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 .
Response to Arguments
Due to amendments, the 35 USC 112 and 102 rejections have been withdrawn. Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection, applicant's arguments filed 5/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Beall does not render obvious the claimed particle size. However, upon further review due to amendments, Beall teaches that the particle size is 10 microns on average in col. 11 lines 10-17 and col. 16 lines 28-38. Beall indicates that the size is modified based on the suitability to impregnate and coat fiber tows in col. 11 lines 10-17. Thus, the particle size is obvious based upon Beall as it is modified through routine experimentation to achieve desired results. It is also obvious as an average of 10 microns creates a suitable and optimal range for the particles that teach the suitability of using a 10 micron particle in the art.
For at least these reasons, the 103 rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenz (US 2023/0063554 A1) in view of Beall et al. (US 4948758)
As to claim 1, Lenz teaches a method of reducing local fiber volume fraction and improving filament distribution within a ceramic fiber tow located within outer layer(s) of a ceramic matrix composite (CMC) comprising (abstract, Figures): a) applying a coating medium comprising intumescent material onto an outer layer(s) of a ceramic matrix composite preform to form a coated ceramic matrix composite preform (para 0014, 0038); b) heating the coated ceramic matrix composite preform to expand the intumescent material (heating at high temperatures in para 0019, 0031, Fig.3 a thermally expanding polymer material will inherently expand); and c) densifying the coated ceramic matrix composite preform to form a densified ceramic matrix composite containing expanded intumescent material (Fig. 3). Lenz does not teach that the intumescent material is a particle having the claimed size range.
Beall et al. teaches a method of reducing local fiber volume fraction and improving filament distribution within a ceramic fiber tow located within outer layer(s) of a ceramic matrix composite (CMC) comprising (Figures): a) applying a coating medium comprising intumescent material that is a particle (mica in col. 11 lines 10-17 and Example 10) onto an outer layer(s) of a ceramic matrix composite preform to form a coated ceramic matrix composite preform (Figs. 1,2, Example 10); b) heating the coated ceramic matrix composite preform to expand the intumescent material (Example 10); and c) densifying the coated ceramic matrix composite preform to form a densified ceramic matrix composite containing expanded intumescent material (Examples 11-14).
Though it would be inherent that when a thermal expanding polymer in Lenz would be heated it would expand to form the intumescent material deposited on the fibers, it would also be obvious that a thermally expanding polymer will thermally expand upon heating. Further, Beall is in the same field of endeavor and teaches water absorbing materials deposited onto fibers that expand when heated (taught above, Ex 10 of Beall). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that it is obvious that the deposited material in Lenz will expand when heated as Beall teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such.
Further, Beall et al. teaches mica as an intumescent material that is used to improve tough fracture behavior in the composite in col. 1 lines 9-15. Beall teaches that the particle size is 10 microns on average in col. 11 lines 10-17 and col. 16 lines 28-38. Beall indicates that the size is modified based on the suitability to impregnate and coat fiber tows in col. 11 lines 10-17. Thus, the particle size is obvious based upon Beall as it is modified through routine experimentation to achieve desired results. It is also obvious as an average of 10 microns creates a suitable and optimal range for the particles that teach the suitability of using a 10 micron particle in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Lenz to include particles as an intumescent particle as taught by Beall et al. in order to improve fracture toughness of the composite.
As to claims 2-3, the intumescent material includes mica, which is a ceramic yielding mineral (Beall Example 10).
As to claims 4-5, the material comprises polyamide types of polymers in Lenz para 0014, 0037.
As to claim 6, the fibers are SiC, for example, in Lenz para 0012 And Beall, in col. 1 lines 15-20.
As to claim 7, the material is applied via the claimed methods in Lenz para 0015 and Beall Ex. 10.
As to claim 11, Beall et al. teaches mica as an intumescent material that is used to improve tough fracture behavior in the composite in col. 1 lines 9-15. Beall teaches that the particle size is 10 microns on average in col. 11 lines 10-17 and col. 16 lines 28-38. Beall indicates that the size is modified based on the suitability to impregnate and coat fiber tows in col. 11 lines 10-17. Thus, the particle size is obvious based upon Beall as it is modified through routine experimentation to achieve desired results. It is also obvious as an average of 10 microns creates a suitable and optimal range for the particles that teach the suitability of using a 10 micron particle in the art.
As to claim 12, densification is carried out as claimed in Lenz para 0019 and via infiltration of silicon alloys (glass) in Beall Examples 11-14.
As to claim 13, the transformation temperature is as claimed in Beall Example 10.
As to claim 14, an environmental barrier coating is taught in Beall col 8 lines 55-65.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beall et al. (US 4948758)
As to claim 1, Beall et al. teaches a method of reducing local fiber volume fraction and improving filament distribution within a ceramic fiber tow located within outer layer(s) of a ceramic matrix composite (CMC) comprising (Figures): a) applying a coating medium comprising intumescent material onto an outer layer(s) of a ceramic matrix composite preform to form a coated ceramic matrix composite preform (Figs. 1,2, Example 10); b) heating the coated ceramic matrix composite preform to expand the intumescent material (Example 10); and c) densifying the coated ceramic matrix composite preform to form a densified ceramic matrix composite containing expanded intumescent material (Examples 11-14).
Beall et al. teaches mica as an intumescent material that is used to improve tough fracture behavior in the composite in col. 1 lines 9-15. Beall teaches that the particle size is 10 microns on average in col. 11 lines 10-17 and col. 16 lines 28-38. Beall indicates that the size is modified based on the suitability to impregnate and coat fiber tows in col. 11 lines 10-17. Thus, the particle size is obvious based upon Beall as it is modified through routine experimentation to achieve desired results. It is also obvious as an average of 10 microns creates a suitable and optimal range for the particles that teach the suitability of using a 10 micron particle in the art.
As to claims 2-3, the intumescent material includes mica, which is a ceramic yielding mineral (Beall Example 10).
As to claim 6, the fibers are as claimed, for example, in Beall col. 1 lines 15-20.
As to claim 7, the material is applied as claimed in Beall Example 10.
As to claim 11, Beall et al. teaches mica as an intumescent material that is used to improve tough fracture behavior in the composite in col. 1 lines 9-15. Beall teaches that the particle size is 10 microns on average in col. 11 lines 10-17 and col. 16 lines 28-38. Beall indicates that the size is modified based on the suitability to impregnate and coat fiber tows in col. 11 lines 10-17. Thus, the particle size is obvious based upon Beall as it is modified through routine experimentation to achieve desired results. It is also obvious as an average of 10 microns creates a suitable and optimal range for the particles that teach the suitability of using a 10 micron particle in the art.
As to claim 12, densification occurs via infiltration of silicon alloys (glass) in Beall Examples 11-14.
As to claim 13, the transformation temperature is as claimed in Beall Example 10.
As to claim 14, an environmental barrier coating is taught in Beall col 8 lines 55-65.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beall et al. or Lenz and Beall et al. in view of Shi et al. (US 2021/0276925 A).
Lenz or Beall et al. do not teach a slurry coating method, but teaches a sol gel. Shi et al. teaches a coating that may modify density/porosity that is applied by slurry in the alternative to a sol gel in para 0063. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Lenz and Beall to include a slurry process in the alternative to sol gel as Shi et al. teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such. As to the particulate load, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
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 KELLY M GAMBETTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
KELLY M. GAMBETTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1718
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights