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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of A) a suspension of metal oxide particles, B) cantilever stator, C) water, and D) zirconia in the reply filed on 12/6/2022 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 6 and 9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/6/2022.
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) 1-2, 4-5, 10, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (US 20110244216) in view of Delbos (Delbos, Phenomena Involved in suspension Plasma Spraying Part 2: Zirconia Particle Treatment and Coating Formation, Plasma Chem Plasma Process, 2006, 26, pg. 393-414), Ganvir (Ganvir, Characterization of Microstructure and Thermal Properties of YSZ Coatings Obtained by Axial Suspension Plasma Spraying, Journal of Thermal Spray Technology, Volume 24(7), October 2015, pg. 1195-1204), and Siegert (Siegert, Denser Ceramic Coatings obtained by the Optimization of the Suspension Plasma Spraying Technique, International Thermal Spray Conference and Exposition, pg. 1-6, May 11, 2004).
Regarding Claim 1, 4, 12 and 16, Meyer teaches a thermal barrier coating manufacturing method comprising: mixing a carrier liquid with particles to form a suspension ([0008], [0043]); where the particles comprise a metal oxide ([0043]); injecting the suspension through a plasma flame ([0008]); and depositing the particles onto a substrate to form a first abradable coating ([0008], [0043]); where the first abradable coating comprises a plurality of cracks or voids that are substantially perpendicular to the substrate surface ([0054-0055]), where the substrate is a component of a gas turbine ([0002]). Meyer teaches 5YSZ ([0043]). The structure of Meyer to which the coating is applied meets the claimed limitation of a directly coated substrate comprising a metal ([0040] “metallic substrate”; [0019] metal oxides).
Meyer teaches an ethanol based suspension ([0043]). Meyer does not explicitly teach a water carrier liquid; however, Delbos recognizes water is a known alternative to ethanol in the art (pg. 399 1st full para., 2.2.1). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the suspension of Meyer to be an aqueous suspension, as taught in Delbos, because it is a known equivalent in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the product of Meyer with an aqueous suspension as in Delbos.
Meyer teaches vertical microcracks ([0016], [0054-0055]). Meyer teaches the thickness of the double layer being 330 to 360 microns with an SPS coating thickness between 60-150 microns, i.e. including “cracks at 125 microns above the interface with the surface” ([0044-0046]). Meyer is silent as to the width between cracks and the crack width; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to related art to determine an appropriate width between cracks and crack width. Ganvir teaches a microstructure having columns having a width of 80, 86, and 176 micrometers (3.1 Microstructure Analysis 1st para.). Ganvir teaches pore diameters of 0.01-100 microns wherein pores greater than 10 micron can be cracks (3.3.1 and Fig. 5). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 21.4405 I. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the microcracks and columns of Meyer to have dimensions as suggested in Ganvir, including the dimensions within the claimed ranges, because Ganvir teaches they are suitable microstructure dimensions and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the coating of Meyer with dimensions as suggested by Ganvir.
The combined references do not explicitly teach the substrate temperature during depositing the coating; however, Siegert teaches optimization of suspension plasma spraying of ceramic coatings wherein substrate temperatures of 500-800C are experienced and substrate cooling is desirable (pg. 2 col. 1 1st. para.). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of the combined references to include a substrate temperature, as suggested by Siegert, because it is a known temperature in the art for suspension plasma spraying ceramic materials and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the coating of the combined references with a temperature as in Siegert.
Regarding Claim 2, Meyer teaches atomizing the suspension ([0008]).
Regarding Claim 5, Meyer teaches disposing a second abradable coating onto the first abradable coating to form a multilayered coating ([0049]). Meyer teaches the coatings can have different compositions ([0006], [0019]).
Regarding Claim 10, Meyer teaches the coating comprises a thickness, i.e. multiple layers ([0044]).
Claim(s) 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (US 20110244216) in view of Delbos (Delbos, Phenomena Involved in suspension Plasma Spraying Part 2: Zirconia Particle Treatment and Coating Formation, Plasma Chem Plasma Process, 2006, 26, pg. 393-414), Ganvir (Ganvir, Characterization of Microstructure and Thermal Properties of YSZ Coatings Obtained by Axial Suspension Plasma Spraying, Journal of Thermal Spray Technology, Volume 24(7), October 2015, pg. 1195-1204), and Siegert (Siegert, Denser Ceramic Coatings obtained by the Optimization of the Suspension Plasma Spraying Technique, International Thermal Spray Conference and Exposition, pg. 1-6, May 11, 2004) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 10, 12, and 16 above, and further in view of Payne (US 20030064234).
Regarding Claims 11 and 15, Meyer teaches a graded coating (Claim 5). Meyer is silent as to a composition gradient; however, Payne defines a graded coating as a coating wherein at least one of the coating materials varies in composition ([0018]). Payne teaches the thermal shock resistance of a coated system may be increased with an interlayer by increasing the bond strength of the system and providing an intermittent coefficient thermal expansion between a metallic substrate and an oxide outer coating ([0019]). Payne teaches this type of coating being desirable in a thermal barrier coating system for gas turbine engine components ([0019]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of the combined references to include a composition gradient, as taught in Payne, in order to achieve increased thermal shock resistance.
Claim(s) 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (US 20110244216) in view of Delbos (Delbos, Phenomena Involved in suspension Plasma Spraying Part 2: Zirconia Particle Treatment and Coating Formation, Plasma Chem Plasma Process, 2006, 26, pg. 393-414), Ganvir (Ganvir, Characterization of Microstructure and Thermal Properties of YSZ Coatings Obtained by Axial Suspension Plasma Spraying, Journal of Thermal Spray Technology, Volume 24(7), October 2015, pg. 1195-1204), Siegert (Siegert, Denser Ceramic Coatings obtained by the Optimization of the Suspension Plasma Spraying Technique, International Thermal Spray Conference and Exposition, pg. 1-6, May 11, 2004), and Payne (US 20030064234) as applied to claims 11 and 15 above, and further in view of Vert (Vert, Adhesion of Ceramic Coating on Thin and Smooth Metal Substrate: A Novel Approach with a Nanostructured Ceramic Interlayer, Journal of Thermal Spray Technology, Volume 21(6), December 2012, pg. 1128-1134).
Regarding Claims 13-14, The combined references are silent as to the adhesive bond strength; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to related art to determine an appropriate bond strength. Payne teaches the thermal shock resistance of a coated system may be increased with an interlayer by increasing the bond strength of the system and providing an intermittent coefficient thermal expansion between a metallic substrate and an oxide outer coating ([0019]). Vert teaches high bond strength values achieved with thicker SPS layers and by maintaining the substrate at a higher temperature during deposition (pg. 1133 col. 1 para. 2-3). Vert teaches a method similar to Meyer wherein the thermal barrier coating has a tensile bond strength measured by ASTM C633 of between 12-24 MPa (pg. 1133 top of 2nd col. ). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the bond strength of the coating system of the combined references, as suggested in Payne and Vert, in order to achieve an increased thermal shock resistance and in such an optimization one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at applicant’s claimed bond strength.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (US 20110244216) in view of Delbos (Delbos, Phenomena Involved in suspension Plasma Spraying Part 2: Zirconia Particle Treatment and Coating Formation, Plasma Chem Plasma Process, 2006, 26, pg. 393-414), and Ganvir (Ganvir, Characterization of Microstructure and Thermal Properties of YSZ Coatings Obtained by Axial Suspension Plasma Spraying, Journal of Thermal Spray Technology, Volume 24(7), October 2015, pg. 1195-1204), and Siegert (Siegert, Denser Ceramic Coatings obtained by the Optimization of the Suspension Plasma Spraying Technique, International Thermal Spray Conference and Exposition, pg. 1-6, May 11, 2004) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 10, 12, and 16 above, and further in view of Tarasi (Tarasi, Effective Parameters in Axial Injection Suspension Plasma Spray Process of Alumina-Zirconia Ceramics, Journal of Thermal Spray Technology, Volume 17(5-6), December 2008, pg. 685-691).
Regarding Claim 17, The combined references do not explicitly teach an alumina-zirconia coating; however, alumina-zirconia coatings are known in the art for thermal barrier coating applications (Tarasi, abstract). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the thermal barrier coating of Meyer to be an alumina-zirconia coating, as taught in Tarasi, because it is a known thermal barrier coating material in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the coating of the combined references with a material as taught in Tarasi.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment and remarks, filed 10/6/2025, with respect to the previous prior art rejection of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration and as necessitated by the amendment, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as discussed above.
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 TABATHA L PENNY whose telephone number is (571)270-5512. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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 on 5712721418. 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.
/TABATHA L PENNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712