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Claim 16-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 7, 2025.
Applicant’s election of invention I in the reply filed on October 7, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are examined.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn.
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.
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) 1-3 and 5-15 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; 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]).
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]).
Conclusion
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
/SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754