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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 14-20, in the reply filed on 1/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 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 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) 14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarrafi-Nour et al. (US 2011/0052925; hereinafter “Sarrafi”).
Regarding independent claim 14, Sarrafi teaches an article of a foundry system (para [0002] [0008], [0023], the article 200/machine component that is suitable for applications under high temperature) comprising:
- a refractory component (the component/substrate 202 that withhold high temperature, para [0023]) defining an oxidation-resistant surface configured to contact molten metal (para [0023], [0034], the substrate of the refractory component of Sarrafi is made of suitable materials such as ceramic, silicon nitride, which are the same materials as that of the instant application having oxidation-resistance and suitable for contact molten metal, see instant specification, para [0034] which describes that “… the suitable material of refractory substrate includes … silicon nitride, ceramic materials”, and thus meeting the claimed limitations),
- wherein the refractory component comprises a refractory substrate (substrate 202), wherein a melting point of the refractory substrate is greater than or equal to about 1500 degrees Celsius (°C) (para [0023], Sarrafi teaches its substrate of the refractory component is made of suitable materials such as ceramic, silicon nitride, which are the same materials as that of the instant application having melting point of great than about 1600 °C, such as greater than about 2400 °C, see instant specification, para [0034] which describes that “…substrate may have a melting point greater than about 1600 °C., such as greater than about 2400 °C… the suitable material of refractory substrate 32 includes … silicon nitride, ceramic materials”), and thus meeting the claimed limitations. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
Sarrafi teaches as in one of its embodiments that its refractory substrate is of matrix composite material including matrix phase and reinforcement phase, i.e., reinforcement phase within the voids of matrix phase (para [0023]), and Sarrafi teaches the reinforcement phase comprises silicon carbide (para [0023]), which is the same metal carbide material as instantly claimed in claim 17, and thus meeting the claimed material limitations of instant claim 14 and claim 17.
Regarding claim 16, Sarrafi teaches as in one of its embodiments its refractory substrate comprises suitable material including silicates, and/or zirconia (para [0025]), meeting the claimed material limitations.
Regarding claim 18, Sarrafi teaches the suitable materials for the refractory substrate include silicon nitride (para [0023]), meeting the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 14-15, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehr et al. (US 2022/0250996; hereinafter “Mehr”).
Regarding independent claim 14 and claim 17, Mehr teaches an article of a foundry system (para [0002] [0017], [0018], the article is suitable for high temperature applications) comprising:
- a refractory component (the composite component 26 that withhold high temperature over 2400 °C, para [0017]) defining an oxidation-resistant surface configured to contact molten metal (para [0017], [0021], the composite component 26 is made of an oxidation-resistant carbon-carbon composite material capable of withstanding high temperature operations of over 2400 °C and thus would have been suitable for contact molten metal),
- wherein the refractory component comprises a refractory substrate (the carbon-carbon composite substrate 32, para [0017]), wherein a melting point of the refractory substrate is greater than about 2400 °C (para [0017], the composite component 26 is made of oxidation-resistant carbon-carbon composite material capable of withstanding high temperature of over 2400 °C), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of greater than or equal to about 1500 degrees Celsius (°C). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
Mehr teaches its refractory substrate (32) is of carbon-carbon composite with porous surface, i.e., having voids on the surface (para [0018], [0019]). Mehr further teaches its refractory substrate having a high temperature coating (34) applied on the porous surface, wherein the high temperature coating comprises metal carbide (para [0012] [0013] [0022], the suitable metal carbide includes such as silicon carbide), which is the same metal carbide material as instantly claimed in claim 17, and meeting the claimed material limitations of instant claim 14 and claim 17. Because the metal carbide coating/phase of Mehr is applied onto the porous surface of refractory substrate having surface voids, at least a portion of the metal carbide coating/phase would reasonably penetrate into and reside within the surface voids of the refractory substrate, and is considered as meeting the claimed limitation of claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, as discussed in rejection to claim 14, Mehr teaches as in one of its embodiments that its refractory substrate comprises a high temperature coating comprises metal carbide (para [0012] [0013] [0022]), and such metal carbide coating/phase and the surface portion of the refractory substrate together is considered being a surface layer, meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding the specific claimed porosity properties, it is noted that Mehr teaches porosity is a result effective variable in that it affects the thermomechanical and thermophysical properties of the corresponding material (para [0014]). Mehr teaches the benefit of forming a porosity gradient having a porosity difference in adjacent layers (para [0031]), in that an oxidizing species may more easily migrate through a porous coating than a dense coating (para [0031]).
Absent a showing of criticality with respect to the porosity (a result effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the porosity of the surface portion of the refractory substrate of Mehr, and to adjust porosity of the surface layer (i.e., the metal carbide coating layer) of Mehr through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired properties of the refractory component once produced, which would have arrived at a workable porosity of the surface portion of the refractory substrate, and a workable porosity of the surface layer (i.e., the metal carbide coating layer) that falls within the broad range as instantly claimed and having a porosity gradient in those adjacent layers/portions, i.e., such that a porosity of the surface portion of the refractory substrate is greater than about 10 percent by volume (vol. %), and wherein a porosity of the surface layer is less than about 5 vol. %. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 19, Mehr teaches as in one of its embodiments that its refractory substrate includes a carbon matrix (para [0017], carbon-carbon matrix), and wherein the refractory component further comprises a metal carbide coating on an outer surface of the refractory substrate (para [0012] [0013] [0022], the suitable metal carbide coating).
Regarding claim 20, Mehr teaches as in one of its embodiments that its high temperature article comprises a vessel (para [0017], Fig. 1B, the vessel chamber 20), wherein the oxidation-resistant surface of the refractory component is configured to contact molten metal, and wherein the refractory component comprises an interior portion of a vessel (para [0017], the composite refractory component 26 forms the inner surface of the vessel chamber), meeting the claimed limitations.
PNG
media_image1.png
268
186
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAN LAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM-4PM.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 5712728935. 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.
/YAN LAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights