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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 27, 2026 has been entered.
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, 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rudolph; James W. et al. (US 5853485 A). Rudolph teaches a thermochemical treatment facility (400; Figure 15) comprising a reaction chamber (444; Figure 15-Applicant’s 140; Figure 1) and a preheating chamber (458; Figure 15-Applicant’s 110; Figure 1) comprising a first compartment (“first preheater 458”; Figure 15; column 13; lines 34-45-Applicant’s 111; Figure 1) defining a first gas circulation path (“first preheater 458”; Figure 15; column 13; lines 34-45) between a first gas inlet (460; Figure 15-Applicant’s 1110; Figure 1) and the reaction chamber (444; Figure 15-Applicant’s 140; Figure 1), the reaction chamber (444; Figure 15-Applicant’s 140; Figure 1) includes an enclosed cavity (444+446; Figure 15) delimited by one or more chamber walls (chamber walls defining 444; Figure 15), wherein the preheating chamber (458; Figure 15-Applicant’s 110; Figure 1) also comprises at least one second compartment (“second preheater 478”; Figure 15; column 13; lines 34-45-Applicant’s 112; Figure 1), independent of the first compartment (“first preheater 458”; Figure 15; column 13; lines 34-45-Applicant’s 111; Figure 1), defining a second gas circulation path (“second preheater 478”; Figure 15; column 13; lines 34-45-Applicant’s 112; Figure 1) between a second gas inlet (480; Figure 15-Applicant’s 1120; Figure 1) and the reaction chamber (444; Figure 15-Applicant’s 140; Figure 1), the second compartment (“second preheater 478”; Figure 15; column 13; lines 34-45-Applicant’s 112; Figure 1) containing a metal or metalloid precursor in the solid form resent in the second gas circulation path (“second preheater 478”; Figure 15; column 13; lines 34-45-Applicant’s 112; Figure 1) and configured so that a reactive gas introduced through the second gas inlet (480; Figure 15-Applicant’s 1120; Figure 1) reacts with the metal or mettalloid precursor within the second compartment (“second preheater 478”; Figure 15; column 13; lines 34-45-Applicant’s 112; Figure 1) to generate a gaseous precursor in situ before introduction of the gaseous precursor into the reaction chamber (444; Figure 15-Applicant’s 140; Figure 1), and wherein said first compartment (“first preheater 458”; Figure 15; column 13; lines 34-45-Applicant’s 111; Figure 1) and said at least one second compartment (“second preheater 478”; Figure 15; column 13; lines 34-45-Applicant’s 112; Figure 1) are both in fluid communication (via “porous walls” 452; Figure 15) with said enclosed cavity (444+446; Figure 15) such that the first gas circulation path (“first preheater 458”; Figure 15; column 13; lines 34-45) and the second gas circulation path (“second preheater 478”; Figure 15; column 13; lines 34-45-Applicant’s 112; Figure 1) each independently introduced their respective gas flows directly into the enclosed cavity (444+446; Figure 15) of the reaction chamber (444; Figure 15-Applicant’s 140; Figure 1), as claimed by claim 1. The above and below italicized claim text is considered intended use in the pending apparatus claims. Further, it has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (Walter , 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409; MPEP 2106). Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (In re Casey,152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto , 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); MPEP2115).
Rudolph further teaches:
The thermochemical treatment facility (400; Figure 15) according to claim 1, wherein the metal or metalloid precursor resent in the second compartment (“second preheater 478”; Figure 15; column 13; lines 34-45-Applicant’s 112; Figure 1) is a compound or a mixture of compounds chosen from zirconium, titanium, hafnium and yttrium and the second gas inlet (480; Figure 15-Applicant’s 1120; Figure 1) is connected to a source of hydrogen dichloride or chloride, as claimed by claim 2
The thermochemical treatment facility (400; Figure 15) according to claim 2, wherein the second compartment (“second preheater 478”; Figure 15; column 13; lines 34-45-Applicant’s 112; Figure 1) comprises a multi-perforated plate (multi-perforated plates shown within each 458; Figure 15, not numbered) supporting the metal or metalloid precursor in solid form, as claimed by claim 3
The thermochemical treatment facility of claim 1, wherein the first gas circulation path (“first preheater 458”; Figure 15; column 13; lines 34-45) (“first preheater 458”; Figure 15; column 13; lines 34-45-Applicant’s 111; Figure 1) and the second gas circulation path (“second preheater 478”; Figure 15; column 13; lines 34-45-Applicant’s 112; Figure 1) (“second preheater 478”; Figure 15; column 13; lines 34-45-Applicant’s 112; Figure 1) are configured to introduce respective gas flows into the enclosed cavity (444+446; Figure 15) such that the gas flows mix (via “porous walls” 452; Figure 15) within the enclosed cavity (444+446; Figure 15), as claimed by claim 11
The thermochemical treatment facility of claim 1, wherein said first compartment (“first preheater 458”; Figure 15; column 13; lines 34-45-Applicant’s 111; Figure 1) and said at least one second compartment (“second preheater 478”; Figure 15; column 13; lines 34-45-Applicant’s 112; Figure 1) are both in fluid communication (via “porous walls” 452; Figure 15) with said enclosed cavity (444+446; Figure 15) such that gas originating from the first gas circulation path (“first preheater 458”; Figure 15; column 13; lines 34-45) (“first preheater 458”; Figure 15; column 13; lines 34-45-Applicant’s 111; Figure 1) and gas originating from the second gas circulation path (“second preheater 478”; Figure 15; column 13; lines 34-45-Applicant’s 112; Figure 1) (“second preheater 478”; Figure 15; column 13; lines 34-45-Applicant’s 112; Figure 1) are introduced into and mix (via “porous walls” 452; Figure 15) within the enclosed cavity (444+446; Figure 15), as claimed by claim 12
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Rudolph; James W. et al. (US 5853485 A) in view of, if necessary, Sakagami; Seigou et al. (US 5202158 A). Rudolph, under anticipation, is believed to teach the thermochemical treatment facility (400; Figure 15) according to claim 3, wherein a layer of quartz wool is interposed between the multi-perforated plate (multi-perforated plates shown within each 458; Figure 15, not numbered) and the metal or metalloid precursor. The Examiner’s grounds of anticipation are based on the possible claim interpretation that the claimed “layer of quartz wool” is not part of the claimed “thermochemical treatment facility” and is treated as an article to-be-treated.
In the event that the Examiner’s grounds of anticipation are not persuasive, then, Sakagami also teaches a CVI reactor (Figure 3) including a porous fiber reinforced material (13) made from quartz (claim 6).
In the event that the Examiner’s grounds of anticipation are not persuasive, then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Rudolph to add Sakagami’s porous fiber reinforced material (13) made from quartz (claim 6).
Motivation for Rudolph to add Sakagami’s porous fiber reinforced material (13) made from quartz (claim 6) is for producing porous fiber reinforced material (Field of the Invention).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Rudolph; James W. et al. (US 5853485 A) in view of Delperier, Bernard et al. (US 20020076491 A1). Rudolph is discussed above. Rudolph does not teach the thermochemical treatment facility (400; Figure 15) according to claims 1, wherein the first gas inlet (460; Figure 15-Applicant’s 1110; Figure 1) is connected to a source of gaseous pyrocarbon precursor.
Delperier also teaches a CVI reactor (Figure 1) including natural gas and methane precursors for creating pyrocarbon, or , “pyrolytic carbon” ([0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Rudolph to add Delperier’s natural gas and methane precursors for creating pyrocarbon, or , “pyrolytic carbon” ([0086]).
Motivation for Rudolph to add Delperier’s natural gas and methane precursors for creating pyrocarbon, or , “pyrolytic carbon” ([0086]) is for “substrate densification” as taught by Delperier ([0086]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states:
“
Amended claim 1 requires that the second compartment be configured such that a reactive gas introduced through the second gas inlet reacts with the metal or metalloid precursor within the second compartment to generate a gaseous precursor in situ before its introduction into the reaction chamber. Rudolph does not disclose this limitation, either expressly or inherently.
Rudolph describes a pressure-gradient CVI/CVD apparatus in which a plurality of preheaters (e.g., first preheater 458 and second preheater 478, Fig. 15) each heat a separate flow of reactant gas before the gas is forced through a porous wall 452 disposed within the reactor volume 447.
And..
The Final Office Action dismisses the limitation that the second compartment contains a metal or metalloid precursor in the solid form present in the second gas circulation path as "intended use" under MPEP 2114. This characterization is respectfully traversed.
The word "containing" denotes a structural relationship, the apparatus physically houses a solid article (the metal-or-metalloid precursor) disposed in a particular location (in the second gas circulation path). The solid metal-or-metalloid precursor is itself a tangible structural component physically present within the second compartment, not a use to which the apparatus is put. Applicant respectfully submits that an apparatus claim that recites a particular article physically "contained" within an identified portion of the apparatus is structurally distinguished from an apparatus that lacks that article.
“
In response, and as noted above and prior, the argued features should be considered intended use claim recitations in the pending apparatus claims. Applicant has not provided sufficient distinguishing structural characteristics of Applicant's claimed invention to contrast the Examiner's cited prior art. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Examiner notes MPEP 2112 which states the express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Applicant states:
“
Rudolph's preheaters 458 and 478 are thus purely thermal zones; they preheat the gas before the gas is delivered to the porous structure being densified. No solid metal or metalloid precursor is disposed inside Rudolph's preheaters, and no chemical reaction between a reactive
gas and a solid metal precursor occurs within Rudolph's preheaters. Indeed, the reactant gas in Rudolph is introduced into the apparatus already in gaseous form from external "furnace supply line 408." See Rudolph, col. 13, lines 35-37.
“
Again, Applicant’s arguments are intended use arguments and have not provided any purported structural differences between the pending apparatus claims and that of the prior art.
Applicant states:
“
The "in situ generation limitation" is a structural-functional configuration limitation, not a mere statement of intended use. It requires the second compartment to be specifically configured, i.e., structured, to (i) house a solid metal or metalloid precursor in the gas flow path;
(ii) bring a reactive gas into contact with that solid precursor under conditions suitable for chemical reaction; and (iii) deliver the resulting gaseous reaction product to the reaction chamber.
“
The Examiner disagrees. The claimed limitations are strictly functional and depend on the chemical identities of the non-structural precursors and their resulting reactivity as claimed.
Applicant states:
“
Rudolph's sealed thermal preheaters are not designed or constructed for in situ generation of a gaseous precursor by chemical reaction with a solid metal precursor. Mere capability of being modified to perform the recited function would not suffice under Giannelli. In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Rudolph is silent regarding any solid metal- or-metalloid precursor within any of its preheaters and provides no structure for retaining solid particles in the gas-flow path of any preheater (e.g., no multi-perforated support plate, no quartz- wool layer, and no chlorinator chamber geometry).
“
In response, the Examiner finds no claimed structural distinction between Applicant’s claimed and weighed structure and that of Rudolph. As a result, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
Applicant states:
“
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner mapped the "enclosed cavity" to Rudolph's combined volumes 444 + 446 and asserted that Rudolph's "porous walls 452" place the two preheaters in fluid communication with that enclosed cavity. Respectfully, this mapping is incorrect for at least the following reasons.
In this example the porous structure comprises a first porous wall 452 disposed within the reactor volume 447. The first porous wall 452 is preferably annular and comprises a first top plate 454 that seals the upper open end of the first porous wall 452, thereby defining a first enclosed cavity 456. The other end of the first porous wall 452 is sealed against the first preheater 458, with the first preheater outlet 461 in fluid communication with the first enclosed cavity 456.
Rudolph, col. 13, lines 49-58.
Rudolph thus teaches that the first preheater 458 is in fluid communication with the first enclosed cavity 456, and only with the first enclosed cavity 456. By the same architecture, the second preheater 478 is in fluid communication with its own second enclosed cavity 476, separate and distinct from cavity 456. Each preheater feeds its own private cavity; the preheaters do not share a common cavity.
Second, Rudolph's porous wall 452 cannot be re-cast as a fluid-communication conduit. Rudolph teaches expressly that the porous wall 452 is the workpiece, the porous substrate that is to be densified by the CVI/CVD process, and that the reactant gas is forced through the porous wall by a pressure differential, where the gas "cracks and deposits a binding matrix" within the wall:
“
The Examiner disagrees. Rudolph repeatedly refers to “porous walls” 452; Figure 15. Rudolph’s porosity, as described repeatedly throughout the specification, is gaseous porosity. As a result, “fluid communication”, as described by Rudolph supports the Examiner’s prior assertion wherein Rudolph’s first compartment (“first preheater 458”; Figure 15; column 13; lines 34-45-Applicant’s 111; Figure 1) and Rudolph’s at least one second compartment (“second preheater 478”; Figure 15; column 13; lines 34-45-Applicant’s 112; Figure 1) are both in fluid communication (via “porous walls” 452; Figure 15) with Rudolph’s enclosed cavity (444+446; Figure 15) such that Rudolph’s first gas circulation path (“first preheater 458”; Figure 15; column 13; lines 34-45) and Rudolph’s second gas circulation path (“second preheater 478”; Figure 15; column 13; lines 34-45-Applicant’s 112; Figure 1) each independently introduced their respective gas flows directly into Rudolph’s enclosed cavity (444+446; Figure 15) of Rudolph’s reaction chamber (444; Figure 15-Applicant’s 140; Figure 1).
Applicant states:
“
The porous wall 452 is therefore an article-to-be-treated (the preform substrate undergoing densification), not a structural conduit by which the two preheaters are placed in fluid communication with a common cavity. Indeed, Rudolph teaches that any gas that traverses
the porous wall is exhausted: "[t]he remaining gas and any by-products then exit the first porous wall 452 and are exhausted from the reactor volume 447 through exhaust stacks 450 by vacuum apparatus 448." Rudolph, col. 14, lines 4-7. In Rudolph, the porous wall is therefore a deposition site and an exhaust pathway, not a means of fluid communication between preheaters.
“
In response, the Examiner notes that the Examiner has not assigned Rudolph’s porous structures (via “porous walls” 452; Figure 15) to any of Applicant’s weighted claimed structure. The Examiner is only demonstrating the clear fact that the claimed “fluid communication” is met by Rudolph’s porous structures (via “porous walls” 452; Figure 15).
Applicant states:
“
Third, the word "directly" in amended claim 1 forecloses the Office Action's mapping. A gas flow that can only reach the alleged "common cavity" by being forced through a porous preform under pressure is not "directly" introduced into the enclosed cavity. Likewise, the word "independently" further confirms that each gas circulation path delivers its respective gas flow to the common enclosed cavity by an independent path, not by traversing a shared porous structure.
“
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner’s BRI supports wherein Rudolph’s first compartment (“first preheater 458”; Figure 15; column 13; lines 34-45-Applicant’s 111; Figure 1) and Rudolph’s at least one second compartment (“second preheater 478”; Figure 15; column 13; lines 34-45-Applicant’s 112; Figure 1) are both in fluid communication (via “porous walls” 452; Figure 15) with Rudolph’s enclosed cavity (444+446; Figure 15) such that Rudolph’s first gas circulation path (“first preheater 458”; Figure 15; column 13; lines 34-45) and Rudolph’s second gas circulation path (“second preheater 478”; Figure 15; column 13; lines 34-45-Applicant’s 112; Figure 1) each independently introduced their respective gas flows directly into the enclosed cavity (444+446; Figure 15) of the reaction chamber (444; Figure 15-Applicant’s 140; Figure 1).
Applicant’s remaining arguments rely on the above addressed positions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CVI apparatus with similar gas injection profiles include:
US 20020076491 A1
US 20040071877 A1
US 20080124462 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Rudy Zervigon whose telephone number is (571) 272- 1442. The examiner can normally be reached on a Monday through Thursday schedule from 8am through 6pm EST. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Any Inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Chemical and Materials Engineering art unit receptionist at (571) 272-1700. If the examiner cannot be reached please contact the examiner's supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, at (571) 272- 1435.
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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Rudy Zervigon/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights