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 1-17 in the reply filed on 11/12/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the products are distinct and cannot be made by another process. This is not found persuasive because product by process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (MPEP 2113). Thus, the product can be made by any method that results in a coated product before melt infiltration, including CVD that results in the growth of particles, a slurry method that includes sintering or regular drying over freeze drying, or any other common deposition method such as dipping, PVD, ALD etc., as long as the structure is implied.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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) 1-2 and 4-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 109020588 (hereafter CN, citations taken from the attached Google translated document).
As to claim 1, CN teaches a method for uniformly distributing particulate matter in a fiber reinforcement of a ceramic matrix composite material (abstract, at least as broadly as ‘uniformly distributing’ is claimed, also claim 3), comprising: providing at least one preform of at least one fiber reinforcement; infiltrating the at least one preform with at least one slurry comprising at least one particulate material and at least one solvent (claim 1) to form at least one slurry infiltrated preform comprising at least one particulate material; freezing the at least one slurry infiltrated preform comprising the at least one particulate material to form at least one frozen slurry infiltrated preform comprising the at least one particulate material; sublimating the at least one frozen slurry infiltrated preform comprising the at least one particulate material to form at least one structural support comprising the at least one particulate material uniformly distributed thereupon within at least one sublimated slurry infiltrated preform (freeze drying includes both freezing and sublimation in claim 1); and melt-infiltrating with at least one metal, at least one metalloid, at least one metal alloy, or at least one metalloid alloy (Si melt in claim 1), the at least one sublimated slurry infiltrated preform comprising the at least one structural support to form at least one melt-infiltrated CMC material.
As to claim 2, CN includes a binder in its claim 1.
As to claims 4-9, CN includes the particulate materials, such as BN, Si3N4 and SiC powders in its slurry in its claim 1 and abstract, for example. The carbon materials are on p3. As CN includes the alternatives of Claim 4, it follows that the further limited alternatives are also met.
As to claims 10-15, the fibers are coated with a BN material on p 3-4 and the examiner takes official notice, along with what is taught in CN, that it is common in the art to use CVD or slurry infiltration, as it is used here, to deposit protective coatings on fibers. As CN includes the alternatives of Claim 12, it follows that the further limited alternatives are also met.
As to claim 16, the foam material is an inherent result of the claimed method. Further, ‘foam like’ material is broad and includes porous materials. Thus, as CN teaches the claimed method, this result is taught as well.
As to claim 17, the melt infiltration is as claimed in the abstract and p2.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sheedy et al. (US 2018/0155252 A1)
As to claim 1, Sheedy teaches a method for uniformly distributing particulate matter in a fiber reinforcement of a ceramic matrix composite material (abstract, at least as broadly as ‘uniformly distributing’ is claimed, para 0003), comprising: providing at least one preform of at least one fiber reinforcement; infiltrating the at least one preform with at least one slurry comprising at least one particulate material and at least one solvent (para 0005-0006, 0022) to form at least one slurry infiltrated preform comprising at least one particulate material; freezing the at least one slurry infiltrated preform comprising the at least one particulate material to form at least one frozen slurry infiltrated preform comprising the at least one particulate material; sublimating the at least one frozen slurry infiltrated preform comprising the at least one particulate material to form at least one structural support comprising the at least one particulate material uniformly distributed thereupon within at least one sublimated slurry infiltrated preform (freeze drying includes both freezing and sublimation in the abstract and para 0022-0026); and melt-infiltrating with at least one metal, at least one metalloid, at least one metal alloy, or at least one metalloid alloy (melt infiltration in claim 1, para 0029, step 660 in Fig 6 includes standard CMC processes which inherently includes melt infiltration by metal or metalloids), the at least one sublimated slurry infiltrated preform comprising the at least one structural support to form at least one melt-infiltrated CMC material.
As to claim 2, Sheedy includes a binder in para 0022.
As to claim 16, the foam material is an inherent result of the claimed method. Thus, as Sheedy teaches the claimed method, this result is taught as well.
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) 3-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN in view of Harris (US 2019/0100466 A1)
As to claim 3, CN teaches a gel binder (carboxymethylcellulose in claim 1) but not those claimed. Harris teaches the claimed gel binders in para 0018 in order to make the particle distribution more uniform in para 0017. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify CN to include the claimed binders as taught by Harris in order to make the particle distribution more uniform.
As to claims 4-9, Harris additionally teaches other particulate materials that may be used in a ceramic matrix composite slurry in para 0016. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify CN to include the claimed materials as taught by Harris as Harris teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such.
As to claims 10-15, Harris additionally teaches a protective coating using other claimed materials deposited by CVD in para 0014. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify CN to include the claimed materials as taught by Harris, and use CVD as a deposition method for the coating on the fibers, as Harris teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such.
Claim(s) 1- 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheedy et al. in view of EITHER Harris OR CN
As to claim 1, Sheedy teaches a method for uniformly distributing particulate matter in a fiber reinforcement of a ceramic matrix composite material (abstract, at least as broadly as ‘uniformly distributing’ is claimed, para 0003), comprising: providing at least one preform of at least one fiber reinforcement; infiltrating the at least one preform with at least one slurry comprising at least one particulate material and at least one solvent (para 0005-0006, 0022) to form at least one slurry infiltrated preform comprising at least one particulate material; freezing the at least one slurry infiltrated preform comprising the at least one particulate material to form at least one frozen slurry infiltrated preform comprising the at least one particulate material; sublimating the at least one frozen slurry infiltrated preform comprising the at least one particulate material to form at least one structural support comprising the at least one particulate material uniformly distributed thereupon within at least one sublimated slurry infiltrated preform (freeze drying includes both freezing and sublimation in the abstract and para 0022-0026); and melt-infiltrating with at least one metal, at least one metalloid, at least one metal alloy, or at least one metalloid alloy (melt infiltration in claim 1, para 0029, step 660 in Fig 6 includes standard CMC process), the at least one sublimated slurry infiltrated preform comprising the at least one structural support to form at least one melt-infiltrated CMC material. Though it can be argued that a CMC melt process inherently includes metals or metalloids, this is also made obvious by Harris in para 0010. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Sheehy to include a metal or metalloid in its melt as Harris teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such.
In the alternative, CN teaches melt infiltration as well in its claim 1 using a metalloid. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Sheehy to include a metal or metalloid in its melt as CN teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such.
As to claim 2, Sheedy includes a binder in para 0022.
As to claim 3, Sheedy does not include the claimed binders. Harris teaches the claimed gel binders in para 0018 in order to make the particle distribution more uniform in para 0017. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Sheehy o include the claimed binders as taught by Harris in order to make the particle distribution more uniform.
As to claims 4-9, Sheedy teaches particulate materials but not those claimed in its slurry. Harris teaches particulate materials that may be used in a ceramic matrix composite slurry in para 0016 that are as claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Sheedy to include the claimed materials as taught by Harris as Harris teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such.
In the alternative, CN includes the particulate materials, such as BN, Si3N4 and SiC powders in its slurry in its claim 1 and abstract, for example. The carbon materials are on p3. As CN includes the alternatives of Claim 4, it follows that the further limited alternatives are also met.
As to claims 10-15, Sheedy teaches an interface coating, but not of the materials claimed. Harris teaches a protective/interface coating using the claimed materials deposited by CVD in para 0014. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Sheedy to include the claimed materials as taught by Harris, and use CVD as a deposition method for the coating on the fibers, as Harris teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such.
As to claim 16, the foam material is an inherent result of the claimed method. Thus, as Sheedy teaches the claimed method, this result is taught as well.
As to claim 17, the metalloid melt infiltration is as claimed in the CN abstract and p2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Sheedy to include the claimed materials as taught by CN as CN teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such.
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, 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 1715
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715