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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 27, 2023, and July 02, 2025, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 – 7, 11 – 15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clark et al. (US 2020/0255345 A1).
Regarding claim 1. Clark et al. teaches a fibrous ceramic preform ([0027] “near net shape preform 22”, FIG. 2; [0028] “FIG. 3 provides a perspective view of near net shape preform 34 with adjoining partially densified preforms 36, 38 and fiber overwrap 40. Partially densified fiber preforms 36, 38 can be formed from a plurality of 2D fiber plies or a 3D weave.”; [0029] “near net shape preform 62”, FIG. 4; [0031]), comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
678
691
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first surface; a second surface opposite the first surface (e.g., see the annotated copy of Clark et al. FIG. 3 below):
at least a first thickness T1 defined between the first surface and the second surface (see annotated figure above);
a first zone (e.g., 36 or 38) having a first plurality of z-channels (e.g., 42 or 46); and a second zone (e.g., 36 or 38) having a second plurality of z-channels (e.g., 42 or 46, see FIG. 3) [notice that a first zone and a second zone could also be defined within each of the preforms 36, 38, since the plurality of channels 42 in the preform 36 have different dimensions from each other, similarly in preform 38 having a plurality of channels 46 shown with different dimensions from each other],
wherein the first plurality of z-channels are different from the second plurality of z-channels (see FIG. 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
666
958
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2. Clark et al. teaches the preform of claim 1, wherein each of the first plurality of z-channels (e.g., any of channels 46 on preform 38, or channels 42 on preform 36) is spaced apart from an adjacent one of the first plurality of z-channels a first distance, 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 (see the annotated copy of figure 3 below):
In the above figure, the annotations were added by the examiner to facilitate the discussion of Clark. Notice that the pair of channels 46 on the top part of the preform 38 have a different diameter and are separated from each other by a distance different from the separation between the lower pair of channels 46 on the preform 38. Similarly, the channels 42 on the preform 36 the separation between the channels is shown as differing from each other (i.e., the pair of channels 42 on the left side of the preform 36 are separated from each other at a different distance when compared to the pair of channels 42 on the right side of the preform 36).
Regarding claim 3. Clark et al. teaches the preform of claim 2, wherein the second distance is different from the first distance (see the above annotated copy of Clark’s FIG. 3, and the discussion of claim 2 above).
Regarding 4. Clark et al. teaches the preform of claim 1, wherein the first zone corresponds to the first thickness T1, and wherein the second zone corresponds to a second thickness T2 (see the annotated copy of Clark’s FIG. 3 below; the examiner points out that in In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972), it was recognized that “While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims.” Therefore, the relationships describe in Clark’s figures are relied in determining the patentability of the claims, since Clark et al. clearly shows the relationships between these channels in the drawings.):
PNG
media_image3.png
666
807
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5. Clark et al. teaches the preform of claim 4, wherein the second thickness T2 is greater than the first thickness T1 (see the above annotated FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 6. Clark et al. teaches the preform of claim 5, wherein each of the first plurality of z-channels has a first diameter (e.g., the top pair of channels 46 on preform 38, or the right pair of channels 42 in the preform 36), and wherein each of the second plurality of z-channels has a second diameter (e.g., the lower pair of channels 46 in the preform 38 have a different diameter from the top pair of channels, likewise, the channels 42 on the first zone of the preform 36 have different diameters from the channels 42 on the second zone; see the annotated FIG. 3 above).
PNG
media_image4.png
754
1121
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7. Clark et al. teaches the preform of claim 6, wherein the second diameter is different from the first diameter (see the below annotated FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 11. Clark et al. teaches the preform of claim 1 and further comprising: a third zone having a third plurality of z-channels (e.g., a third zone comprised by preform 38), wherein the third plurality of z-channels are different from the first plurality of z- channels and the second plurality of z-channels (see Clark’s FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 12. Clark et al. teaches the preform of claim 11, wherein the first zone corresponds to the first thickness, and wherein the second zone corresponds to a second thickness (see the annotated copy of FIG. 3 above in the discussion of claim 4).
Regarding claim 13. Clark et al. teaches the preform of claim 12, wherein the second thickness is greater than the first thickness (see the annotated copy of FIG. 3 above in the discussion of claim 4).
Regarding claim 14. Clark et al. 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 (see the discussion of claim 6 above).
Regarding claim 15. Clark et al. teaches the preform of claim 14, wherein the second diameter is different from the first diameter (see the discussion of claim 6 and claim 7 above).
Regarding claim 18. Clark et al. teaches a method of forming a CMC component from a fibrous ceramic preform (see [0015], and [0016] “Fiber preforms can be formed from a three-dimensional (3D) weave or a single or plurality of stacked two-dimensional (2D) woven fiber plies as known in the art.”), the method comprising:
predetermining (e.g., Clark et al. [0020] discloses that “Channels can be of any geometry, size, and connectivity based on the component cooling requirements.”) an arrangement of a first plurality of z-channels and a second plurality of z-channels in the preform (“method 10 for forming a CMC component with an internal cooling channel or circuit.” [0016]);
forming the first plurality of z-channels (e.g., 42) in a first zone (see the annotated copy of Clark’s FIG. 3 in the discussion of claim 4 above) of the preform (36);
forming the second plurality of z-channels (e.g., the channels on the left side of the preform 36, or in the alternative channels 46 in the preform 38) in a second zone (see the annotated copy of Clark’s FIG. 3 in the discussion of claim 4 above) of the preform (e.g., 36, or 38), the second plurality of z-channels being different from the first plurality of z- channels (see the annotated copy of Clark’s FIG. 3 in the discussion of claim 4 above); and
densifying the preform with a ceramic matrix (“ The resulting near net shape preform can be further densified while maintaining the internal cooling passages to form a component with internal cooling.” [0015]).
Regarding claim 20. Clark et al. 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 ([0017] “The fiber preform is partially densified with a ceramic matrix material in step 14. Fiber preforms can be partially densified using chemical vapor infiltration (CVI), precursor infiltration and pyrolysis (PIP), slurry infiltration, melt infiltration (MI), and combinations thereof. Matrix materials can include, but are not limited to SiC, alumina, boron carbide, and carbon.”).
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.
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) 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (US 2020/0255345 A1), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8 and claim 16. Clark et al. teaches the preform of claim 1 and claim 15, respectively, except for, wherein each of the first plurality of z-channels is oriented normal to the first surface and the second surface. However, rearranging the orientation of the plurality of z-channels to be normal to any reference surface with reasonable expectation of success and without changing the operation of the plurality of z-channels is within the skill set of one having ordinary skill in the art. 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 rearrange any of the of the plurality of z-channels to be oriented normal to the first surface and the second surface, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI) (C):
It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.
Claim(s) 9 – 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (US 2020/0255345 A1), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Petervary et al. (US 2005/0017389 A1).
Regarding claim 9. Clark et al. teaches the preform of claim 8, except for, wherein each of the second plurality of z-channels is oriented at an angle with respect to the first surface and the second surface.
However, Clark et al. [0020] discloses that “Channels can be of any geometry, size, and connectivity based on the component cooling requirements.”
Petervary et al. teaches methods of forming selectively porous laminate materials, the porosity [analogous to the claimed z-channels] may be formed by positioning pins or a pore forming member through a laminate preform before the preform is laminated to form the laminate structure, and after forming the laminate structure the pins can be removed by non-destructive processes, with the porosity of the final laminate material is provided according to a selected size, direction, and porosity rather than being generally random according to a natural process. [0001] – [0007].
Petervary et al. [0021] further discloses a fourth 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. This allows the material to flow to a selected area relative to the laminate 10. It will be understood that the uni-directional pores 26 may also be formed such that material flows substantially only from the second side 14a to the first side 12a. In addition, due to the formation of the uni-directional pores 26, it may be that the uni-directional pores 26 are positioned in any selected area of the laminate 10.” See FIGs. 1, 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 of the plurality of z-channels e.g., the second plurality of z-channels in the fibrous ceramic preform of Clark et al. to be oriented at an angle, as suggested by Petervary et al., with respect to a reference surface e.g., the first surface and the second surface, for the purpose of, as suggested by Petervary et al., when in use, allowing material to flow to a selected area relative to the preform. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 10. Clark/Petervary 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 (Since, Clark et al. at [0028] discloses that the “Partially densified fiber preforms 36, 38 can be formed from a plurality of 2D fiber plies or a 3D weave” and a fiber overwrap 40, and construing the claimed limitation “a first architecture” and “a second architecture” under the broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, Clark’s first zone in preform 36 as indicated in the above annotated copy of FIG. 3 having a plurality of channels 42 of a different structure could be interpreted as having a first architecture from the plurality of channels in the indicated second zone in the above annotated figure, which therefore would comprise a second architecture).
Regarding claim 17. Clark et al. teaches the preform of claim 16, except for, wherein each of the third plurality of z-channels is oriented at an angle with respect to the first surface and the second surface.
However, Clark et al. [0020] discloses that “Channels can be of any geometry, size, and connectivity based on the component cooling requirements.”
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 modify the third plurality of z-channels in the preform of Clark et al. to be oriented at an angle with respect to any reference surface e.g., the first surface and the second surface, as suggested by Petervary et al. (see Petervary et al. FIG. 1, a third plurality of channels 27 are oriented at an angle from a first surface and a second surface), for the purpose of as suggested by Petervary et al., when in use, allowing material to flow to a selected area relative to the preform. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (US 2020/0255345 A1), as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Pinchot (US 2005/0082351 A1).
Regarding claim 19. Clark et al. teaches the method of claim 18, 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 (e.g., [0020] “Channels and heat transfer features can be machined into the partially densified fiber preform in step 16.”), except for, 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 Clark et al. so that the step of predetermining the arrangement of the plurality of z-channels is carried out using at least part of a physical preform, as suggested and taught by Clark et al. [0020], or 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhamu et al. (UC 2007/0126137 A1): See FIG. 2, [0010] The present invention provides a method of producing an integrated bipolar plate/diffuser fuel cell component, which comprises a monolith of electrically conducting, partially impregnated preform material having: (a) a porous region (serving as a diffuser for fuel or oxidant) having a porous surface (in contact with an electro-catalyst) and (b) a hermetic region infiltrated with a matrix material containing no chemical vapor infiltration-densified carbon.
SAGGIOMO et al. (US 2018/0126375 A1): A method of manufacturing a microfluidic device, said method comprising placing a length of material in a liquid polymer, configuring the length of material to define the path of a microfluidic channel, curing or setting the polymer liquid to form a solid polymer around the configured length of material, and dissolving the configured length of material with a solvent to provide a microfluidic channel in the solid polymer. (Abstract).
Ecer (US Pat. No. 6,048,432): teaches a method for producing complex-shaped objects from laminae (Abstract), and discloses that the method is suitable for fabrication of complex-shaped, near net-shape components from monolithic ceramics, Ceramic Matrix Composites (CMC's), Metal Matrix Composites (MMC's), intermetallics, and metals (Col. 4, lines 34 – 38). Ecer discloses an embodiment of the process of the invention, one or more of the laminae are grooved and machined in a predetermined way, and the grooves filled with chemically leachable material or tubes, to create parts with internal channels and/or cavities (Col. 6, lines 6 – 10).
Bouillon et al. (US 2004/0221941 A1): See FIGs. 1 – 4, [0011] a method that enables a multiply-perforated part to be made out of CMC, which part is protected against oxidation even at the walls of the perforations, and without requiring a protective layer to be deposited on said walls after the perforations have been made.
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
Prosecution Insights