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 .
IDS
The IDS’ entered 06/09/2025 and 09/19/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN 113563083 A) in view of Fowler (US 20170096537 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches a method for forming a ceramic matrix composite in which molten silicon is infiltrated to form a ceramic matrix composite (¶8, ¶30), the method comprising executing: a step of forming a laminated cured body by laminating and curing a prepreg (¶8) a matrix infiltrated with the molten silicon is integrated (¶13-14, ¶ 52); a step of forming an infiltration path (¶ 64, pore structure to be infiltrated) in the laminated cured body by carbonizing (¶ 86-89) the formed laminated cured body (pore former, ex.2, ¶ 114); and a step of infiltrating the laminated cured body where the infiltration path is formed with the molten silicon (¶ 117), wherein a matrix resin in the matrix contains at least a benzoxazine resin (¶13, ¶ 52).
Yang is silent to reinforced fiber in the prepreg.
Fowler, in the same field of endeavor, composites, teaches reinforced fiber in the prepreg (ABS).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the prepreg of Yang by creating it with fibers as in Fowler to arrive at the claimed invention since the skilled artisan would have expected greater control over the structure as the carbon fibers can be in the form of two-dimensional preforms, three-dimensional preforms, or four-dimensional preforms as taught by Fowler (P0013).
Regarding claim 2, While Yang teaches the organic resin is at least one of phenolic resin, epoxy resin and benzoxazine resin (¶ 52); Fowler explicitly teaches the matrix resin further contains an epoxy resin (P0037, “The benzoxazine composite material may include other polymers or compounds to form a blend. Non-limiting examples of other polymeric materials that may be included in the benzoxazine composite material include epoxy resins”).
Regarding claims 3-4, Fowler teaches wherein in the matrix resin, a ratio of the epoxy resin to the benzoxazine resin is 80:20 (P0066) which is fully in the claimed range of "benzoxazine resin: epoxy resin = 10:1 to 100 (wt% ratio)" and meets the limitation of "benzoxazine resin: epoxy resin = 8:2 (wt% ratio) to 3:7 (wt% ratio)".
Regarding claim 5, Yang teaches wherein when a ratio of carbon in the carbonized matrix resin is represented by a residual carbon ratio, the residual carbon ratio of the matrix resin 60% (¶ 61) which is close to the claimed range of range of 10% or more and 55% or less.
Yang discloses the claimed invention except for the range for residual carbon being 10% or more and 55% or less. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose the range claimed since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties and further being motivated to optimize shrinkage as taught by Yang (¶ 61).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN 113563083 A) in view of Fowler (US 20170096537 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Dong (CN 106588060 A).
Regarding claim 7, Yang teaches the matrix resin contains a filler, the filler contains a carbide as powder (¶ 12) and carbon as powder (carbon black, ¶ 23), a ratio of a resin in the matrix resin is in a range of 3.75-6.65 parts (¶ 23) which meets the limitation of more than 0% and 50% or less, a ratio of the carbide is in a range of 90.60-93.95 parts (¶ 23) which meets the limitation of 0% or more and 95% or less, and a ratio of the carbon is in a range of 1.85-3.45 parts (¶ 23) which meets the limitation of 0% or more and 50% or less.
Yang teaches the carbide is one of boron carbide, hafnium carbide, titanium carbide, zirconium carbide (¶ 12) but is silent to silicon carbide.
Dong, in the same field of endeavor, composites, teaches use of silicon carbide.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used silicon carbide as the carbide in the method of Yang to arrive at the claimed invention since the skilled artisan would have expected high thermal conductivity as taught by Dong (¶ 3).
Regarding claim 9, Dong teaches wherein the matrix contains fiber extending in an infiltration direction of the molten silicon (¶ 45, “fibers…a three-dimensional needle knit structure, a three-dimensional four-directional knit structure, a three- Layer structure, but not limited to the above fiber arrangement structure) as fibers are extending in multiple directions and then infiltrated, inherently the matrix would contain fiber extending in an infiltration direction of the molten silicon.
While modified Yang is not specific to a temperature of the fiber is lower than a volatile onset temperature of the matrix resin. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have controlled the temperature as such so that unintended reactions did not take place. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 8 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art alone or in combination does not teach a residual carbon ratio range of more than 25% and 45% or less, or wherein the ratio of the resin in the matrix resin is in a range of 10% or more and 30% or less, the ratio of the silicon carbide is in a range of 30% or more and 60% or less, and the ratio of the carbon is in a range of 0% or more and 30% or less.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA H FUNK whose telephone number is (571)272-3785. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00pm ET.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571) 270-7001. 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.
/ERICA HARTSELL FUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1741