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 § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-20 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). As such, Crutchfield anticipates that which is claimed.
Considering claim 2, 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).
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 9, Crutchfield teaches where the thickness of the ceramic layer is 0.25-0.64 mm (Paragraph 15) (e.g. ~250-640 microns). See MPEP 2131.03.
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.
Considering claim 11, 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. a surface with a boron concentration reduced relative to the remainder of the substrate) (Paragraph 12) where the composite is further coated with an environmental barrier coating (EBC) (Paragraph 14). As such, Crutchfield anticipates that which is claimed.
Considering claims 12-16, the recitation of “is formed by a method” is considered a product-by-process limitation and is not considered to render a patentable distinction absent a showing as to how the claimed process affects the final structure of the claimed component. See MPEP 2113. Crutchfield teaches where the ceramic layer is formed via infiltration of molten Si (Paragraph 12), at least a portion of the ceramic layer is removed (e.g. is a sacrificial layer) (Paragraph 13), and where the EBC comprises ytterbium disilicate (Paragraph 14).
Considering claim 17, Crutchfield teaches where the boron content in the ceramic layer is substantially zero (Paragraph 12) which is considered sufficient to avoid a continuous layer of borosilicate glass during use as boron is absent.
Considering claim 18, 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 19, Crutchfield teaches where the thickness of the ceramic layer is 0.25-0.64 mm (Paragraph 15) (e.g. ~250-640 microns). See MPEP 2131.03.
Considering claim 20, Crutchfield teaches where the boron content in the ceramic layer may be 0 wt.% (Paragraph 12) falling within and anticipating the claimed range. See MPEP 2131.03.
Allowable Subject Matter
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.
The closest prior art to the instant claims is that of Crutchfield as outlined above, but does not teach where the ceramic layer comprises ytterbium disilicate, but teaches where the EBC comprises ytterbium disilicate, but not boron (Paragraph 14). As such, the use of ytterbium disilicate as a sacrificial material to leach boron would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sacks (US 6,069,102) teaches removing boron from SiC fibers.
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