DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to communication received on 8/28/26.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The text of those sections of AIA 35 U.S.C. code not present in this action can be found in previous office actions dated 6/30/26.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II (claims 16-20) in the reply filed on 8/28/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that searching the subject matter of Group I and II does not place a serious search burden on the Examiner due to the similarities between the elected claims/species and the non-elected claims/species. This is not found persuasive because any similarities between the claims are superficial and the claims belong to different statutory categories and different classes for search. Specifically, Group I is drawn to coated composite comprising specific components and a matrix deposited by vapor phase. Group II does not require a matrix and teaches on very specific vapor phase deposition process. A matrix deposited by vapor phase can be done in any number of vapor deposition processes that would not have the steps required by the method of Group II. Examiner Laos notes that method limitations are not actually limiting in product claims. Examiner also notes that despite asserting there are similarities, Applicant provided no examples or recitations of the limitations that prove those similarities.
As such these arguments for traversal are not persuasive as they fail to consider the scope of each claim and the differences between statutory categories and classes.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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) 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunn et al. US PGPub 2018/0037513 hereinafter DUNN in view of Reagan et al. US Patent Number 5,154,862 hereinafter REAGAN.
As for claim 16, DUNN teaches “Provided is a method including obtaining ceramic matrix composite (CMC) with a first matrix portion including a silicon carbide and silicon phase dispersed therewithin, disposing a coating thereupon to form a sealed part” (abstract, lines 1-4), i.e. a method of applying a seal coat to a composite material.
DUNN is silent on forming a mixture of a reactant gas and protective particles; contacting the mixture with a heated composite material to produce vapors that deposit as solids on the composite material; and co-depositing the solids and the protective particles on the composite material to form a seal coat.
However, DUNN does teach “Various methods known to skilled artisans may be employed to deposit a sealing coating on a CMC part” (paragraph 18, lines 1-2) and “Conventional methods known to those skilled in the art may be used to deposit a sealing coating layer. Such conventional methods may generally include, but should not be limited to, chemical vapor deposition (CVD)” (paragraph 20, lines 1-4).
DUNN also teaches “In some embodiments, the coating may include silicon carbide or silicon nitride” (paragraph 13, lines 15-17).
REAGAN teaches “Disclosed is a method for forming composite articles, particularly ceramic articles, from particles or fibers mixed in a thermally activated reactant gas stream. The particles or fibers are codeposited with material produced by chemical vapor deposition (CVD) onto a heated substrate until the desired thickness of composite is obtained .” (abstract, lines 1-3).
REAGAN further teaches “Codepositing the CVD matrix and solid particles onto a substrate results in a composite article of a configuration conforming to the shape of the substrate and which is fully densified with a randomly oriented and even particle distribution” (column 2, lines 61-65).
REAGAN also teaches “Although the preferred embodiment utilizes silicon carbide as the CVD material, the codeposited composite article technology could easily be applied to other materials which can be produced through the chemical vapor deposition process. Among the ceramics which can be used are silicon nitride, silicon oxides, boron nitride, boron carbide, cermets, and silicides. The present invention additionally anticipates codeposited composites having a ceramic matrix and second phase of dissimilar material, with the ultimate composition dependent upon the temperature and type of environment for which the ceramic composite is desired” (column 7, lines 12-23).
REAGAN teaches “forming a mixture of a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) reactant gas stream and a solid phase material; providing a thermally-activating substrate compatible with said reactant gas stream and reaction products thereof and with said solid phase material; heating said substrate; directing said mixture onto said heated substrate so that said gas stream reacts to produce a CVD material substantially without reacting with said solid phase material; and, codepositing said CVD material and said solid phase material onto said substrate” (claim 1), i.e. forming a mixture of a reactant gas and… particles; contacting the mixture with a… material to produce vapors that deposit as solids on the… material; and co-depositing the solids and the… particles on the… material to form a… coat.
REAGAN Further teaches “heating a carbon substrate to a temperature sufficient to decompose said methyltrichlorosilane to produce silicon carbide” (claim 17, lines 6-8).
REAGAN also teaches “Moreover, because of the presence of the second phase material (particles or fibers), the composite article may have greater strength and fracture toughness than a comparable CVD-only product” (column 5, lines 43-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the method of REAGAN to apply the seal coat of DUNN such that is includes forming a mixture of a reactant gas and protective particles; contacting the mixture with a heated composite material to produce vapors that deposit as solids on the composite material; and co-depositing the solids and the protective particles on the composite material to form a seal coat because REAGAN teaches that such a process creates a coated article having greater strength and fracture toughness than a comparable CVD-only product.
As for claim 17, DUNN teaches “where the CMC component includes a first matrix portion having a first silicon carbide” (paragraph 13, lines 3-4) and “In some embodiments, the coating may include silicon carbide or silicon nitride” (paragraph 13, lines 15-17), i.e. wherein the composite material has a matrix and the composition of the composite material matrix is the same as the composition of the solids.
As for claim 18, DUNN teaches “where the CMC component includes a first matrix portion having a first silicon carbide” (paragraph 13, lines 3-4) and “In some embodiments, the coating may include silicon carbide or silicon nitride” (paragraph 13, lines 15-17), i.e. wherein the composite material has a matrix and the composition of the composite material matrix is different from the composition of the solids.
As for claim 20, DUNN teaches “In some embodiments, deposition of a sealing coating layer may include reacting a surface of the CMC component with a compound or chemical” (paragraph 21), lines 1-3), i.e. wherein the seal coat further comprises particles that are a reaction product of the composite material, byproducts of the composite material, or a combination thereof with the protective particles.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunn et al. US PGPub 2018/0037513 hereinafter DUNN in view of Reagan et al. US Patent Number 5,154,862 hereinafter REAGAN as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Bahlawane et al. US PGPub2018/0186701 hereinafter BAHLAWANE.
As for claim 19, DUNN and REAGAN are silent on wherein the protective particles comprise of Cr, Mo, Si3N4, HfC, ZrC, HfB2, TaC, TaB or a combination thereof.
REAGAN further teaches “Although the preferred embodiment utilizes silicon carbide as the CVD material, the codeposited composite article technology could easily be applied to other materials which can be produced through the chemical vapor deposition process. Among the ceramics which can be used are silicon nitride, silicon oxides, boron nitride, boron carbide, cermets, and silicides. The present invention additionally anticipates codeposited composites having a ceramic matrix and second phase of dissimilar material, with the ultimate composition dependent upon the temperature and type of environment for which the ceramic composite is desired” (column 7, lines 12-23).
BAHLAWANE teaches “The ceramic composite coating comprises a ceramic matrix having embedded therein carbide nanoparticles (in particular metal carbide nanoparticles) and/or metal-carbon composite nanoparticles (with separate metal and carbon phases) embedded therein” (abstract, lines 1-6).
BAHLAWANE teaches “According to preferred embodiments of the first aspect of the invention, the carbide nanoparticles consist of carbides of metals selected from the group consisting of Ni, Co, Fe, Cr, Mo, Pt, Pd and mixtures thereof” (paragraph 12), i.e. wherein the protective particles comprise of Cr.
BAHLAWANE teaches “Last but not least, the chemical inertness of the advanced cermets is an advantage (e.g. low sensitivity to atomic oxygen) appreciated in many applications” (paragraph 15, lines 22-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the protective particles comprise of Cr in the process of DUNN and REAGAN because BAHLAWANE teaches that particles with Chromium have improved chemical inertness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTEN A DAGENAIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1114. The examiner can normally be reached 8-12 and 1-5.
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, Dah Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/KRISTEN A DAGENAIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights