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 claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 11/18/2025 is acknowledged.
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, 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thebault et al. (US Pub. No.: 2005/0244581 A1) (hereinafter Thebault).
Regarding claim 1, Thebault anticipates A method of fabricating a composite component, comprising: forming a fibrous preform; performing a first densification on the fibrous preform to generate a densified fibrous preform (Fig. 1, ST1; ¶0034); heat treating the densified fibrous preform to form a heat treated densified fibrous preform (¶Fig. 1, ST2; ¶0039); performing a second densification on the heat treated densified fibrous preform (Fig. 1, ST3; ¶0041); and performing a silicon melt infiltration after densifying the heat treated densified fibrous preform to form the composite component (Fig. 1, ST3-7; ¶0050-¶0051).
Regarding claim 5, Thebault anticipates after the second densification and prior to the silicon melt infiltration, machining the heat treated densified fibrous preform to form a final desired part shape of the composite component (¶0043).
Regarding claim 6, Thebault anticipates performing the first densification on the fibrous preform generates a carbon matrix within the densified fibrous preform (¶0035-¶0038).
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 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.
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thebault as applied to claims 1, 5 and 6 above, and further in view of Christopher Kirkpatrick (EP 3 543 222 A1) (hereinafter Kirkpatrick).
Regarding claims 7-10 the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Thebault as cited above. Thebault is silent about heat treating of the densified fibrous preform generates one or more cracks in the carbon matrix.
Kirkpatrick also discloses a method of fabricating a composite component. The method discloses a carbon/carbon silicon carbide composite structure may include a plurality of heat-treated carbon fibers. The heat-treated carbon fibers include pyrolytic carbon depositions on the carbon fibers. The carbon/carbon silicon carbide composite structure may include an exterior surface having voids. According to various embodiments, the voids may include silicon carbide bonded to the carbon fibers. Thus, a formation of void or crack during heat treatment is well known within the art. The benefit of doing so would have been to produce a composite component with stronger characteristics to increase longevity of the final product.
Given the wealth of knowledge it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to for crack or void as taught by Kirkpatrick within the method of manufacturing a composite component as taught by Thebault. The benefit of doing so would have been to improve the longevity of the final product.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Thebault discloses the second densification is a liquid impregnation composition containing one or more precursors of SiC such as PCS, PTCS, or PSZ (¶0042). Such a process would naturally seal the one or more cracks to reduce bending or warping of the composite component.
Regarding claim 10, the combined teaching of Thebault and Kirkpatrick naturally discloses second densification on the heat treated densified fibrous preform maintains dimensional tolerances and strength of the composite component and reducing over-conversion of the carbon matrix to silicon carbide (Thebault; ¶0041-¶0042).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thebault as applied to claims 1, 5 and 6 above, and further in view of Kirkpatrick (US Pub. No.: 2021/0387441 A1) (hereinafter Kirkpatrick ‘441).
Regarding claim 11, the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Thebault as cited above. Thebault is silent about limitations of claim 11.
Kirkpatrick ‘441 also discloses a method of fabricating a composite component. The method discloses forming a first ceramic particle layer over a first textile layer; arranging a second textile layer over the first ceramic particle layer; forming a second ceramic particle layer over the second textile layer; and arranging a third textile layer over the second ceramic particle layer (Abstract; Fig. 4). The benefit of doing so would have been to improve the longevity of braking system.
Give the wealth of knowledge, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the fibrous preform as disclosed by Kirkpatrick ‘441 within the method of fabricating a composite component as taught by Thebault. The benefit of doing so would have been to improve the longevity of braking system.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thebault as applied to claims 1, 5 and 6 above, and further in view of Le Costaouec et al. (US Pub. NO.: 2017/0267594 A1) (hereinafter Le Costaouec).
Regarding claim 3, the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Thebault as cited above. Thebault is silent about limitations of claim 3.
Le Costaouec also discloses a method of fabricating a composite component. The method discloses heat treating which is performed for between 15 mins and 20 hours at 1000 ⁰C (¶0049). The benefit of doing so would have been to assure ceramic particles are incorporated into carbon structure during the fabrication process.
Give the wealth of knowledge, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to heat treat the preforms as taught by Le Costaouec within the methof of fabricating a composite component as taught by Thebault. The benefit of doing so would have been to assure ceramic particles are incorporated into carbon structure during the fabrication process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 4 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL I PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7660. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/VISHAL I PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746