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 .
The amendment filed April 10, 2026 has been entered.
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 1-5, 7-14 and 16-17 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 tip of a tool with a pore of the preform, wherein the tip extends parallel to a longitudinal direction of the tool, and wherein the pore is defined by a woven pattern of tows of the preform (fig. 1; ¶¶ 31-32): the nozzle tips of the tool are directed at the woven fiber fabric such that the pressurized streams issuing from the tips act within the “inter-yarn pores or spaces” of the fabric, i.e., openings defined by the woven pattern of the yarns/tows, to open up the yarns, spreading the fibers of the yarns apar from one another and distributing them into the previously unoccupied inter-yarn pores. 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 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 plurality of tips of a multi-tip tool with pores of the preform, wherein the tips extends parallel to a longitudinal direction of the tool, and wherein the pores are defined by a woven pattern of tows of the preform (fig. 1; ¶¶ 31-32, 57): the nozzle tips of the tool are directed at the woven fiber fabric such that the pressurized streams issuing from the tips act within the “inter-yarn pores or spaces” of the fabric, i.e., openings defined by the woven pattern of the yarns/tows, to open up the yarns, spreading the fibers of the yarns apar from one another and distributing them into the previously unoccupied inter-yarn pores. 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 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Fillion is silent regarding aligning a tip of the tool with a pore of the fabric and instead characterizes only a general orientation of the water jets relative to the fabric. This is not persuasive. The indefinite article “a” in an open-ended claim employing the transitional phrase “comprising” carries the meaning of “one or more.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, “aligning a tip of a tool with a pore of the preform” therefore requires positioning the tip in registration with one or more inter-tow openings of the woven preform. The claim does not require identifying or targeting a particular pore, maintaining alignment with the same pore, or excluding concurrent alignment on the surrounding tows. Fillion positions discrete nozzle outlets facing the woven fabric and teaches reorienting the fabric by 45 or 90 degrees between passes so that the treatment is distributed uniformly across the woven structure (¶ 36). Because the inter-yarn pores recur throughout the repeating woven pattern, this reorientation brings the outlet tips into registration with inter-yearn pores of the fabric during treatment. Fillion expressly teaches that the treatment opens up the yarns so that their fibers, spread apart from one another, are distributed into the previously unoccupied openings of the weave, with Fillion identifies as the inter-yarn pores of the fabric (¶¶ 31-32). Thus, Fillion aligns a tip of a tool with a pore of the preform, which is no less than is required by the instant claims.
Applicant further argues that Fillion’s jets inherently diverge and that each tip may include multiple outlets, such that tool tip alignment is not required for Fillion’s method to function. This argument is not persuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the claims. The claims contain no limitation excluding divergent flow or a tip having a plurality of outlets.
Applicant argues that Roylance does not disclose alignment the tool tip with a pore of the preform. Roylance is relied upon for the oscillating tip contact at a frequency greater than 20 kHz and the consolidating/debulking benefit, not for alignment of the tip with a pore, which is taught by Fillion, as discussed above.
Applicant finally argues that Fillion and Roylance disclose methods in which the water jets or the horn directly impact yarns or tows, whereas the claimed method laterally displaces tows so as to reduce or eliminate damage. This argument is unpersuasive for two reasons. Fillion expressly configures its treatment which includes capping outlet pressure at 100 bars and maintaining a standoff of at least 50 mm, precisely so that the yearns are opened up without being broken, and distinguishes earlier art on the very ground that breaking or cutting yarns is unacceptable for a structural composite (¶ 18). Roylance also employs its rounded, angled, ultrasonically oscillating tip specifically so that the tip remains in contact with the ply without gouging or damaging the composite structure while consolidating and debulking the fibers (¶¶ 20-21). Second, the argument is not commensurate in scope with the claims. The instant claims do not recite a reduced breaking or fraying of tows.
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 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
Prosecution Insights