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
Applicant's election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 01/28/2026 is acknowledged. Non-elected claims 10-20 are withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because, in Fig. 3, reference character “104” has been used to designate both the scrubbing roller and the compaction-roller surface. The correct character for the scrubbing roller is “106.”
PNG
media_image1.png
319
319
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
In claim 1 line 1, it’s recommended that “cleaning” be changed to “removing” to clarify that “ceramic matrix” is the debris to be removed from the compaction roller.
Claim 8 line 2 should be amended as follows:
particles of the ceramic matrix made of a ceramic matrix composite material…
In Claim 9 on pg. 3 line 6, “aluminum nitride reinforcing fibers” should be changed to “aluminum nitride [[reinforcing]] reinforcement fibers.”
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JAEGER (German Publication DE102021004224B3, as translated by Espacenet), in view of COYLE et al. (US PGPUB 20190169724).
Regarding Claim 1, JAEGER teaches a method for cleaning a debris from a target roller (cleaning a processing roller 2, see Figs. 1-4, ¶¶ 0001, 0018-24).
JAEGER’s method comprises:
applying a cleaning fluid to a scrubbing roller (brush roller 6 is exposed to a cleaning fluid, see ¶¶ 0017, 0023);
placing the target roller (processing roller 2) in contact with the scrubbing roller (brush roller 6) such that a target-roller axis (axis 4) of the target roller is oblique to a scrubbing-roller axis (axis 5) of the scrubbing roller (see Fig. 3-4, ¶¶ 0009-10, 0013-14, 0021, 0024);
with the target roller (processing roller 2) in contact with the scrubbing roller (brush roller 6) and the target-roller axis oblique to the scrubbing-roller axis (as explained above), rotating the scrubbing roller about the scrubbing-roller axis (see ¶¶ 0001, 0013, 0020-21, 0024, rotating brush roller 6);
rotating the target roller (processing roller 2) about the target-roller axis (axis 4) in response to rotating of the scrubbing roller (see ¶¶ 0009, 0011, 0013, rotation of brush roller 6 causes processing roller 2 to rotate);
moving the target roller (processing roller 2) in a scrubbing direction (e.g., a direction that’s approximately vertical, see Figs. 1-2) that is non-parallel to the scrubbing-roller axis (axis 5, see Figs. 1-2) in response to rotating the scrubbing roller (processing roller 2 contacts the rotating brush roller 6, see Figs. 1-4, ¶¶ 0007, 0021, 0024);
transferring the cleaning fluid from the scrubbing roller (brush roller 6) to the target roller (processing roller 2) while rotating the scrubbing roller (see ¶ 0017, cleaning fluid reaches processing roller 2);
transferring debris from the target roller to the scrubbing roller while rotating the scrubbing roller (see ¶¶ 0016-17, brush roller 6 removes contaminants from roller 2).
JAEGER explicitly states that its invention is “not fundamentally limited to the cleaning of folding rollers of folding tools” (¶ 0019). In other words, JAEGER teaches or suggest that its method may be applied to clean other types of rollers.
JAEGER does not explicitly teach that the debris is a “ceramic matrix,” and the target roller is a “compaction” roller.
COYLE teaches using a compaction roller to compact a ceramic matrix material with ceramic reinforcement. See Figs. 6-7, ¶ 0070 (using compaction roller 152 to compact tow 104 into matrix material 112 to reinforce the material with fibers 108); see Figs. 2 & 9, ¶¶ 0044, 0075 (using compaction rollers 162 to compress CMC prepreg tape 110, which comprises matrix material 112 reinforced with fibers 108). COYLE teaches that matrix material 112—comprising ceramic precursors or powders (see ¶¶ 0044, 0047, 0057, 0059)—is a wet slurry composition (see ¶¶ 0047, 0055-56, 0058-59). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand or reasonably expect that, as the compaction roller compacts the wet slurry composition (ceramic matrix material 112) and the reinforcement fibers, debris made of the ceramic matrix and the reinforcement fibers would accumulate (over time) on the compaction roller.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply JAEGER’s roller-cleaning method to clean COYLE’s compaction roller, with reasonable expectation of cleaning the compaction roller.
First, because COYLE’s compaction roller is used to compact a wet slurry composition (ceramic matrix material 112) and reinforcement fibers, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand or reasonably expect that debris made of the ceramic matrix and the reinforcement fibers would accumulate (over time) on the compaction roller. Given the debris (i.e., contamination) accumulated on the compaction roller, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to clean the compaction roller.
Second, JAEGER already teaches or suggest that its roller-cleaning method may be applied to clean other types of rollers.
Third, the use of a known technique to improve similar devices/methods/products in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, C. Like JAEGER’s roller, COYLE’s roller is a rotatable roller accumulated with debris in need of cleaning. Thus, using JAEGER’s roller-cleaning method to clean COYLE’s compaction roller is likely to be obvious.
In the resulting combination of JAEGER and COYLE: the target roller subject to cleaning is a “compaction” roller, and the debris thereon comprises a “ceramic matrix.”
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of JAEGER and COYLE teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches or suggests that the debris comprises: particles of the ceramic matrix made of a ceramic matrix composite material that is compacted using the compaction roller (as explained above, the compaction roller is used to compact ceramic matrix material 112, see COYLE at Figs. 2, 6-7, 9, ¶¶ 0044, 0070, 0075); and fragments of a ceramic reinforcement of the ceramic matrix composite material (as explained above, the compaction roller is used to compact reinforcement fibers 108, see id.).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of JAEGER and COYLE teaches the method of claim 8. The combination teaches or suggests that:
the ceramic matrix comprises at least one of a carbon matrix (see COYLE at ¶ 0047), a silicon carbide matrix (see id. at ¶¶ 0003, 0042), and an alumina matrix (see id. at ¶ 0042);
the ceramic reinforcement comprises at least one of silicon carbide reinforcement fibers (see COYLE at ¶ 0042), alumina reinforcement fibers (see id. at ¶ 0042, oxides of Al), silica/quartz reinforcement fibers (see id. at ¶ 0042, oxides of Si), and zirconia reinforcement fibers (see id. at ¶ 0042, oxides of Zr).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 contains allowable subject matter. Claims 3-7 also contain allowable subject matter because they depend on Claim 2.
Claims 2-7 are 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 following is a statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not anticipate or suggest the subject matter of Claim 2, a dependent claim. The most relevant prior art references are JAEGER (German Publication DE102021004224B3) and COYLE et al. (US PGPUB 20190169724), as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 2, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a method with the specific combination of structural and functional limitations as recited in Claim 2, wherein such combination includes, inter alia:
placing the compaction roller in contact with a drying roller such that the compaction-roller axis of the compaction roller is oblique to a drying-roller axis of the drying roller;
with the compaction roller in contact with the drying roller and the compaction-roller axis oblique to the drying-roller axis, rotating the drying roller about the drying-roller axis;
rotating the compaction roller about the compaction-roller axis in response to rotating of the drying roller;
moving the compaction roller in a drying direction that is perpendicular to the drying-roller axis in response to rotating the drying roller; and
transferring the cleaning fluid and the debris from the compaction roller to the drying roller while rotating the drying roller.
Claims 3-7 depend on Claim 2, so they are allowable for the same reasons provided above for Claim 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:00-17:00 Eastern.
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, KAJ OLSEN can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/R.Z.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714