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
Claim 20 has been amended to depend on claim 1 and recites to the preform and one or more core inserts of claim 1; therefore, the previous restriction is withdrawn and claim 20 is rejoined and examined.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 and 20-24 are examined.
Claims 21-24 are newly added.
Response to Amendment
The claim 1 and 3-15 are previously presented and claim 2 is amended for clarity. The previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are sustained, see below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the height of the one or more core inserts, in the direction normal to the plies of the preform” in line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claim recites "the height of the one or more core inserts, in the direction normal to the plies of the preform” before defining "a height of the one or more core inserts, in a direction normal to plies of the preform”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-15, and 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Dunn (US 10995039 B1) in view of Weaver (US 2016/0114351 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dunn discloses a method (c. 4, L 25 – method of preparing CMC product):
preparing a ceramic matrix composite (CMC) preform (c. 4, L 25 – method of preparing CMC product) with one or more integrated core inserts (c. 7, L 54-58 – sacrificial fibers 16, including sacrificial fiber 12; c. 9, L 20 – reinforcing fibers 18), wherein each of the one or more core inserts are made of a fugitive material comprising graphite (c. 9, L 20-35 – reinforcing fibers 18 having a coating, such as a carbon; c. 9, L 47-54 – slurry includes solvents, particulates (carbon), and combinations; carbon broadly encompasses graphite) and polyvinyl butyral (PVB) (c. 6, L 65 – c. 7, L 3 – 12 includes poly(vinyl butyral), and combinations thereof);
subjecting the preform with the one or more integrated core inserts to a heat treatment (c. 4, L 61 – c. 5, L 5 – sacrificial fibers decompose or pyrolyze, under temperatures such as 200 °C to 650 °C, may be removed by other thermal methods) to remove polyvinyl butyral (c. 11, L 5-13 – CMC preform 10 after removing 12), wherein removal of the polyvinyl butyral results in formation of one or more internal cavities within the composite (c. 11, L 5-13 – removal of 12 results in the formation channels 24 along 10, defining a cavity 38 therein) and the retained graphite aids in supporting the internal cavities (c. 9, L 10-19 – 18 provide reinforcement for resulting CMC product; c. 10, L 60-66 – heat removes the solvent of the slurry leaving the matrix precursor material 22);
densifying the preform (c. 14, L 17-20 – after removal of 12, CMC product 200 may be further densified) to form a ceramic matrix composite with the one or more internal cavities (c. 14, L 10-16 – elongate channels 24 traverse the length and width of 200),
removing retained graphite from the internal cavities (c. 11, L 5-24 – matrix precursor material 22 removed forming pores).
Dunn discloses the reinforcing fibers 18 having a coating of carbon (c. 9, L 20-35) and a slurry 20 including carbon particulates (c. 9, L 47-54). Dunn does not explicitly disclose the carbon is graphite.
Analogous art Weaver discloses a method of applying a formulation to a ceramic matrix composite substrate comprising silicon carbide (¶ [0007]). The formulation comprises a ceramic filler, the filler comprising silicon carbide particles, carbon black, a phenolic resin binder dissolved in a carrier, and polyvinyl butyral resin pore-forming agent (¶ [0007]).
Weaver further discloses a fugitive material comprising graphite (¶ [0017] – ceramic filler includes elemental carbon, such as carbon black, graphite particles, or some other suitable form of carbon-containing material).
Dunn and Weaver disclose methods with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the carbon in Dunn with the graphite in Weaver because it is a suitable carbon-containing material to form solid silicon carbide in the processed material (¶ [0017]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Dunn discloses the method according to claim 1.
Dunn does not disclose wherein the one or more core inserts contain 70 to 95 wt.% graphite and 5 to 30 wt.% PVB polyvinyl butyral.
Weaver discloses wherein the one or more core inserts contain 70 to 95 wt.% graphite (TABLE 1 – carbon black 60 g; weight ratio of 60:16 (about 80:20) carbon black to pore-former, therefore about 80 wt%) and 5 to 30 wt.% PVB polyvinyl butyral (TABLE 1 – pore-former is 16 g; weight ratio of 16:60 (about 20:80) pore-former to carbon black; therefore about 20 wt %; ¶ [0024] - pore-forming agent polyvinyl butyral (PVB) is about 15 wt%).
Dunn and Weaver disclose methods with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the formulation comprising about 80 wt% carbon black and about 20 wt% pore-forming agent in Weaver to the carbon and poly(vinyl) butyral in Dunn to repair an area of composite material comprising ceramic matrix composite substrate (Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, modified Dunn discloses the method according to claim 1
Dunn discloses a mixture of graphite powder (c. 9, L 47-54 – particulates (carbon)) and PVB powder (c. 6, L 65 – c. 7, L 20 – sacrificial fiber includes poly(vinyl butyral), form sacrificial fibers of fragments).
Dunn does not disclose wherein the one or more core inserts are prepared by compression molding.
Weaver discloses wherein the one or more core inserts are prepared by compression molding ¶ [0025] – the formulation is made by mixing using compressive force) a mixture of graphite powder (¶ [0025] – ceramic filler is a powder form, includes graphite) and PVB powder (¶ [0023] – polyvinyl butyral (PVB)).
Dunn and Weaver disclose methods with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the compressive force mixing in Weaver to the formation of the slurry in Dunn to dissolve all of the soluble materials in the carrier, to deagglomerate any agglomerates, and to disperse the filler particles (¶ [0025]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Dunn discloses the method according claim 1, wherein the one or more core inserts have a linear structure (c. 10, L 17-18 – channels include straight channels).
Regarding claim 6, modified Dunn discloses the method according claim 1, wherein the one or more core inserts have a non-linear structure (c. 10, L 19-20 – curved channels).
Regarding claim 7, modified Dunn discloses the method according claim 1, wherein the one or more core inserts have non-line of sight features (c. 10, L 11-15 – cooling channels are line-of-sight functional features).
Regarding claim 8, modified Dunn discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the one or more core inserts have a width of 0.015 to 0.050 inches (c. 7, L 47-50 – nominal diameter ranges of 12 range from 250-1000 µm, overlaps with claimed range). Through unit conversion:
250
µ
m
*
10
-
6
m
1
µ
m
*
100
c
m
1
m
*
1
i
n
2.54
c
m
=
0.0098
i
n
1000
µ
m
*
10
-
6
m
1
µ
m
*
100
c
m
1
m
*
1
i
n
2.54
c
m
=
0.039
i
n
Regarding claim 9, modified Dunn discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the ceramic matrix composite is a SiC/SiC composite (c. 6, L 20-27 – CMC materials are materials such as silicon carbide, silicon carbide matrix).
Regarding claim 10, modified Dunn discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the preform is constructed such that the one or more core inserts are positioned adjacent an exterior surface of the preform (c. 5, L 6-17 – channels, formed by the sacrificial fibers, terminate at a free surface to provide gas to escape).
Regarding claim 11, modified Dunn discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein removal of PVB is performed by heating the preform to a temperature at which PVB melts (c. 4, L 61 – c 5. L 5 – sacrificial fibers may be removed by melting)
Regarding claim 12, modified Dunn discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein removal of PVB is performed by heating the preform to a temperature at which PVB burns (c. 5, L 27-31 – sacrificial fibers decompose during burnout process; therefore is heated to a temperature which the sacrificial fibers containing PVB burns).
Regarding claim 13, modified Dunn discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising drilling holes (c. 12, L 5-11 - mechanical abrasion) into the ceramic matrix composite component to provide passageways into the internal cavities to permit fluid in and fluid flow out of the internal cavities (c. 11, L 25-43 – channels sufficiently sized to allow flow of a cooling fluid therethrough).
Regarding claim 14, modified Dunn discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein said preform is prepared by laying up fabric prepreg sections containing fibers (c. 10, L 60 – c. 11, L 1-4 – reinforcing fibers 18, the sacrificial fibers 16, and matrix precursor material 22 of 20), CMC matrix precursors (c. 9, L 47-54 – slurry 20 includes matrix precursor materials of the CMC materials), and binder (c. 8, L 40-44 – slurry comprised of a carrier liquid; c. 9, L 47-54 – slurry 20 includes solvents, particulates), and the one or more integrated core inserts are incorporated into preform during the layering up of fabric prepreg sections (c. 14, L 25-48 – depositing coating layers on one or more sacrificial fibers).
Regarding claim 15, modified Dunn discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the preform is densified by chemical vapor filtration infiltration (c. 14, L 45-49 – fluid infiltrate (melt infiltrate) is caused to infiltrate the CMC, thereby densifying the CMC preform, fluid broadly encompasses vapor).
In arguendo Dunn does not disclose chemical vapor filtration infiltration, Weaver is applied.
Weaver discloses the preform is densified by chemical vapor filtration infiltration (¶ [0003] –densification achieved by chemical vapor infiltration).
Dunn and Weaver disclose methods with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied chemical vapor infiltration in Weaver to the fluid infiltration in Dunn to achieve densification of the shaped object (¶ [0003]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Dunn discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein said preform is prepared by laying up fabric prepreg sections containing fibers (c. 10, L 60 – c. 11, L 1-4 – reinforcing fibers 18, the sacrificial fibers 16, and matrix precursor material 22 of 20), CMC matrix precursors (c. 9, L 47-54 – slurry 20 includes matrix precursor materials of the CMC materials), and binder (c. 8, L 40-44 – slurry comprised of a carrier liquid; c. 9, L 47-54 – slurry 20 includes solvents, particulates), and, during the laying up of the fabric prepreg sections, inserting the one or more integrated core inserts are incorporated into preform (c. 14, L 25-48 – depositing coating layers on one or more sacrificial fibers), wherein the one or more core inserts are made of a fugitive material comprising graphite powder (c. 9, L 47-54 – particulates (carbon)) and polyvinyl butyral (PVB) (c. 6, L 65 – c. 7, L 20 – sacrificial fiber includes poly(vinyl butyral), form sacrificial fibers of fragments).
Regarding claim 21, modified Dunn discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the heat treatment heating the preform with one or more integrated core inserts in an oxidizing atmosphere (c. 11, 21-22 – decomposition atmosphere may be oxidizing) to a temperature of 360 °F – 800 °F (c. 4, L 61 – c. 5, L 5 – sacrificial fibers decompose or pyrolyze, under temperatures such as 200 °C to 650 °C, may be removed by other thermal methods).
Regarding claim 22, modified Dunn discloses the method according to claim 1.
Dunn does not disclose wherein the one or more core inserts contain 85 to 95 wt.% graphite and 5 to 15 wt.% PVB polyvinyl butyral.
Weaver discloses wherein the one or more core inserts contain 85 to 95 wt.% graphite (TABLE 1 – carbon black 60 g; weight ratio of 60:16 (about 80:20) carbon black to pore-former, therefore about 80 wt%) and 5 to 15 wt.% PVB polyvinyl butyral (TABLE 1 – pore-former is 16 g; weight ratio of 16:60 (about 20:80) pore-former to carbon black; therefore about 20 wt %; ¶ [0024] - pore-forming agent polyvinyl butyral (PVB) is about 15 wt%).
Dunn and Weaver disclose methods with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the formulation comprising about 80 wt% carbon black and about 20 wt% pore-forming agent in Weaver to the carbon and poly(vinyl) butyral in Dunn to repair an area of composite material comprising ceramic matrix composite substrate (Abstract).
Regarding claim 23, modified Dunn discloses the method according to claim 1.
Dunn discloses the sacrificial fibers form elongate channels (c. 2, L 13-15) and nominal diameter ranges of 12 range from 250-1000 µm (c. 7, L 47-50). As used herein, “elongate” refers to a body with an aspect ratio (length/width) of greater than 1 (c. 4, L 47-48) and the sacrificial fiber has an aspect ratio such that each sacrificial fiber traverses the substantial length or width of the ceramic perform (c. 7, L 18-21).
250
µ
m
*
10
-
6
m
1
µ
m
*
100
c
m
1
m
*
1
i
n
2.54
c
m
=
0.0098
i
n
1000
µ
m
*
10
-
6
m
1
µ
m
*
100
c
m
1
m
*
1
i
n
2.54
c
m
=
0.039
i
n
Dunn does not explicitly disclose wherein the height of one or more core inserts, in the direction normal to the piles of the perform, is 0.015 to 0.050 inches.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have the sacrificial fibers to have a length between 250 μm to 1000 μm (about 0.0098 inch to 0.039 inch) to form elongate channels with an aspect ratio (length/width) of greater than 1 (overlapping the claimed range) to provide the desired size, shape, and distribution of the elongate channels within the part (c. 4, L 39-43).
Regarding claim 24, modified Dunn discloses the method according to claim 1.
Dunn does not disclose wherein the retained graphite is removed by heating the composite to a temperature of 1300 °F – 1500 °F.
Weaver discloses wherein the retained graphite is removed by heating the composite to a temperature of 1300 °F – 1500 °F (¶ [0031] – heated to a temperature of about 600 degrees Celsius to about 1000 degrees Celsius; through unit conversion is about 1112 °F – and 1832 °F, overlapping the claimed range)
Dunn and Weaver disclose methods with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied heating to a temperature of about 600 degrees Celsius to about 1000 degrees Celsius in Weaver to the decomposition or pyrolyzing of sacrificial fibers in Dunn to repair an area of composite material comprising ceramic matrix composite substrate (Abstract).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Dunn (US 10995039 B1) in view of Weaver (US 2016/0114351 A1), as applied to claim 3, in further view of Shim (US 2018/0305263 A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Dunn discloses the method according to claim 3.
Weaver discloses an example conducted at a temperature in the range from 100 to about 175 degrees Celsius, at a pressure in a range from about 300 kilopascals to about 700 kilopascals (¶ [0030]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 100 to 2200 psi.
700
k
P
a
*
0.145038
p
s
i
1
k
P
a
=
101
p
s
i
Dunn and Weaver do not disclose wherein the one or more core inserts are prepared by subjecting a mixture of graphite powder and PVB powder to compression molding at a temperature of 300°F to 400°F.
Analogous art Shim discloses a slurry prepared by mixing preceramic polymer comprising silicon, reactive elements that promote formation of the desired ceramic phase(s) during melt infiltration, such as carbon (e.g., carbon black, graphite and/or diamond) (¶ [0024], [0026]). The slurry further includes a dispersant, such as polyvinyl butyral (¶ [0026]).
Shim discloses wherein the one or more core inserts are prepared by subjecting a mixture of graphite powder and PVB powder to compression molding (¶ [0029] – curing comprising compression molding process) and a temperature of 300°F to 400°F (¶ [0028] - 150 °C to about 400 °C, ¶ [0029] – applying pressure and high temperature).
Dunn and Shim disclose methods with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the compressive molding applying heat and pressure in Shim to the formation of the slurry to cure the flowable preceramic polymer (¶ [0028]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the reinforcing fibers 18 are not a fugitive material, aside from the solvent, the slurry is not a fugitive material, and while the sacrificial fibers are a fugitive material, the fibers do not contain graphite or carbon.
The rejection identified the sacrificial fibers 16 and reinforcing fibers 18 as meeting the claimed “each of the one or more core inserts are made of a fugitive material”. Furthermore, the reinforcing fibers 18 have a coating, such as a carbon (c. 9, L 20-35) and the slurry 20 that is coats the sacrificial fibers 16 (c. 8, L 40-42) includes solvents, particulates (carbon), and combinations (c. 9, L 47-54). Therefore, the coated sacrificial fibers and reinforcing fibers comprise of “a fugitive material”.
Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues Dunn does not disclose “the retained graphite aids in supporting the internal cavities” as the retained material from the sacrificial fibers is the non-wetting coating, which is not made of graphite and the matrix precursor material does not relate to one or more core inserts made of fugitive material comprising graphite and polyvinyl butyral and is not a part of the sacrificial fibers.
The rejection identified the sacrificial fibers 16 and reinforcing fibers 18 as meeting the claimed “each of the one or more core inserts are made of a fugitive material”. Furthermore, reinforcing fibers 18 having a coating, such as a carbon (c. 9, L 20-35) and the slurry 20 that is coats the sacrificial fibers 16 (c. 8, L 40-42) includes solvents, particulates (carbon), and combinations (c. 9, L 47-54). The slurry 20 comprises the matrix precursor material 22 (c. 10, L64-66). Therefore, as the reinforcing fibers 18 provide reinforcement for resulting CMC product (c. 9, L 10-19) and heat removes the solvent of the slurry leaving the matrix precursor material 22 (c. 10, L 60-66), the reinforcing fibers and matrix precursor material coated with the carbon coating “aids supporting the internal cavities”.
Furthermore, Weaver further discloses a fugitive material comprising graphite (¶ [0017] – ceramic filler includes elemental carbon, such as carbon black, graphite particles, or some other suitable form of carbon-containing material).
Dunn and Weaver disclose methods with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the carbon in Dunn with the graphite in Weaver because it is a suitable carbon-containing material to form solid silicon carbide in the processed material (¶ [0017]).
Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that regardless of whether reinforcing fibers 18 or the slurry 20 contains carbon, neither constitute one or more core inserts made of a fugitive material comprising graphite and polyvinyl butyral.
The rejection cites the one or more integrated core inserts as sacrificial fibers 16, including sacrificial fiber 12 (c. 7, L 54-58) and reinforcing fibers 18 (c. 9, L 20), and reinforcing fibers 18 having a coating, such as a carbon (c. 9, L 20-35) and the slurry 20 that is coats the sacrificial fibers 16 (c. 8, L 40-42) includes solvents, particulates (carbon), and combinations (c. 9, L 47-54) and sacrificial fiber 12 includes poly(vinyl butyral), and combinations thereof (c. 6, L 65 – c. 7, L 3). The claim does not limit one or more core inserts to be consisting of graphite and polyvinyl butyral or incorporated as a single uniform material, and therefore would include coating on the fibers.
Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the rejection characterizes the ceramic filler of Weaver without any explanation, as a fugitive material and clearly suggest that the ceramic filler is not removed.
In response to applicant's argument that the ceramic filler of Weaver is not a fugitive material, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant argues Shim does not disclose the temperatures and/or pressures to be used in such a molding process.
Weaver is cited to meet the claimed pressure range. Weaver discloses an example conducted at a temperature in the range from 100 to about 175 degrees Celsius, at a pressure in a range from about 300 kilopascals to about 700 kilopascals (¶ [0030]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 100 to 2200 psi. Shim further discloses curing comprising compression molding process applying pressure and high temperature (¶ [0029]) and curing at a temperature of 150 °C to about 400 °C (¶ [0028]). In combination, the claimed ranges for the temperature and pressure for compression molding are met.
Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
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 JONATHAN B WOO whose telephone number is (571)272-5191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/JONATHAN B WOO/Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights