DETAILED ACTION
The claims 1-7 are pending and presented for the examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Claim 4 recites that the blank includes a carbon-containing material that is transformed into SiC “at least near its surface”. This limitation is indefinite because it is not clear if the intended meaning is that the carbon-containing material itself is near the surface, or if it is the transformation of carbon into silicon carbide that occurs at least near the surface. That is, it is unclear if this limitation is intended to be to the location of carbon, or to the location of the C [Wingdings font/0xE0]SiC transformation. The claim is further indefinite because the location in question is only given with the qualitative “near” term, and thus the extent of the claim coverage cannot be ascertained in a definitive, quantitative manner from the claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamisuki et al (US 6436361 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Kamisuki et al teaches a method for producing an SiC coating on a carbon workpiece. An embodiment is taught wherein a mixture of tetrachlorosilane and methane is contacted with the carbon workpiece at 1300 °C (see columns 4-5, lines 65-6). The workpiece is held in the reactor to allow reaction and formation of silicon carbide. Each limitation of instant claim 1 is therefore met by the Kamisuki et al teachings, and the claim is anticipated by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 2, Kamisuki et al teaches reaction at 1300 °C.
Regarding claim 3, the Kamisuki et al process uses a mixture of tetrachlorosilane and methane along with hydrogen (see column 5, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 4, Kamisuki et al teaches that the silicon carbide coating is formed on a starting carbon workpiece, which would have a carbon-containing material on its surface.
Regarding claim 7, Kamisuki et al teaches that the inventive process is carried out in CVD furnace (a heatable reactor) that maintains the carbon workpiece at the aforementioned temperature that permits transformation into silicon carbide. Kamisuki et al teaches introduction of tetrachlorosilane and methane to the furnace (reactor), and this necessitates the presence of a source for the gas composition serving as precursor for SiC production. Each limitation of the instant claim 7 is therefore met by the Kamisuki et al teachings, and the claim is anticipated by the prior art of record.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al (CN 112680720 A).
Regarding claim 1, Wang et al teaches a method for providing a composite coating structure on a base body. The method comprises first applying a C-SiC layer to a carbon substrate by introducing a mixture of gases comprising silicon tetrachloride (tetrachlorosilane), methane, and hydrogen at 1300 °C to the carbon workpiece, wherein the SiCl4:CH--4 ratio is 2:1; thereafter applying a SiC layer using a SiCl4:CH--4 ratio of 1:1; and subsequently applying a SiC-TaC layer wherein the content of SiCl4 is reduced over time (see example 2 of Wang et al). During said SiCl4 amount reduction, there is an increase in the proportion of methane gas relative to the silicon tetrachloride amount.
The method of Wang et al therefore meets each limitation of the instant claim 1, and the claim is anticipated by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 2, Wang et al teaches that the deposition reaction occurs at 1300 °C.
Regarding claim 3, Wang et al teaches that the gaseous mixture used in the inventive process comprises hydrogen.
Regarding claim 4, Wang et al teaches that the silicon carbide coating is formed on a starting carbon workpiece, which would have a carbon-containing material on its surface.
Regarding claim 6, as discussed above, in the Wang et al process the gas mixture is controlled such that the proportion of hydrocarbon (methane) precursor increases over time in relation to the amount of silicon tetrachloride.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dussarrat (EP 14305572 A).
Regarding claim 1, Dussarrat teaches a method for producing fiber-reinforced composite materials comprising forming a silicon carbide matrix by impregnating an arrangement of fibers with at least one silicon precursor and at least one carbon precursor, along with hydrogen, by chemical vapor infiltration. Dussarrat teaches that the silicon precursor can be selected as tetrachlorosilane (see claim 4) and the carbon precursor can be selected from a list of hydrocarbon gases (see claim 5). As such, routine optimization and experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art in selected tetrachlorosilane from the small and finite list of silicon precursors would lead to a process in which the precursors used in the chemical vapor infiltration process are those of the instant claim 1 – tetrachlorosilane and a hydrocarbon gas. The chemical vapor infiltration comprises passing a flow of said silicon precursor and said carbon precursor together with hydrogen over a substrate at 700°C to 1400°C; the temperature is preferably 900°C to 1100°C (see claims 1-2).
The arrangement of fibers in the Dussarrat process constitutes a blank, and the SiC-containing body resultant from the chemical vapor infiltration is a workpiece. Each limitation of claim 1 is therefore met by the teachings of Dussarrat, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 2, Dussarrat teaches that the inventive process is carried out at 900°C to 1100°C.
Regarding claim 3, Dussarrat teaches that the chemical infiltration is carried out in the presence of hydrogen gas.
Regarding claim 4, Dussarrat teaches that the inventive process is used to form SiC from fibers, and that it is advantageously used to form composites comprising carbon fibers (see paragraphs 0009 and 0020). As such, a blank that is a carbon fiber, and thus includes a carbon-containing material transformed into SiC at the surface, is rendered obvious by the Dussarrat teachings.
Regarding claim 5, the fiber body infiltrated in the Dussarrat process is a porous substrate.
Regarding claim 7, Dussarrat teaches that the inventive process is carried out using an apparatus with a reaction chamber 11, a supply source 12 for a silicon carbide precursor, a supply source 13 for a hydrogen gas, and a supply source 14 for an inert gas (see paragraph 0063 and Fig. 1). The reaction chamber is heatable such that the carbon-containing fiber precursor body is transformed into a silicon carbide-containing article. As discussed above, the carbon precursor in the Dussarrat process is a hydrocarbon gas, and the silicon precursor can be selected as tetrachlorosilane through routine optimization and experimentation. Each limitation of the instantly claimed apparatus is thus met by the Dussarrat teachings, and the claim is not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
13. No claim is allowed.
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/NOAH S WIESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
NSW25 September 2026
