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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment and Status of Claims
Pending and under examination: claims 1-10
New: claims 9-10
Amended: none
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s arguments characterized by “While Darolia does mention beta-phase nickel aluminide, it does so in contrast to the use of a gamma-prime phase nickel aluminide and states that beta-phase coatings are problematic” (see pages 4-5 of arguments) are not found persuasive, because the use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain (MPEP 2123 I.). Furthermore, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments (MPEP 2123 II.).
Thus, in response to applicant's argument that Darolia prefers using gamma-prime phase nickel aluminide coatings, Darolia was relied upon to demonstrate that using beta-phase nickel aluminide coatings are known in the art as being used as bond coats for TBCs, irrespective of their performance compared to other nickel aluminide coatings – the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Regarding the arguments concerning the combination of a high hafnium content, the beta-structured nickel aluminide coating covering the substrate, and a mass content of carbon of less than or equal to 100 ppm (see pages 6-7 of arguments), the arguments are not found persuasive.
As can be seen in Fig. 3 of the drawings and page 5 (lines 13-17) of the instant specification, there is a direct relationship/correlation between the Hf content and the mass variation property. Specifically, as the Hf increases, the mass variation decreases, which is an expected and predictable effect. Murphy teaches that “It is apparent that the addition to the alloy compositions of the combination of Hf and Y in the amounts shown (alloys 1 and 2) was effective to increase cyclic oxidation resistance of the specimens by well over a factor of 10” [0021]. "It is well established that, while a change in the proportions of a combination shown to be old, such as is here involved, may be inventive, such changes must be critical as compared with the proportions used in the prior processes, producing a difference in kind rather than degree."); In re Wells, 56 F.2d 674, 675 (CCPA 1932) (MPEP 2144.05 III. A.).
Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected (MPEP 716.02).
Regarding the argument that “there is no evidence that the overlapping range of Hf between 0.030 and 0.80 as allegedly taught in Murphy in the absence of a) and c) would produce this effect”, expected beneficial results are the evidence of obviousness (MPEP 716.02(c) II.). In the instant case, the expected beneficial results are that cyclic oxidation resistance is increased by increasing the Hf content, when Murphy states “It is apparent that the addition to the alloy compositions of the combination of Hf and Y in the amounts shown (alloys 1 and 2) was effective to increase cyclic oxidation resistance of the specimens by well over a factor of 10” [0021]. Thus, in regards to the applicant’s arguments characterized by “…in the absence of a) and c)…” above, the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant (MPEP 2144 IV.). Thus, Murphy need not teach that adding Hf would have the same benefit even in the absence of “a)” and “c)”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy (US 20040229072 A1) in view of Darolia et al. (US 20060093851 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Murphy a nickel-base superalloys (Abstract) used to make parts and components for gas turbine engines [0003], [0005]-[0006], [0021] meeting the claimed “turbomachine part”, wherein the nickel-base superalloy has the following composition which overlaps with the claimed ranges:
Element
Instant claim 1(wt. %)
Murphy (Abstract)
Location in reference
Ni
Balance
Balance
Abstract
Co
5.0-8.0
0-15
Abstract
Cr
6.5-10
3-12
Abstract
Mo
0.5-2.5
0-3
Abstract
W
5.0-9.0
3-10
Abstract
Ta
6.0-9.0
3-12
Abstract
Al
4.5-5.8
5-7
Abstract
Hf
≥ 0.2
0.030-0.80
Abstract
Re
-
0-6
Abstract
Y or Lanthanide series element
-
0-0.050
Abstract
Optional:
Nb
0-1.5
0-2
Abstract
C, Zr, and/or B
0-0.01 each
C: 0-0.07Zr: 0-0.10B: 0-0.02
Abstract
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05 I.).
Murphy teaches the turbomachine part of claim 1 above, but is silent regarding to ß-structured nickel aluminide coating covering the substrate.
Darolia teaches articles for use in hostile thermal environments, such as a component of a gas turbine engine (Abstract), and further teaches that the articles include a nickel-base alloy substrate (Abstract) and further teaches that the it is known in the art to use beta-phase nickel aluminide coatings [0008] (also see [0003], [0011]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known, conventional technique in the art of using a beta-phase nickel aluminide coating on the turbomachine part of Murphy, in order to protect the superalloy substrate when it is subjected to a hostile thermal environment (Darolia, [0008]).
Regarding claims 2-3, Murphy and Darolia teach the turbomachine part of claim 1 above, and as discussed above, teaches a hafnium content which overlaps with the claimed range in claim 2, and is close, but not overlapping with the range in claim 3. The range of claim 3 is not expected to be patentably distinguished from the claimed range, as a difference of 0.1% is assumed to result in the same or negligibly different properties, absent evidence to suggest otherwise. "It is well established that, while a change in the proportions of a combination shown to be old, such as is here involved, may be inventive, such changes must be critical as compared with the proportions used in the prior processes, producing a difference in kind rather than degree."); In re Wells, 56 F.2d 674, 675 (CCPA 1932) (MPEP 2144.05 III. A.). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05 I.).
Regarding claim 4, Murphy and Darolia teach the turbomachine part of claim 1 above, and Darolia further teaches that it is known to use thermal barrier coatings and thermally grown oxides coatings as optional additions [0002].
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a TBC or TGO in order to predictably protect the superalloy component from oxidation and hot corrosion [0002].
Regarding claim 5, Murphy and Darolia teach the turbomachine part of claim 4 above, and Darolia further teaches that the nickel aluminide coating can be a NiAl coating [0008], which is prima facie expected to have a ß structure, as Darolia teaches that the it is known in the art to use beta-phase nickel aluminide coatings [0008] (also see [0003], [0011]).
Regarding claim 6, Murphy and Darolia teach the turbomachine part of claim 1 above, and Murphy teaches that the part may be castable as single crystal, meeting the “monocrystalline” of claim 6 articles of manufacture, wherein the articles are useful as hot-section components of aircraft gas turbine engines, particularly rotating blades [0003], [0005]-[0006], [0021].
Regarding claim 7, Murphy and Darolia teach the turbomachine part of claim 1 above, and Murphy further teaches that the components may be a turbomachine vane [0003], [0005]-[0006], [0021].
Regarding claim 8, Murphy and Darolia teach the turbomachine part of claim 1 above, and Murphy teaches that the components are used as components in gas turbine engines [0003], [0005]-[0006], [0021].
Regarding claims 9-10, Murphy and Darolia teach the turbomachine part of claim 1 above, and although Murphy teaches using a ceramic thermal barrier coating (TBC), Murphy is silent regarding there being a TBC in contact with the beta-phase nickel aluminide coating (Abstract).
Darolia teaches using nickel aluminide coatings as bondcoats for TBCs [0008], meeting claim 9, at a thickness of about 100-300 µm [0020], which meets claim 10, and which overlaps with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05 I.).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a TBC on the beta-structured nickel aluminide, because the main purpose of the bond coat is, by definition, to help bond other materials such as TBCs to the main substrate (a nickel-based superalloy) [0003], [0008].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy (US 20040229072 A1) in view of Darolia et al. (US 20060093851 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bacos et al. (US 20170044901 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Murphy and Darolia teach the turbomachine part of claim 1 above, but are silent regarding the part being a turbomachine distributor or a turbomachine distributor sector.
Bacos teaches a method for repairing a thermal barrier of a component comprising a substrate coated with such a thermal barrier, said substrate being made of a high-performance alloy (Abstract).
Bacos further teaches that it is known in the art to coat nickel-based single crystalline superalloy parts, such as turbomachine distributors, with a thermal barrier [0001]-[0002].
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murphy and Darolia to use the known technique of using the alloy in the form of a turbomachine distributor part, in order to predictably produce a distributor having a superalloy part that is properly protected from hot turbine gases due to the thermal barrier coating.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adil Siddiqui whose telephone number is (571)272-8047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM CST.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/ADIL A. SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735