased computer processing power and increased sophistication in modeling software. As such, reactors are commonly modeled to have increased complexity (e.g., various passageway configurations for increased reactor residence time; passageway configurations to maintained desired flow patterns, temperature profiles, pressure profiles, etc.).”
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the step of predetermining the arrangement of the first plurality of z-channels and the second plurality of z-channels in the method of forming a CMC component from a fibrous ceramic preform of Bauer/Austin so that the step of predetermining the arrangement of the plurality of z-channels is carried out using a computer generated preform, as taught by Pinchot, for the purpose of forming a CMC component from a fibrous ceramic preform that has very precise dimensions that can be manufactured having very low error tolerances, as taught by Pinchot. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments are based on newly amended limitations which have been addressed by the new grounds of rejection above.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
