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 .
Examiner’s Note
A call was placed to applicant’s representative on 14 September 2026 and a voice message left indicating allowable subject matter. No reply has been received as of the writing of this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Crutchfield (US 2021/0395156).
Considering claim 1, Crutchfield teaches a ceramic matrix composite and method of production thereof (abstract). The composite comprises a SiC-SiC composite substrate comprising BN-coated SiC fibers where after infiltration of the composite it has a surface layer of ceramic which is devoid of boron (e.g. performing a pretreatment process on a portion of the component to reduce boron concentration at the surface) (Paragraph 12) where the composite is further coated with an environmental barrier coating (EBC) (Paragraph 14). Further, Crutchfield teaches where the infiltration of molten Si, which consists of Si, is conducted at about 1350-1500 °C (Paragraph 11) which forms the ceramic layer (Paragraph 11) (heat treating the component and forming a sacrificial layer) and the surface content of B in the ceramic layer is no higher than 0.1 wt.% (Paragraph 12) (e.g. heat treating to cause boron to leach) and where a portion of the ceramic layer is removed (Paragraph 13) (e.g. removing the sacrificial layer). As such, Crutchfield anticipates that which is claimed.
Considering clam 3, Crutchfield teaches where the ceramic layer comprises SiC (Paragraphs 11-12) (e.g. a refractory ceramic).
Considering claims 5-6, Crutchfield teaches where the infiltration of molten Si is conducted at about 1350-1500 °C (Paragraph 11). See MPEP 2131.03.
Considering claim 7, Crutchfield teaches where the boron content in the ceramic layer is no higher than 0.1 wt.% (Paragraph 12) which is considered sufficient to avoid a continuous layer of borosilicate glass during use as boron is absent.
Considering claim 8, Crutchfield teaches where the EBC is ytterbium disilicate (Paragraph 14) as is considered to meet the claimed operating temperature as substantially identical materials are expected to possess substantially identical properties, absent an objective showing. See MPEP 2112.01.
Considering claim 10¸ Crutchfield teaches where the boron content in the ceramic layer may be 0.1 wt.% (Paragraph 12) falling within and anticipating the claimed range. See MPEP 2131.03.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 17-18, and 21-28 are allowed.
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. However, if claim 4 were incorporated into claim 1 it would require objection of claim 21 as being substantially identical. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art to the instant claims is that of Crutchfield, which does not adequately teach the depth of the boron reduced region of the SiC-SiC composite combined with the reduction in boron content. Please see the reasons for allowance set forth in the Office action dated 22 June 2026 for claims 21-28.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks p.8, filed 27 August 2026, with respect to 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 35 USC 103 in view of Crutchfield as applied to claim 11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Crutchfield does not adequately teach the structure and boron content of amended claim 11. The rejection of claims 11 and 17-18 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 27 August 2026 regarding art rejections of claim 1 in view of Crutchfield have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Crutchfield does not teach each limitation of claim 1 as Crutchfield applies a scrim ply which is infiltrated with molten Si to form surface layer (116) which is devoid of boron from its inception as no boron was present within the scrim ply itself and does not remove a sacrificial layer, but rather grit blasts (116) to form an intermediate layer of which (118) remains as a permanent functional component (remarks p.7, 4th - 5th paragraphs). This is not persuasive as Crutchfield teaches where the SiC-fibers are BN coated where near-surface regions may contain boron and where the boron content of (116) is no higher than 0.1 wt.% (Paragraph 12). As the silicon infiltrant consists of silicon (Paragraph 11) without added boron in the infiltrant, the content of boron within (116) logically results from diffusion from the BN-coated SiC fibers during the infiltration (i.e. heat treatment) with an upper limit of 0.1 wt.% and therefore the SiC-SiC material would be expected to have a reduced boron content. Instant claim 1 does not specify any degree of boron leaching or structure thereof and is therefore met by Crutchfield.
Further, Crutchfield teaches where (116) is subjected to machining or grit blasting to remove material (Paragraph 13) which is considered to teach where (116) is a sacrificial material and is removed. While layer (118) remains, the instant claims recite the open-language transitional phrase ‘comprising’ which does not preclude a portion of the sacrificial material remaining on the component. See MPEP 2111.01 and 2111.03. As such, the prior rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SETH DUMBRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
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 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.
SETH DUMBRIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/SETH DUMBRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights