DETAILED ACTION
In view of the amendment filed June 17, 2025, the prior art-based rejection under 35 USC 102/103 in the last office action is hereby withdrawn. New grounds of rejection are discussed below.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Double Patenting
Claims 1 and 3-24 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending
Application No. 17/711,625 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are
not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims
and the referenced claims are directed to the same subject matter, which is:
(1) A coating, comprising: a bond coat including gettering particles and diffusive
particles dispersed in a matrix; a top coat disposed over the bond coat; and an
intermediate layer between the bond coat and the top coat, the intermediate layer
including non-silicate particles dispersed in a matrix, and
(2) An article comprising a ceramic-based substrate and the coating of (1) above
and method of making thereof; wherein the non-silicate particles in the intermediate layer includes hafnium silicate particles and the top coat includes hafnium silicate.
Applicant has not disputed or rebutted this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 & 103
Claims 1, 3-7, 10-16, 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kracum (US-2021/0189904).
Claim 1: Kracum teaches an environmental barrier coating, comprising a dense bond coat layer, a porous bond coat layer and a topcoat layer, in that order (para. 0002), and thus the dense bond coat layer is equivalent to the claimed bond coat, the porous bond coat layer is equivalent to the claimed intermediate layer, and the topcoat layer is equivalent to the claimed top coat. Kracum teaches the bond coat (i.e. dense bond coat layer) to comprise oxygen-scavenging gas-evolution particles and other particles including aluminosilicate, dispersed throughout a matrix comprising silica (Kracum, para. 0039). As defined in the instant specification, “gettering” particles are particles reacting with oxidants to form oxidation products (instant specification para. 0020). Here, Kracum describes “oxygen-scavenging gas-evolution” particles are reactive with oxygen to produce gaseous byproduct such as carbon dioxide (Kracum, para. 0039). Thus, the oxygen-scavenging gas-evolution particles of Kracum are equivalent to the claimed gettering particles. The “other phase particles” in the bond coat are considered diffusive particles. Kracum teaches the intermediate layer (i.e. the porous bond coat layer) to include non-silicate oxide particles as filler particles (Kracum, para. 0041 and 0054-0055), which include halfnia or rare-earth oxides (Kracum, para 0056).
Claim 3: Kracum teaches that the intermediate layer, which is the porous bond coat layer comprises pores and filler particles embedded in the pores (Kracum, para. 0047 and 0054), wherein the volume of the pores is from 10 to 30% of the layer (Kracum, para. 0047); therefore, the non-silicate oxide particles that are used as fillers particles comprises between 10 to 30% by volume of the intermediate layer, which overlaps the claimed range of 25-50 vol.%.
Claim 4: The non-silicate oxide particles in the intermediate layer have an average diameter between about 1-75 mm (Kracum, para .0018) which overlaps the claimed range of 10 to 25 mm. It has been held that claims are considered anticipated or in the alternative the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the prior art because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. See In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549. Here, the average diameter taught by Kracum overlaps the claimed range; therefore, the claim is deemed anticipated or would have been obvious.
Claim 5: Kracum teaches particles present in the dense and porous bond coat layer, namely getter particles and non-silicate oxide particles in the intermediate layer have approximately same particle diameter (Kracum, para. 0018 and 0047).
Claim 6: Kracum teaches non-silicate oxide particles include hafnium dioxide (halfnia) particles (para. 0056).
Claim 7: Kracum teaches the topcoat comprise silicates including hafnium silicate, (HfSiO4) (Kracum, para. 0038).
Claim 10: Kracum teaches the intermediate layer including particles of the material of the top coat (Kracum, para. 0037 and 0041).
Claim 11: Kracum teaches the intermediate layer (i.e. porous bondcoat layer) comprising regions of the material of the diffusive particles; i.e. porous areas of the porous bond coat containing filler particles of non-silicate oxides (Kracum, para. 0055).
Claim 12: Kracum teaches an article comprising a ceramic-based substrate and an environmental barrier coating (para. 0034-0035), wherein the coating comprises a dense bond coat layer, a porous bond coat layer and a topcoat layer, in that order (para. 0002), and thus the dense bond coat layer is equivalent to the claimed bond coat, the porous bond coat layer is equivalent to the claimed intermediate layer, and the topcoat layer is equivalent to the claimed top coat. Kracum teaches the bond coat (i.e. dense bond coat layer) to comprise oxygen-scavenging gas-evolution particles and other particles including aluminosilicate, dispersed throughout a matrix comprising silica (Kracum, para. 0039). As defined in the instant specification, “gettering” particles are particles reacting with oxidants to form oxidation products (instant specification para. 0020). Here, Kracum describes “oxygen-scavenging gas-evolution” particles are reactive with oxygen to produce gaseous byproduct such as carbon dioxide (Kracum, para. 0039). Thus, the oxygen-scavenging gas-evolution particles of Kracum are equivalent to the claimed gettering particles. The “other phase particles” in the bond coat are considered diffusive particles. Kracum teaches the intermediate layer (i.e. the porous bond coat layer) to include non-silicate oxide particles as filler particles (Kracum, para. 0041 and 0054-0055), which include halfnia or rare-earth oxides (Kracum, para 0056).
Claims 13-16: See claims 6-11 discussed above.
Claim 18: See Kracum, claim 1 and the discussion of claim 12 above.
Claim 19: See claims 6-7 above.
Claims 21-22: Kracum teaches non-silicate oxide particles include hafnium dioxide (halfnia), zirconium dioxide (zirconia), and rare earth metal non-silicate oxide (para. 0056).
Claim 24: Kracum teaches the intermediate layer (i.e. the porous bond coat layer) to include non-silicate oxide particles as filler particles (Kracum, para. 0041 and 0054-0055), which include halfnia or rare-earth oxides (Kracum, para 0056).
Claims 8-9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kracum in view of Sudre (US-2021/0331984).
Kracum teaches the claimed coating as discussed in claim 1 above. Kracum teaches the gettering particles including silicon oxycarbide particles (Kracum, para. 0042). Kracum does not teach molybdenum disilicide particles as the gettering particles. However, Sudre teaches molybdenum disilicide, silicon carbide and silicon oxycarbide particles being functionally equivalent as gettering particles in barrier coating (Sudre, para. 0046). Therefore, the POSITA would have found it obvious as matter of choice to use either one of these particles or combination thereof as gettering particles.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kracum as applied to claims 1, 3-7, 10-16, 18-22 and 24 above, and further in view of NAKADA (US 20150079371)
Kracum teaches the claimed coating as discussed above. Kracum further teaches the intermediate layer (i.e. the porous bond coat layer) to include non-silicate oxide particles as filler particles (Kracum, para. 0041 and 0054-0055), which include zirconia, halfnia or rare-earth oxides (Kracum, para 0056). However, Kracum does not specify titanium dioxide. In the same field of endeavor, i.e. environmental barrier coating for high temperature gas environment such as jet engine or gas turbine, Nakada teaches that titanium dioxide, zirconium oxide, hafnium oxide are functionally equivalent as particles dispersed in a matrix of an environmental barrier coating (Nakada, para. 0015). Therefore, it would have been obvious as matter of choice to select any oxide including titanium dioxide or a combination thereof as the coating particles in the environmental barrier coating.
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 HOA (Holly) LE whose telephone number is (571)272-1511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10:00 am to 7:00 pm.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/HOA (Holly) LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788