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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 1/8/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the composite material could not be made by another process. This is not found persuasive because the burden for a restriction is only that the product be able to be made by another process. Determination of patentability in a product claim is dependent upon the structure implied by method step and not the method steps themselves (MPEP 2113). Therefore, any process that results in a foaming or expanded material within the fibers is another method by which the product can be made. Such as, deposition of a material that can be expanded by absorbing water or by application of other energy sources other than thermal sources or CVD in a powder sintering apparatus/matrix.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 2-3 are 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.
Claims 2-3 recite the limitation "intumescent particles". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claims are being examined according to intumescent materials, which is the phrase that has antecedent basis via claim 1.
In claim 3, it is unclear how ‘expanded graphite’ can be further expanded as required by claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lenz (US 2023/0063554 A1)
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).
As to claims 4-5, the material comprises polyamide types of polymers in para 0014, 0037.
As to claim 6, the fibers are SiC, for example, in para 0012.
As to claim 7, the material is applied via the claimed methods in para 0015.
As to claim 12, densification is carried out as claimed in para 0019.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by 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).
As to claims 2-3, the intumescent material includes mica, which is a ceramic yielding mineral (Example 10).
As to claim 6, the fibers are as claimed, for example, in col. 1 lines 15-20.
As to claim 7, the material is applied as claimed in Example 10.
As to claim 12, densification occurs via infiltration of silicon alloys (glass) in Examples 11-14.
As to claim 13, the transformation temperature is as claimed in Example 10.
As to claim 14, an environmental barrier coating is taught in col 8 lines 55-65.
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 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenz in view of Beall et al.
In the alternative, Lenz teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Though it would be inherent that when a thermal expanding polymer 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.
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 10-11, Beall et al. does not explicitly teach the mica particle size. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the claimed crystal size, since 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).
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) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beall et al. in view of Shi et al. (US 2021/0276925 A) or Lenz and Beall et al. in view of Shi et al.
Beall et al. does 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 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).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beall et al.
Beall et al. does not explicitly teach the mica particle size. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the claimed crystal size, since 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
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, Timothy Meeks can be reached at 571-272-1423. 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 1715
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718