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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-10, 12-15, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramanian et al. (US 2019/0048730 A1) (“Subramanian”), in view of Chamberlain et al. (US 2016/0136925 A1) (“Chamberlain”).
With respect to claim 1, Subramanian teaches a ceramic matrix composite laminate, wherein the laminate comprises a ceramic matrix that encapsulates a plurality of layers that comprise fibers, wherein each layer comprises a plurality of fill fibers and a plurality of warp fibers – layers 100, 110 and 120 (abstr., 0038-0041, Fig. 6), a ceramic matrix that encapsulates the plurality of layers that comprise fibers (0033, 0048), wherein the laminate comprises an outermost layer and a layer in the interior of the laminate (0038-0040, Fig. 6), wherein a spacing between weft fibers of the outermost layer – element 120 – is greater than the spacing between weft fibers of the layer in the interior – the weave pattern of the outermost layer defines a weave density less than the one of the layer of the interior (0040), thus, a spacing between weft fibers of the outermost layer is greater than the spacing between weft fibers of the layer in the interior (Fig. 6), wherein a spacing between warp fibers of the outermost layer – element 120 – is the same as the spacing between warp fibers of the layer in the interior – the spacing of the warp fibers of the outermost layer is between 0.1 mm and 8 mm (0040), the spacing between the warp fibers of the layer of the interior is described as such that the fibers are “tightly packed” (0038), which has been interpreted as overlapping the spacing of 0.1 mm, and thus the spacing between the warp fibers of the outermost layer is being interpreted as being the same as the spacing between warp fibers of the layer in the interior.
Subramanian does not specifically disclose a combined composite laminate comprising a plurality of laminates, wherein each laminate has a different fiber concentration gradient from another laminate that it is in contact with. Chamberlain discloses a ceramic matrix composite (abstr., 0006) used for turbine engine structures (0020), similarly as the laminate of Subramanian (0002). Chamberlain’s ceramic matrix composite may be used to form multi-layer laminates (0023), interpreted as corresponding to a ceramic matrix combined composite laminate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a ceramic matrix combined composite laminate including a plurality of composite laminates of Subramanian, as Subramanian discloses a laminate used in turbine engines, while Chamberlain discloses multi-layer laminates that are also used in turbine engines, the laminates including layers having varied fiber gradients (0006). The fiber concentration gradient of the laminate of Subramanian is adjusted based on the intended use of the laminate and conditions in which it would be used (0031-0033), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that in the combined composite laminate of Subramanian and Chamberlain each laminate has a different fiber concentration gradient from another laminate that it is in contact with.
Regarding claim 2, Subramanian and Chamberlain teach the composite laminate of claim 1. Subramanian discloses ceramic fibers (0047).
With respect to claim 5, Subramanian and Chamberlain teach the composite laminate of claim 1. Subramanian discloses that an areal space between fill and warp fibers gradually decreases from the outermost layer of the laminate to the layer located in the interior of the ceramic matrix composite laminate (0038-0040, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6, Subramanian and Chamberlain teach the composite laminate of claim 1. Regarding the fiber concentration gradient being a linear gradient, the fiber concentration gradient of the laminate of Subramanian is a linear gradient – implied in (0039, 0040).
As to claim 7, Subramanian and Chamberlain teach the composite laminate of claim 1. Regarding the fiber concentration gradient being a curvilinear gradient, the gradient of the laminate of Subramanian being adjusted based on the conditions and use of the laminate (0031-0033), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the fiber concentration gradient as a curvilinear gradient in order to obtain the desired properties of the composite laminate.
With respect to claim 8, Subramanian and Chamberlain teach the composite laminate of claim 1. Regarding the fiber concentration gradient being a curvilinear gradient following a spline function having exponents between 2 and 5, the fiber concentration gradient of the laminate of Subramanian is adjusted based on the conditions and use of the laminate (0031-0033), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the fiber concentration gradient as a curvilinear gradient following a spline function having exponents in a range as recited in the claim in order to obtain the desired properties of the composite laminate.
Regarding claim 9, Subramanian and Chamberlain teach the composite laminate of claim 1. Regarding the combined composite laminate comprising n separate laminates, where n is an integer, since Chamberlain discloses the multi-layer laminate (0023), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the combined composite laminate of Subramanian and Chamberlain would include n separate laminates, where n is an integer.
As to claim 10, Subramanian and Chamberlain teach the composite laminate of claim 1. Subramanian discloses that the fiber pattern in the layers can be selectively varied to provide anisotropic structural properties (0045). Chamberlain discloses that the distances between fill fibers across multiple layers of the composite material are adjusted to obtain a the percentage of open channels within the composite material to facilitate appropriate infiltration (0027, 0029, Figs. 2-4), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the distance between fill fibers from the outermost layer of each laminate to the layer located in the interior of the laminate, while the distance between warp fibers remains constant from the outermost layer to the layer located in the interior of each laminate to obtain the desired infiltration properties of the composite material.
As to claim 12, Subramanian and Chamberlain teach the composite laminate of claim 1. Subramanian discloses the ceramic matrix comprising alumina (0048).
With respect to claim 13, Subramanian and Chamberlain teach the composite laminate of claim 1. Subramanian discloses the fibers comprising SiC (0047).
Regarding claim 14, Subramanian and Chamberlain teach the composite laminate of claim 1. Regarding a matrix density at the outermost layer of each laminate being the same as that in the interior of each laminate, Subramanian discloses that the layers of the laminate are impregnated with the ceramic material (0048), implying that a matrix density at the outermost later of each laminate is substantially identical to that in the interior of each laminate.
Regarding claim 15, Subramanian and Chamberlain teach the composite laminate of claim 1. Subramanian discloses that the laminate comprising ceramic fibers is infiltrated with the ceramic material to impregnate the ceramic material (0048) to create a solid fiber-impregnated ceramic structure (0047, 0048), Subramanian not disclosing a presence of pores in the interior of the laminate, thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the ceramic matrix of Subramanian is substantially devoid of pores in the interior of the laminate.
With respect to claim 21, Subramanian and Chamberlain teach the composite of claim 1. The fiber concentration gradient of the laminate of Subramanian is adjusted based on the intended use of the laminate and conditions in which it will be used (0031-0033), the inner fibers in the more inwardly facing zone have higher fiber density and cross section, for greater structural support than the outer fibers along the outer surface (0031), the peaks of the outer layer used to anchor a thermal barrier coating (0031), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize a phase difference between peaks of warp fibers in successive layers depending on the intended use of the composite.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramanian, in view of Chamberlain, and further in view of Subramanian et al. (US 7754126 B2) (“Subramanian 2”).
With respect to claim 3, Subramanian and Chamberlain teach the composite laminate of claim 1, but are silent with respect to the combined composite laminate being a deltoid-shaped preform. Subramanian 2 discloses a turbine engine component comprising a ceramic matrix composite (abstr.), the composite comprising plies in a form of a deltoid-shaped preform (col. 6, lines 3-11, Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the combined composite laminate of Subramanian and Chamberlain as a deltoid-shaped preform as such form is known in the art of turbine engine components; changes in shape are within the purview of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramanian et al. (US 2019/0048730 A1) (“Subramanian”), in view of Chamberlain et al. (US 2016/0136925 A1) (“Chamberlain”).
With respect to claim 16, Subramanian discloses a method of manufacturing a ceramic matrix composite comprising placing in an infiltration chamber – implied - a laminate comprising a plurality of layers that comprise fibers, wherein each layer comprises a plurality of fill fibers and a plurality of warp fibers, wherein the plurality of fibers includes an outermost layer and a layer in an interior of the laminate (0038-0040, Fig. 6), wherein a spacing between weft fibers of the outermost layer – element 120 – is greater than the spacing between weft fibers of the layer in the interior – the weave pattern of the outermost layer defines a weave density less than the one of the layer of the interior (0040), thus, a spacing between weft fibers of the outermost layer is greater than the spacing between weft fibers of the layer in the interior (Fig. 6), wherein a spacing between warp fibers of the outermost layer – element 120 – is the same as the spacing between warp fibers of the layer in the interior – the spacing of the warp fibers of the outermost layer is between 0.1 mm and 8 mm (0040), the spacing between the warp fibers of the layer of the interior is described as such that the fibers are “tightly packed” (0038), which has been interpreted as overlapping the spacing of 0.1 mm, and thus the spacing between the warp fibers of the outermost layer is being interpreted as being the same as the spacing between warp fibers of the layer in the interior.
Subramanian discloses infiltrating the plurality of layers with a precursor that comprises a ceramic precursor (0047, 0048) and joining the plurality of layers such that a fiber concentration gradient per unit volume in the laminate is different from that of another layer (0038, 0040, 0048).
The fiber concentration gradient of the laminate of Subramanian is adjusted based on the intended use of the laminate and conditions in which it will be used (0031-0033).
Subramanian does not specifically disclose joining a plurality of laminates, such that a fiber concentration gradient per unit volume in each laminate is different from that of another laminate in the plurality of laminates.
Chamberlain discloses a ceramic matrix composite (abstr., 0006) used for turbine engine structures (0020), similarly as the laminate of Subramanian (0002). Chamberlain’s ceramic matrix composite may be used to form multi-layer laminates (0023).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to join a plurality of composite laminates of Subramanian, as Subramanian discloses a laminate used in turbine engines, while Chamberlain discloses multi-layer laminates that are also used in turbine engines, the laminates including layers having varied fiber gradients (0006). The fiber concentration gradient of the laminate of Subramanian is adjusted based on the intended use of the laminate and conditions in which it will be used (0031-0033), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that in the ceramic matrix composite of Subramanian and Chamberlain a fiber concentration gradient per unit volume in each laminate is different from fiber concentration gradient of another laminate in the plurality of laminates.
Regarding claim 17, Subramanian and Chamberlain teach the method of claim 16. Regarding a matrix density at the outermost layer of each laminate being the same as that in the interior of each laminate, Subramanian discloses that the layers of the laminate are impregnated with the ceramic material (0048), implying that a matrix density at the outermost layer of each laminate is substantially identical to that in the interior of each laminate.
With respect to claim 18, Subramanian and Chamberlain teach the method of claim 16. Subramanian discloses that an areal space between fill and warp fibers gradually decreases from the outermost layer of the laminate to the layer located in the interior of the ceramic matrix composite laminate (0038-0040, Fig. 6).
As to claim 19, Subramanian and Chamberlain teach the method of claim 16. Subramanian discloses the fibers comprising SiC (0047), and the ceramic matrix comprising alumina (0048).
With respect to claim 20, Subramanian and Chamberlain teach the method of claim 16. Chamberlain discloses that the distances between fill fibers across multiple layers of the composite material are adjusted to obtain a the percentage of open channels within the composite material to facilitate appropriate infiltration (0027, 0029, Figs. 2-4), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the distance between fill fibers from the outermost layer of each laminate to the layer located in the interior of the laminate, while the distance between warp fibers remains constant from the outermost layer to the layer located in the interior of each laminate to obtain the desired infiltration properties of the composite material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art Subramanian and Chamberlain fail to teach or suggest the phase differences between the layers as recited in the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on Dec. 22, 2025 have been fully considered.
In view of the recent amendment objection with respect to claim 3 has been withdrawn.
In view of the recent amendment 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 14, 16, and 17 have been withdrawn.
The Applicant argued Subramanian does not teach or suggest the spacing features of the warp and weft fibers with respect to the layers of the laminate.
The Applicant discussed Fig. 4 of Chamberlain and appears to have concluded that Chamberlain does not teach the new limitation of claims 1 and 16 of a spacing between weft fibers of the outermost layer being greater than the spacing between weft fibers of the layer in the interior and the spacing between warp fibers of the outermost layer being the same as the spacing between warp fibers of the layer in an interior.
The Examiner notes in the current rejection Fig. 6 of Subramanian and par. [0038]-[0040] have been discussed as suggesting the newly added limitation of claims 1 and 16, as discussed above.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
The information disclosure statement filed on Dec. 18, 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Non-patent literature document listed at Cite No. 6 is not present in the application file.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOANNA PLESZCZYNSKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~ 11:30-8.
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, Maria Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/Joanna Pleszczynska/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783