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 Group I, claims 1-17, in the reply filed on December 2, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 4 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 4 recites the limitation "the terminal end." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fillion (US 2015/0082589) in view of Roylance (US 2001/0011570).
Claim 1: Fillion discloses a method of preparing a preform for a ceramic matrix composite (abstract; ¶¶ 51-52). The method includes aligning a tool with the preform (fig. 1), wherein the tool includes a tip extending parallel to a longitudinal direction of the tool (fig. 1); and displacing a tow of the preform in a lateral direction of a ply prior to densifying the preform (¶ 18).
Fillion is silent as to using an oscillating tool with a tip that contacts the tow and oscillating the tool at a frequency greater than 20 kilohertz. However, Roylance discloses a method of preparing a preform including aligning a tool with the preform (fig. 8), wherein the tool includes a tip extending parallel to a longitudinal direction of the tool (fig. 8), and displacing a tow of the preform in a lateral direction of a ply prior to densifying (¶ 78), by oscillating the tool such that the tip contacts the tow of the preform (fig. 8; ¶ 78), wherein the displacing the tow of the preform includes oscillating the tool at a frequency of 40 kilohertz (¶ 78). As taught by Roylance, using an ultrasonic horn effectively consolidates and debulks the individual fibers (¶¶ 20-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have utilized the ultrasonic horn of Roylance in the method of Fillion to consolidate and debulk tow of the preforms.
PNG
media_image1.png
540
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8 of Roylance
Claim 2: Fillion discloses dispensing fluid from the tip via passage extending longitudinally through the tip (fig. 1; ¶ 31).
Claim 3: Roylance discloses the tip being blunt or hemispherical and wherein displacing the tow of the preform includes engaging the terminal end of the tip with the tow of the preform (fig. 8).
Claim 4: Roylance discloses the tip including a tapered section such that the tip has decreasing cross-sectional area towards the terminal end, and wherein displacing the tow of the preform includes engaging the tow of the preform with the tapered section (fig. 8).
Claim 5: Fillion discloses orienting the preform normal to the longitudinal direction of the tool (fig. 1).
Claim 6: Fillion discloses aligning a pore of the preform with the tip and wherein the pore is defined by a woven pattern of tows of the preform (¶¶ 31-32).
Claim 7: Roylance discloses realigning the tool with a second region of the preform according to a predetermined pattern (¶ 41); and displacing a second tow of the preform within the second region, prior to densification, by oscillating the tool such that the tip displaces the second tow of the preform laterally within the ply (¶ 41).
Claim 8: Fillion discloses densifying the preform by exposing the preform to a gaseous precursor and matrix material within a reactor (¶ 39).
Claim 9: Fillion discloses a method of preparing a preform for a ceramic matrix composite (abstract; ¶¶ 51-52). The method includes aligning a multi-tip tool with the preform (fig. 1), wherein the tool includes a plurality of tips extending parallel to a longitudinal direction of the tool (fig. 1); and displacing a tow of the preform in a lateral direction of a ply prior to densifying the preform (¶ 18).
Fillion is silent as to using an oscillating tool with a tip that contacts the tow and oscillating the tool at a frequency greater than 20 kilohertz. However, Roylance discloses a method of preparing a preform including aligning a tool with the preform (fig. 8), wherein the tool includes a tip extending parallel to a longitudinal direction of the tool (fig. 8), and displacing a tow of the preform in a lateral direction of a ply prior to densifying (¶ 78), by oscillating the tool such that the tip contacts the tow of the preform (fig. 8; ¶ 78), wherein the displacing the tow of the preform includes oscillating the tool at a frequency of 40 kilohertz (¶ 78). As taught by Roylance, using an ultrasonic horn effectively consolidates and debulks the individual fibers (¶¶ 20-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have utilized the ultrasonic horn of Roylance in the method of Fillion to consolidate and debulk tow of the preforms.
PNG
media_image1.png
540
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8 of Roylance
Claim 10: Fillion discloses dispensing fluid from the tips via passage extending longitudinally through the tip (fig. 1; ¶ 31).
Claim 11: Roylance discloses the tip being blunt or hemispherical and wherein displacing the tow of the preform includes engaging the terminal end of the tip with the tow of the preform (fig. 8).
Claim 12: Roylance discloses the tip including a tapered section such that the tip has decreasing cross-sectional area towards the terminal end, and wherein displacing the tow of the preform includes engaging the tow of the preform with the tapered section (fig. 8).
Claim 13: Fillion discloses orienting the preform normal to the longitudinal direction of the tool (fig. 1).
Claim 14: Roylance discloses aligning the tool with the preform includes orienting the preform at an oblique angle to the longitudinal direction of the tool (fig. 8).
Claim 15: Fillion discloses aligning a pore of the preform with the tip and wherein the pore is defined by a woven pattern of tows of the preform (¶¶ 31-32).
Claim 16: Roylance discloses realigning the tool with a second region of the preform according to a predetermined pattern (¶ 41); and displacing a second tow of the preform within the second region, prior to densification, by oscillating the tool such that the tip displaces the second tow of the preform laterally within the ply (¶ 41).
Claim 17: Fillion discloses densifying the preform by exposing the preform to a gaseous precursor and matrix material within a reactor (¶ 39).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY THROWER whose telephone number is (571)270-5517. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm MT M-F.
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.
/LARRY W THROWER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754