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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-5, 8-10, 12, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goodman ‘084 (U.S. PGPub 2011/0221084).
Claim 1 – Goodman ‘084 discloses a method of making a multi-component device, comprising:
Providing a green-state structure, wherein the green-state structure comprises a porous mas of interconnected silicon carbide and carbon (PG 0062-0065, e.g. silicon carbide fiber and epoxy, reaction bonded silicon carbide);
Providing a polishable layer (PG 0066, faceplates; PG 0013, faceplates may be silicon carbide; PG 0013, silicon carbide is polishable);
Contacting the polishable layer to the green-state structure (PG 0066);
After the contacting step, infiltrating silicon into and through the green-state structure to form a formed substrate having a multi-phase ceramic material from the green-state structure (PG 0068); and
Bonding the ceramic substrate and the polishable layer together (PG 0061), wherein the polishable layer and the ceramic substrate have well-matched coefficients of thermal expansion (CTEs) (PG 0061).
Claim 2 – Goodman ‘084 discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising one or more interstices between the polishable layer and the green-state structure with the silicon (PG 0068).
Claim 3 – Goodman ‘084 discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising contacting the silicon with the polishable layer (PG 0068)
Claim 4 – Goodman ‘084 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the ceramic substrate includes reaction-bonded silicon-carbide (RB-SiC) (PG 0061).
Claim 5– Goodman ‘084 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the polishable layer includes chemical-vapor-deposited silicon carbide (CVD-SiC) (PG 0069).
Claim 8 - Goodman ‘084 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method comprises an optical device (PG 0061, mirror blank), and wherein the method further comprises extracting the optical device from the bonded substrate and polishable layer (PG 0050, micro-machining to scale removes bonded substrate and polishable layer from the final structure and reads on extracting the optical device as claimed).
Claim 9 – Goodman ‘084 discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the ceramic substrate includes reaction-bonded silicon-carbide (RB-SiC) (PG 0061).
Claim 10– Goodman ‘084 discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the polishable layer includes chemical-vapor-deposited silicon carbide (CVD-SiC) (PG 0069).
Claim 12– Goodman ‘084 discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the step of extracting the optical device from the bonded substrate and polishable layer includes wire electrical-discharge-machining (EDM) (PG 0049).
Claim 17– Goodman ‘084 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the polishable layer is a single-phase polishable layer (PG 0013-0014).
Claim 18– Goodman ‘084 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein molten silicon is infiltrated through the green-state structure through capillary action (PG 0068).
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 6-7, 11, 13-16, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodman ‘084.
Claim 6– Goodman ‘084 discloses the method of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the polishable layer comprises single-crystal silicon- carbide (Xtal-SiC). Goodman ‘084 discloses that single-crystal silicon carbide formed by physical transport means possesses processing advantages compared to CVD forms of silicon carbide (PG 0003). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made or filed to have modified the invention of Goodman ‘084 to use single crystal silicon carbide as suggested in Goodman ‘084 to derive processing advantages for the composite material.
Claim 7 – Goodman ‘084 discloses the method of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the ceramic substrate does not include reaction-bonded silicon-carbide (RB-SiC). Goodman ‘084 discloses alternative substrates (e.g. PG 0039-0042, silicon carbide fiber cloth laid up with e.g. epoxy). Selection of an alternate material expressly disclosed suitable by the reference for the intended function is held as prima facie obvious.
Claim 11 – Goodman ‘084 discloses the method of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the polishable layer comprises single-crystal silicon-carbide (Xtal-SiC). Goodman ‘084 discloses that single-crystal silicon carbide formed by physical transport means possesses processing advantages compared to CVD forms of silicon carbide (PG 0003). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made or filed to have modified the invention of Goodman ‘084 to use single crystal silicon carbide as suggested in Goodman ‘084 to derive processing advantages for the composite material.
Claim 13 – Goodman ‘084 discloses the method of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the difference in CTE between the polishable layer and ceramic substrate is less than 2.0 ppm/degree C. Goodman ‘084 teaches that controlling the amount of carbon in the composite material is result-effective with regards to the CTE of the composite material and by extension to the matching of the CTE of the composite and the cladding layer (PG 0061). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made or filed to have modified the invention of Goodman ‘084 to control the carbon content of the ceramic substrate such that processing provides a desirable CTE match between the ceramic substrate and the polishable layer.
Claim 14 – Goodman ‘084 discloses the method of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the difference in CTE between the polishable layer and ceramic substrate is less than 0.2 ppm/degree C. Goodman ‘084 teaches that controlling the amount of carbon in the composite material is result-effective with regards to the CTE of the composite material and by extension to the matching of the CTE of the composite and the cladding layer (PG 0061). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made or filed to have modified the invention of Goodman ‘084 to control the carbon content of the ceramic substrate such that processing provides a desirable CTE match between the ceramic substrate and the polishable layer.
Claim 15 – Goodman ‘084 discloses the method of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the polishable layer is made of aluminum nitride (AIN), diamond, or a single crystal silicon carbide of any suitable allotrope or crystallographic orientation. Goodman ‘084 discloses that single-crystal silicon carbide formed by physical transport means possesses processing advantages compared to CVD forms of silicon carbide (PG 0003). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made or filed to have modified the invention of Goodman ‘084 to use single crystal silicon carbide as suggested in Goodman ‘084 to derive processing advantages for the composite material.
Claim 16 – Goodman ‘084 discloses the method of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose a single example wherein the substrate comprises original silicon carbide particles, reaction-bonded silicon carbide, and residual (unreacted) elemental silicon. The examples disclosed from PG 0051-0069 separately render obvious silicon carbide substrates, reaction bonded silicon carbide, and molten silicon. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made or filed to have modified the invention of Goodman ‘084 to incorporate the recited materials in a single embodiment, as the materials are separately listed as suitable for the purpose in Goodman ‘084.
Claim 19 – Goodman ‘084 discloses the method of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose further comprising polishing the polishable layer. "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). … Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. In particular, if a reference expressly discloses that a material in a mirror is polishable, it is reasonable to infer a generic creative step of polishing the material.
Claim 20 – Goodman ‘084 discloses the method of claim 19, but does not expressly disclose wherein polishing the polishable layer occurs prior to the bonding step. Goodman ‘084 discloses that polished facesheets may be made and used at PG 0019 as an alternative to the cladding method disclosed at e.g. PG 0018 and PG 0069. Selection of an alternate material expressly disclosed suitable by the reference for the intended function is held as prima facie obvious. Selection of a polished faceplate necessarily means that polishing occurs prior to bonding.
Claim 21 – Goodman ‘084 discloses the method of claim 19, but does not expressly disclose wherein polishing the polishable layer occurs after the bonding step. Goodman ‘084 discloses deposition of polishable material after bonding at PG 0066 and 0069; the inference of an obvious polishing step follows from the rejection of Claim 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL G MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30 EST.
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 571-272-1418. 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.
/MICHAEL G MILLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights