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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 1/14/2026 are entered and fully considered. In view of the amendment the previous rejection is removed and additional prior art is applied.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the prior art does not teach using the composition of MAZANY with a part that is a fibrous reinforcement densified by a matrix. The examiner provided an additional reference that shows oxidation protection coatings including glass are used with brake disks. The THEBUALT reference teaches brake disks are a fibrous reinforcement densified by a matrix and have internal porosity that can be impregnated by a protective composition.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAZANY et al. (US 2004/0182285) in view of POOLE et al. (US 5,849,649) and THEBAULT et al. (US 5,686,144).
Regarding claims 1-4, and 10,
MAZANY teaches an inorganic matrix composition [0017] that includes an alkali oxide [0019], silica (silicon oxide) which can be fumed (colloidal) [0020], a network modifier (lattice modifying) such as an alkaline earth metal (magnesium, calcium) or transition metal [0029] and water [0026]. The alkalis (lithium, sodium, potassium) function as flux [0066]. When including a network modifier, such as magnesium, calcium or zinc, it can be provided as a nitrate precursor (magnesium nitrate [0043], calcium nitrate) and can be loaded at 1-5 wt% which falls within the claimed range [0097]. The network modifier also forms a metal oxide such as MgO [0074]-0075]. The substrate can be a bulk material or a fabric which is considered to have internal porosity because it allows for impregnation [0014] such as vacuum infusion [0111]. The glass composition is vitrified by heating to 900-1300°C [0139].
MAZANY teaches silica is loaded at 10-90 wt% [0055] but does not teach the claimed range of 1-60%. However, the prior art range overlaps the claimed range and is considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I.
MAZANY also teaches water is present at 10-75 wt% [0103] but does not teach the claimed water loading of 20-88%. However, the prior art range overlaps the claimed range and is considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I.
MAZANY teaches that when making the composition, the alkali material can be provided as an alkali carbonate or hydroxide precursor (instead of a performed oxide) [0055]. The reference does not teach a precursor of alkali nitrate. However, when making glass compositions, POOLE teaches that the oxides in the glass can be added as oxides or as precursors from carbonate or nitrate which forms oxides during production column 4 lines 1-9. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a alkali nitrate instead of an alkali carbonate as a simple substitution of known precursors when making alkali silicate glass.
MAZANY teaches the loading of the alkali precursor is only described in terms of alkali hydroxide at 3-30 wt% instead of an alkali nitrate [0055]. A nitrate has a molecular weight of 62g/mol while hydroxide is 17 g/mol. Accordingly, if a potassium nitrate is substituted for equal moles of potassium hydroxide, the wt% is approximately doubled. Therefore, after substituting equal moles of precursor, the resulting wt% still overlaps the claimed range and is considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I.
MAZANY also teaches the composition is used to insulate composite structures such as carbon containing composites specifically noting the composites can combust (oxidize) [0004]-[0006] and is used a wide variety of applications [0123]. Accordingly, the application of the composition protects against combustion/oxidation. The reference does not expressly teach the use of a fibrous reinforcement densified by a matrix as the impregnated part. However, THEBAULT teaches that anti-oxidative coatings are useful for brake disks (friction part) abstract. The brake disks can be impregnated with compositions of precursors for glass column 12 lines 15-20 (such as the composition in MAZANY). THEBAULT further teaches that the brake disks are fibrous material densified by a carbon matrix column 1 lines 20-35. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to apply the composition of MAZANY to a brake disk (fibrous reinforcement densified by a matrix) because they benefit from oxidation protection while offering weight savings.
Regarding claim 5,
MAZANY teaches the network modifier can be zinc among other transition metals and provided as a nitrate [0043] and [0097].
Regarding claims 6-8,
MAZANY further teaches including a non-silicate network former such as boric acid, phosphoric acid and nitric acid at 2-8% of the composition [0056] and [0096]. The prior art range falls within the claimed range. The loadings of components in claim 8 are the same as the loadings in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9,
MAZANY further teaches that when incorporating acid (non-silicate network former), the compound can use a multivalent atom such as monoaluminum phosphate or aluminum metaphosphate [0056] (aluminum phosphate). The loading of the acidic compound can be 0.1-20 wt% of the total composition [0056]. The reference does not expressly teach the claimed range. However, the prior art range overlaps the claimed range (at 20%) and is considered prima facie obvious MPEP 2144.05.I. The reference does not expressly teach the formation of an anti-catalytic aluminosphosphate phase after heat treatment. However, the same composition is exposed to the same vitrification heat treatment. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect the impregnated composition to form the same anti-catalytic aluminophosphate phase.
As noted above, the network modifier (lattice modifier), such as magnesium, calcium or zinc, it can be provided as a nitrate precursor (magnesium nitrate [0043], calcium nitrate) and can be loaded at 1-5 wt% which is the same as the claimed range [0097].
MAZANY teaches silica is loaded at 10-90 wt% [0055] but does not teach the claimed range of 1-10%. However, the prior art range overlaps the claimed range and is considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I.
MAZANY also teaches water is present at 10-75 wt% [0103] but does not teach the claimed water loading of 50-77%. However, the prior art range overlaps the claimed range and is considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I.
As noted above in claim 1, when using an alkali flux material in the MAZANY composition, an equivalent mol% of potassium nitrate instead of hydroxide would equate to a weight percent that is about double the 3-30 wt% alkali hydroxide. After doubling the wt% (6-60%), the prior art range still overlaps the claimed range of 1-7% and is considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 11,
THEBAULT teaches when impregnating a brake disk the penetration depth of the impregnating composition can be controlled to a certain depth by adjusting the pressure abstract. Depending on the dimensions of the disk the penetration depth can be 2-10mm column 3 lines 44-46.
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 AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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 571272-1418. 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.
/AUSTIN MURATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712