DETAILED ACTION
An amendment, amending claims 1 and 5-11, was entered on 2/4/26.
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
Applicant argues that Nakamura fails to teach the currently claimed pressure. Applicant explains that Nakamura distinguishes between integrating silicon carbide fibers (which uses a lower pressure of about 5 torr) and integrating fiber bundles (which uses a higher pressure that overlaps the claimed pressure). Applicant argues that the newly added claim language that CVI is carried out between filaments in the fiber body distinguishes the claimed invention from Nakamura’s integrating fiber bundles because the fiber bundles are already filled and, therefore, the CVI is not performed between filaments. This is not persuasive. While the examiner agrees with applicant’s characterization of the distinct steps in Nakamura, the integrating fiber bundles step of CVI in Nakamura also performs CVI between the filaments of adjacent bundles. Nakamura explains that integrating fiber bundles combines the fiber bundles by depositing material between them (¶ 0026).
Additionally, Nakamura explains that the growth rate during the integrating silicon carbide fibers step varies very little between 5-100 torr (¶ 0220). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that any value between 5 and 100 torr would have been suitable for the purpose of only maximizing the growth rate as required by claim 1 (i.e. “determining… an infiltration pressure that maximizes a film growth rate of the ceramic throughout the fiber body”). However, as applicant correctly argues, the growth rate and distribution is only maximized at the narrower pressure range of 4-6 torr.
The following amendment would overcome the prior art on record: “an impregnation condition determination process for, at a time of carrying out a chemical vapor infiltration in between each of the filaments in the fiber body to cover the fiber body with a ceramic, determining an infiltration temperature and an infiltration pressure that maximizes a film growth rate and distribution of the ceramic throughout the fiber body relative to the infiltration temperature”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US 2016/0297716).
Claims 1-3 and 5-10: Nakamura teaches a method for covering the fibers of a fiber preform (Abst.), comprising the steps of: determining growth conditions (specifically temperature and pressure) that maximizes the growth rate and uniformity of SiC deposited by chemical vapor infiltration (CVI) (¶¶ 0100, 0121-0124, 0230, e.g.); and infiltrating methyltrichlorosilane (MTS) as the ingredient of the SiC ceramic (¶¶ 0173, 0178) to carry out CVI at the determined temperature and pressure, thereby maximizing the growth rate of ceramic throughout the fiber preform and between the fibers in the preform (Abst.; ¶ 0040).
Nakamura teaches that the ceramic is SiC (¶ 0173) and that the ingredient is MTS (¶¶ 00173, 0178). Nakamura further teaches a temperature of 800-1000˚C and a pressure of 5-110 torr is used to deposit material between the filaments of the fiber bundles (¶ 0220). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have temperature of, e.g., 800-100˚C, 800-900˚C, 850-1000˚C or 800˚C and a pressure of, e.g., 50-80 or 50 torr in the process of Nakamura with the predictable expectation of success.
Claims 11 and 12: Nakamura teaches that the growth gas includes MTS and H2 (¶¶ 0173, 0180) with a partial pressure ratio of 2 (¶ 0219).
Claim 13: Nakamura teaches that a variety of partial pressure ratios can be selected, ranging from 0.63-2.5 (Table 2, e.g.). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a ratio of 1.0 with the predictable expectation of success.
Claim 14: Nakamura teaches that the determination process includes setting a model for the fiber body, ingredients, ingredient diffusion and reaction (¶¶ 120-172, particularly ¶¶ 0122, 0134, 0151, e.g.); and performing the following calculations: ingredient concentration distribution (¶ 0140, e.g.), film growth rate (¶ 0152, e.g.), and infiltration conditions (¶ 0140, e.g.).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Robert A Vetere whose telephone number is (571)270-1864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 EST.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571) 270-1034. 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.
/ROBERT A VETERE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712