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 § 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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Regarding Claim 1, it is unclear what is meant by “to ensure meeting one or more performance criteria”. It is unclear what, if anything, limits this scope. It is presumed that any such element or compound meets such criteria in some way or another. Analogous rejection applies to Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 1, at line 10, it is unclear what is meant by plural “structures”. Previously, at line 4, there is mentioned one “main structure”. Thus, it is unclear what is required by the plural. Analogous rejection applies to Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 1, at four lines from end, it is unclear what criteria is to be used to evaluate “is easier to machine or tool”. Without specifying the conditions, it is unclear how it should be known that “easier” is satisfied. Analogous rejection applies to Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 3, it is unclear what is the percent basis being claimed (“75%”). Is it by volume, mass, or something else. Analogous rejection applies to Claims 4-6.
Regarding Claim 5, it is unclear where these claimed loadings are to be present. Is it in the first composite, in the second composite, both, at the interface, or somewhere else? Analogous rejection applies Claim 6. Analogous rejection applies to “varying sizes” in Claims 9 and 10.
Regarding Claim 8, it is unclear whether the claimed range represents an average of varying sizes, a full range of varying sizes, at least two different sizes somewhere in the specified range, or something else. Analogous rejection applies to Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 7, it is unclear what is to be measured as the “size”. Analogous rejection applies to Claims 8-10.
Regarding Claim 18, it is unclear what is meant by “areas corresponding . . . are flush”. What is being claimed as being flush?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 9, and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Coppola USPA 2022/0227676. Coppola teaches reaction bonded SiC which is formed of discrete SiC-diamond elements (paragraph 24: Figure 5: 104; Figure 3: 40; paragraph 22) joined to SiC-Si composite (paragraph 24; Figure 5: 102; Figure 1: 20; paragraph 20). The claimed first composite corresponds to the SiC-Si composite, and the claimed second composite corresponds to the discrete elements. Coppola teaches SiC-Si is easier to machine (paragraph 22). Coppola teaches infiltration (paragraph 25). The resulting article is single and continuous. Performance criteria is understood to be satisfied since whatever is included leads to the usefulness of the resulting article. Regarding Claim 16, diamond is taught (paragraph 22). Regarding Claim 17, the components are joined together and thus there is bond material at mating surfaces. Regarding Claim 18, the surfaces are flush as seen in Figure 6. Regarding Claim 20, Coppola teaches grinding to form common surface (paragraph 33). As well, the flat surface, such as in Figure 6, would be expected to be indistinguishable from those that are polished or ground to the extent that they were not actually polished or ground since they are coplanar. Regarding Claim 1, the claimed steps are considered performed simultaneously. Regarding Claim 2, diamond is taught (paragraph 22). Regarding Claim 3, Si can be present at 23.2% (paragraph 27). Regarding Claim 5, Coppola teaches that SiC can be 100-about 23.2=about 76.8% (paragraph 27). Regarding Claim 9, Coppola teaches using SiC powder (paragraph 21; Figures 1-4). It would be expected in view of characterization and in view of lack of mentioning of any size regulation that particles of varying sizes would be utilized. Regarding Claims 13, 14, and 19, Coppola teaches making holes, which may be considered tooling as “threading” and machining (paragraph 29).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coppola USPA 2022/0227676 in view of Brown USPN 7,480,129. Coppola is relied upon as set forth above in the section 102 rejection over Coppola. Coppola may not expressly teach threaded article. However, Coppola teaches that articles are useful as electrostatic chuck materials (paragraphs 29 and 35). Brown teaches electrostatic chuck material may be made of SiC (col. 4, line 50 through col. 5, line 3) body (Figure 1B: 42) wherein there may be threaded holes therein (Figure 1B: 50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to prepare the SiC article of Coppola as electrostatic chuck material since Coppola teaches their use in these applications and to provide threaded hole therein as Brown teaches that such holes are needed for assembly (col. 4, lines 20-49).
Claim(s) 3, 4, and 6-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coppola USPA 2022/0227676. Coppola is relied upon as set forth above in the section 103 rejection over Coppola. Regarding Claims 3 and 4, Coppola does not teach expressly teach loading of diamond. However, Xu USPN 9,469,918, which is incorporated by reference by Coppola (paragraph 1), teaches that diamond can be present from 0 to 70% (col. 19, line 45 through col. 20, line 34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to prepare any of these suggested, effective amounts which would be expected to overlap those claimed. Regarding Claim 6, Coppola exemplifies about 76.8 (paragraph 27), which abuts claimed 75%, rendering the claimed amount obvious since properties would be expect to be the same or substantially the same in view of slight difference. See MPEP 2144.05. Regarding Claim 7, Xu teaches average diamond size (col. 18, lines 44-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to prepare any structures with any of these suggested sizes. It would be expected in view of characterization and in view of lack of mentioning of any size regulation that particles of varying sizes would be utilized. Regarding Claim 8, Xu teaches 76 microns (col. 18, line 49), rendering claimed size obvious. Regarding Claim 9, Coppola teaches using SiC powder (paragraph 21; Figures 1-4). Xu teaches SiC composite for the diamond containing SiC, wherein SiC can be 240 grit (70 microns) or 500 grit (35 microns) (col. 18, line 51). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to prepare any structures with SiC powder. Since the diamond reinforced SiC in Coppola is to differ from the machinable SiC by presence of diamond, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to prepare the machinable SiC by the same SiC as to be used in that which is to be reinforced. In doing so, it would be expected in view of characterization and in view of lack of mentioning of any size regulation that particles of varying sizes would be utilized. Regarding Claim 10, these sizes are among those suggested by Xu, as addressed above. Regarding Claim 11, Xu teaches using resin (col. 18, line 52), which holds together the structure. Regarding Claim 12, the resin may be considered a glue.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL E. LA VILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-1539. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. from 9:00 a.m. ET to 5:30 p.m. 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, Humera N. Sheikh, can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/MICHAEL E. LA VILLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
29 July 2026
Prosecution Insights