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 .
Applicant's submission filed on 1/19/26 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-9, 14-15, and 24-33 are pending examination, claims 5, 10-13, and 16-23 have been canceled by applicant.
Claim Interpretation
At [0054] of Applicant’s Specification it states: “As used herein, the term “about” has the typical meaning in the art, however in a particular example “about” can mean deviations of up to 10% of the values described herein.” Thus for purposes of examination “about” is interpreted as at least inclusive of +/- 10% of the described values.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 14, 25-27, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatia et al (US 2007/0065672; hereafter Bhatia) in view of Mi (CN103553597; citations directed to machine translation provided herein; hereafter Mi).
Claim 1: Bhatia teaches a method of applying a top coat (barrier layer) to an article (substrate) (see, for example, Abstract, Fig 1, [0022]) comprising:
providing an article (substrate) having a bond coat (bond layer) (see, for example, [0004], claim 24);
applying a slurry (slurry) directly onto the bond coat (16), the slurry including particles of a top coat material (such as hafnia (HfO2) and at least one sintering aid (silicon and / or silica, alumina, various oxides / sintering aids) in a carrier fluid (See, for example, [0018])
and sintering the top coat (See, for example, [0018], [0021]).
Bhatia further teaches wherein the heat treatment / sintering occurs at 980-1650oC, further 1200oC to 1485oC, (see, for example, [0018]). Although not explicitly about 1315 to 1525oC, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a temperature within the claimed range since 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Bhatia further teaches wherein the slurry includes a metal compound, such as silicon, oxidizing in air at temperature that is below the sintering temperature (see, for example, [0018]).
Bhatia teaches the method of claim 1 above, and further teaches selecting appropriate material precursors, including Hf and Si containing materials, to adjust proper CTE matching and prevention of cracking (see, for example, [0004], [0015], [0018]) but it does not explicitly teach wherein the metal compound is one of those claimed. Mi teaches a method of applying a top coat (thermal barrier coating protection layer) to an article (see, for example, [0002], [0009]). Mi similarly teaches its protective coating comprises a zirconium and silicon, and further teaches incorporation of metal compound agents such as metal silicides, further HfSi2 into the barrier coating as it predictably enhances control of expansion behavior and provides a self-healing function capable of healing cracks and preventing the propagation of cracks improving the service life and reliability of the barrier coating (See, for example, [0009], [0015], [0048]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated HfSi2 into the slurry as it predictably enhances control of expansion behavior and provides a self-healing function capable of healing cracks and preventing the propagation of cracks improving the service life and reliability of the barrier coating. Mi further teaches the ability of the HfSi2 to oxidize under such high temperature conditions wherein such oxidation products are utilized to control expansion, forming the healing phase to heal cracks (See, for example, [0009]). Further as the same material (HfSi2) is taught in the prior art as is presently claimed as the metal compound, it too must possess the same material properties of being capable of oxidizing in air at a temperature that is below the sintering temperature. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Claim 3: Bhatia further teaches wherein the sintering aid includes silica (see, for example, [0018]).
Claim 4: Bhatia further teaches wherein the slurry includes silica precursor (such as silicon or TEOS) wherein the silica precursor transforms to silica prior to or during the sintering step , the silica acting as the sintering aid (See, for example, [0018], wherein the temperature as well in excess of oxidation temperatures of silicon / TEOS and as there is explicit teaching therein that when silica precursors are used the heat treatment is carried out in an oxidizing environment).
Claim 14: Bhatia further teaches drying the slurry prior to the sintering step (See, for example,[0018], wherein as the overall heat treatment occurs over time, the initial period can be interpreted as drying and a subsequent period as sintering).
Claim 25: Mi further teaches wherein the oxidation of the metal compound (HfSi2) is accompanied by a volumetric expansion (See, for example, [0009]). Further still, HfSi2 is a same material Applicant has relied upon to exhibit such a property, thus the teaching to HfSi2 by the prior art would similarly inherently exhibit the same resulting properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Claim 26: Bhatia in view of Mi teaches the method of claim 1 wherein sintering is performed and wherein the metal compound is HfSi2 (see, rejection of claim 1 above). Although no explicit description of it melting is provided, Applicant explicitly recites HFSi2 as the metal compound, this its ability to melt and act as a sintering aid would be an inherent material property thus shared in the prior art. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Claim 27: Bhatia in view of Mi teaches the method of claim 1 above, and Mi further teaches wherein the metal silicide powder possesses an average particle size of not greater than 5 micron (See, for example, [0043]). Although such a size is not explicitly between about 1 and about 10 microns, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an average particle size within the claimed range since 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 31: Bhatia further teaches wherein the top coat forms the outermost layer on the article (see, for example, [0018]).
Claim(s) 6, 24, and 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatia in view of Mi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saha et al (US 2017/0247787; hereafter Saha).
Claim 29: Bhatia in view of Mi teaches the method of claim 1 above, but is silent as to the particle size distribution for the top coat material slurry, so it does not explicitly teach the claimed distribution. Saha teaches a method of wet based application of EBCs on CMCs (See, for example, abstract, [0015]). Saha further teaches wherein the particle size distribution of the EBC formulation influences the mechanical integrity, porosity, and processability of the disposed coatings, and by incorporating a multimodal distribution tailoring and balancing of such properties can be achieved resulting in a minimization of shrinkage, cracking and delamination (See, for example, [0022], [0025]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a multimodal particle size distribution for the particles of the top coat material since it would predictably improve tailoring and balancing of coating integrity, porosity, and processability and a minimization of shrinkage, cracking and delamination.
Claim 30: Saha further teaches wherein such a multimodal distribution should comprise large, medium and small particles on the order of 30, 8 and 2 microns respectively (See, for example, [0057]; all sizes are within the claimed range, thus collectively the average would be within the claimed range).
Claim 6 and 24: Saha further teaches wherein amounts of the top coat material (first material) as well as the other solids (binder and sintering aid) can be used to control shrinkage, porosity, and shrinkage of the resulting coating, and further wherein the amount of the top coat material is from about 30 – 65 vol% of the slurry (see, for example, [0033], thus considering the binder and sintering aid the total solids skews even higher). Although such a solids load is not explicitly at least about 45 vol%, further at least 60 vol%, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a solids loading within the claimed range since 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 28: Bhatia in view of Mi teaches the method of claim 1 above, and Bhatia further teaches wherein one intention of the EBC is to prevent high velocity steam from reaching underlying materials (See, for example, [0003]) but is silent as to the post sintering porosity of its EBC, so it does not explicitly teach a post sintering porosity of less than about 10%. Saha further that final EBCs should be substantially hermetic, with a post sintered final porosity of less than 10% vol, to achieve sufficient high temperature water vapor protection (See, for example, [0048], [0054]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a post sintering porosity of less than 10 volume % since such a degree would predictably enhance the EBCs ability to serve its intended role at reducing high temperature water vapor attack of underlying materials.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mechnich (US 2006/0100086; hereafter Mechnich), in view of Mariani (US 9,666,310; hereafter Mariani), Eaton, Jr et al (US 6,312,763; hereafter Eaton), Ramaswamy et al (US 2021/0324201; hereafter Ramaswamy) and Strock (US 2018/0355734; hereafter Strock).
Claim 32: Mechnich teaches a method of applying a top coat (heat / corrosion protection layer) to an article (see, for example, Abstract, [0026]) comprising:
providing an article (substrate) (see, for example, abstract, [0029]);
applying a slurry (powder dispersion) directly onto article, the slurry including particles of a top coat material (such as YSZ) and at least one sintering aid (ZrSi2, SiO2, Si) in a carrier fluid (solvent) (See, for example, [0028-0031], [0034], [0058], [0061, [0063]) ;
and sintering the top coat (See, for example, [0033-34]).
Mechnich further teaches wherein the sintering occurs at 1200 to 1400oC, further 1350oC (see, for example, [0032]).
Mechnich further teaches wherein the slurry includes a metal compound (such as ZrSi2) (see, for example, [0028], [0034] ]), but does not explicitly teach ZrSi or Zr5Si4 as claimed. Mariani teaches a method of applying protective coatings to high temperature and corrosive environments (See, for example, abstract, col 1 lines 25-40, col 3 line 44-col 4 line 20). Mariani further teaches that various Zr-silicides, including ZrSi, ZrSi2, and Zr5Si4 offer enhanced protective barrier performance over native ZrO2 films and further wherein these silicide materials predictably serve as self-healing and sealing materials healing cracks and preventing transport of species therethrough (See, for example, Fig 3-4, col 1 lines 25-40, col 4 lines 13-20, col 4 lines 44-col 5 line26, col 6 lines 16-59). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated ZrSi or Zr5Si4 as the metal compound since such materials would predictably provide sources of Zr and Si while further enhancing barrier performance through self-healing / sealing behavior, and/ or since where two known alternatives are interchangeable for a desired function, an express suggestion to substitute one for the other is not needed to render a substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297,301 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 568 (CCPA 1967). Mariani further teaches the ability of its various Zr-silicides (such as ZrSi or Zr5Si4) to oxidize under such high temperature conditions forming the healing phase (See, for example, col 1 lines 25-40, col 4 lines 44-60)). Further as the same material (ZrSi or Zr5Si4) is taught in the prior art as is presently claimed as the metal compound, it too must possess the same material properties of being capable of oxidizing in air at a temperature that is below the sintering temperature. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Mechnich does not explicitly teach the article has a bond coat so the slurry is applied directly onto the bond coat. Eaton teaches a method of applying a top coat to an article, further wherein the article is similarly a silicon containing substrate, and the top coat is a yttrium silicate containing barrier coating (See, for example, abstract, col 2 lines 30-45). Eaton further teaches incorporating a bond coating between the substrate and the barrier coating so the barrier coating directly contacts the bond coating in order to enhance the adhesion and / or prevent reaction between the silicon containing substrate and the barrier layer (See, for example, col 3 lines 30-35). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have incorporated a bond coating between the substrate and the top coating so the top coating directly contacts the bond coating as it would predictably enhance the adhesion and / or prevent deleterious reactions between the substrate and the top coat.
Mechnich has taught deposition of yttrium silicate(s) / zirconium coatings from particles comprising Y-stabilized zirconia with a focus on high temperature and corrosion resistance, CTE, and thermal conductivity of the coating materials for protection turbine engine components (see, for example, [0002], [0005], [0014], [0019], [0024]). But it does not explicitly teach wherein the top coat particles include Gadolinia stabilized zirconia. Ramaswamy teaches a method for protecting turbine engine components with barrier coatings comprising combinations of rare earth silicates, including Y and Gd based silicates, and zirconium compounds, including YSZ and GdSZ, and wherein it is readily appreciated that the protective and thermal properties of the barrier are dependent upon the composition thereof (see, for example, [0025], [0040-0042], [0058-0063]). Ramaswamy further teaches wherein Gd and Y silicates are known to interact with dust deposits to enhance protection by forming highly refractive phases in use (see, for example, [0022]). Strock teaches a method of providing barrier coatings to turbine engines (See, for example, abstract, figures). Strock further teaches wherein with respect to Y, Ga provides increased infiltration protection, and lower thermal conductivity (See, for example, [0043-0044]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated particles of Gd-stabilized zirconia into the slurry as such a rare-earth is well known to be used in place of, or in combination with, Yttria-stabilized zirconia as such combinations and there silicates are used in the prior art to aid in adjustment of thermal and corrosive properties of turbine barrier coatings, and as GdSZ is further known to provided increased infiltration protection, and lower thermal conductivity relative to YSZ.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-9, 14-15, 25-28, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim et al (US 2017/0073277; hereafter Shim) in view of Bhatia and Mi. { Usuki (US 5,914,151; hereafter Usuki, cited only as evidence, see particularly claim 4}.
Claims 1-3: Shim teaches a method of applying a top coat (protective coat 18) to an article (12, substrate) (see, for example, Abstract, Fig 1, [0022]) comprising:
providing an article (12) having a bond coat (16) (see, for example, Fig 1, [0022]);
applying a slurry (such as slurry for layer 18) directly onto the bond coat (16), the slurry including particles of a top coat material (such as mullite, BSAS, Yttrium silicate (mono or di), hafnium silicate, alkaline earth (Ca) aluminosilicate ) and at least one sintering aid (second additive, such as silica, pre-ceramic polymer, further polysilazane, silicon metal, rare earth compound) in a carrier fluid (solvent) (See, for example, abstract, [0030-0036], [0075-0077]])
and sintering the top coat (See, for example, [0078]).
Shim further teaches wherein the heat treatment / sintering occurs at up to 1500oC, further 1000oC to 1400oC (see, for example, [0078]). Although not explicitly about 1315 to 1525oC, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a temperature within the claimed range since 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Shim further teaches wherein the slurry includes a metal compound (such as silicon metal alloy, or silicon), oxidizing in air at temperature that is below the sintering temperature (see, for example, [0017], [0034-0035], [0078], silicon oxidizes at ~700oC to silicon dioxide).
Shim has taught slurry deposition and sintering of the EBC, and wherein the resulting EBC as comprising material such as hafnium silicate (See, for example, [0031]), but it does not explicitly teach wherein slurry includes top coat particles of hafnia. Bhatia teaches a method of applying a top coat (barrier layer) to an article (substrate) (see, for example, Abstract, [0018], [0022]). Bhatia similarly is concerned with forming an EBC comprising hafnium silicate, and further teaches wherein conducting slurry deposition for such systems it is preferable to use the combination of hafnia and silicon to improve the sintering rate as compared to hafnium silicate (See, for example, [0009], [0018]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated HfO2 particles in the slurry as they would serve predictably as precursors for desired EBC material hafnium silicate while enhancing sintering rates.
Shim in view of Bhatia teaches the method of claim 1 above, wherein Shim has taught it desirable to incorporate additives to facilitate formation of crack filling phases (see, for example, [0078]), and Bhatia has further taught the importance of selecting appropriate material precursors, including Hf and Si containing materials, to adjust proper CTE matching and prevention of cracking (see, for example, [0004], [0015], [0018]) but they do not explicitly teach wherein the metal compound is one of those claimed. Mi teaches a method of applying a top coat (thermal barrier coating protection layer) to an article (see, for example, [0002], [0009]). Mi similarly teaches its protective coating comprises a zirconium and silicon, and further teaches incorporation of metal compound agents such as metal silicides, further HfSi2 into the barrier coating as it predictably enhances control of expansion behavior and provides a self-healing function capable of healing cracks and preventing the propagation of cracks improving the service life and reliability of the barrier coating (See, for example, [0009], [0015], [0048]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated HfSi2 into the slurry as it predictably enhances control of expansion behavior and provides a self-healing function capable of healing cracks and preventing the propagation of cracks improving the service life and reliability of the barrier coating. Mi further teaches the ability of the HfSi2 to oxidize under such high temperature conditions wherein such oxidation products are utilized to control expansion, forming the healing phase to heal cracks (See, for example, [0009]). Further as the same material (HfSi2) is taught in the prior art as is presently claimed as the metal compound, it too must possess the same material properties of being capable of oxidizing in air at a temperature that is below the sintering temperature. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Claim 4: Shim further teaches wherein the slurry includes a silica precursor (such as silicon metal or polysilazane), which transforms to silica prior to or during sintering (See, for example, [0035-0036]) {Usuki further evidences wherein polysilazane converts to silica at temperatures above 250oC, further 400oC, see col 2 lines 30-40,} these temperatures are well below the heat treatment / sintering temperatures of Shim, thus the polysilazane would transform to silica}
Claim 7: Shim further teaches wherein the slurry is a first slurry and the particles of top coat material are a first plurality of particles, and further comprising applying a second slurry having a second plurality of particles prior to the sintering step (See, for example, [0046], Fig 2, wherein more than one protective coating is present (layer 24 and 26), and further explicitly teaches wherein the appropriate layers of EBC can be applied on top of one another before sintering (see, for example, [0080]).
Claim 8: Shim further teaches wherein the first and second pluralities of particles comprise different top coat materials (See, for example, [0046]).
Claim 9: Shim further teaches wherein the first and second pluralities of particles comprise different top coat materials, and further teaches wherein the particles of such protective layers comprise mullite, BSAS, Yttrium silicate (mono or di), hafnium silicate, and alkaline earth (Ca) aluminosilicate (See, for example, [0030-0036] and [0046]). Although no explicit exemplary embodiment is described with the particular combinations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated such different compositions since a reasonable expectation of success exists from choosing the specific taught species from explicitly taught lists. Further when the species is clearly named, the species claim is anticipated (rendered obvious) no matter how many other species are additionally named. Ex parte A 17 USPQ2d 1716 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990).
Claim 14: Shim further teaches drying the slurry prior to the sintering step (See, for example,[0077]).
Claim 15: Shim further teaches wherein the slurry is be pressed onto the bond coat by the application of force during the applying step (see, for example, [0063] wherein slurry deposition techniques as inclusive of brushing, thus the slurry would experience pressing force associated with brushing).
Claim 25: Mi further teaches wherein the oxidation of the metal compound (HfSi2) is accompanied by a volumetric expansion (See, for example, [0009]). Further still, HfSi2 is a same material Applicant has relied upon to exhibit such a property, thus the teaching to HfSi2 by the prior art would similarly inherently exhibit the same resulting properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Claim 26: Shim in view of Bhatia and Mi teaches the method of claim 1 wherein sintering is performed and wherein the metal compound is HfSi2 (see, rejection of claim 1 above). Although no explicit description of it melting is provided, Applicant explicitly recites HfSi2 as the metal compound, this its ability to melt and act as a sintering aid would be an inherent material property thus shared in the prior art. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Claim 27: Shim in view of Bhatia and Mi teaches the method of claim 1 above, and Mi further teaches wherein the metal silicide powder possesses an average particle size of not greater than 5 micron (See, for example, [0043]). Although such a size is not explicitly between about 1 and about 10 microns, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an average particle size within the claimed range since 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 28: Shim further teaches wherein the porosity of the top coat (EBC) is <10% vol, further less than 2% vol (See, for example, [0037]).
Claim 31: Shim further teaches wherein the top coat (EBC layer 18 or 26) is the topmost layer (see, for example, Fig 1, Fig 2, Fig 5, [0079]).
Claim(s) 6, 24, and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim in view of Bhatia and Mi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saha.
Claim 29: Shim in view of Bhatia and Mi teaches the method of claim 1 above, but is silent as to the particle size distribution for the top coat material slurry, so it does not explicitly teach the claimed distribution. Saha teaches a method of wet based application of EBCs on CMCs (See, for example, abstract, [0015]). Saha further teaches wherein the particle size distribution of the EBC formulation influences the mechanical integrity, porosity, and processability of the disposed coatings, and by incorporating a multimodal distribution tailoring and balancing of such properties can be achieved resulting in a minimization of shrinkage, cracking and delamination (See, for example, [0022], [0025]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a multimodal particle size distribution for the particles of the top coat material since it would predictably improve tailoring and balancing of coating integrity, porosity, and processability and a minimization of shrinkage, cracking and delamination.
Claim 30: Saha further teaches wherein such a multimodal distribution should comprise large, medium and small particles on the order of 30, 8 and 2 microns respectively (See, for example, [0057]; all sizes are within the claimed range, thus collectively the average would be within the claimed range).
Claim 6 and 24: Saha further teaches wherein amounts of the top coat material (first material) as well as the other solids (binder and sintering aid) can be used to control shrinkage, porosity, and shrinkage of the resulting coating, and further wherein the amount of the top coat material is from about 30 – 65 vol% of the slurry (see, for example, [0033], thus considering the binder and sintering aid the total solids skews even higher). Although such a solids load is not explicitly at least about 45 vol%, further at least 60 vol%, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a solids loading within the claimed range since 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (CM103980006; citations directed to machine translation provided herein; hereafter Wang) in view of Mi.
Claim 33: Wang teaches a method of applying a top coat (protective EBC) to an article (such as aero-engine component) (see, for example, [0001-0004], [0010]) comprising:
providing an article (component) having a bond coat (adhesive layer) (see, for example, Figs [0010]);
applying a slurry (slurry) directly onto the bond coat (adhesive layer), the slurry including particles of a top coat material (such as rare earth silicate, zircon silicate) and at least one sintering aid, further including at least one alkaline earth aluminosilicate (Such as BSAS) in a carrier fluid (solvent of slurry) (See, for example, [0018], [0025-0028], [0032] )
and sintering the top coat at about 1400-1470oC (See, for example, [0018]).
Wherein the slurry includes a metal compound (such as metal silicide) (See, for example, [0011-0013]). Wang further teaches wherein the metal silicide provides self-healing capability and crack compression healing through oxidation (See, for example, [0021-0023]). But it does not explicitly teach wherein the metal silicide is one of the group claimed. Mi teaches a method of applying a top coat (thermal barrier coating protection layer) to an article (see, for example, [0002], [0009]). Mi similarly teaches its protective coating can comprise zirconium and silicon, and further teaches incorporation of metal compound agents such as metal silicides, further HfSi2 into the barrier coating as it predictably enhances control of expansion behavior and provides a self-healing function capable of healing cracks and preventing the propagation of cracks improving the service life and reliability of the barrier coating (See, for example, [0009], [0015], [0048]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated HfSi2 into the slurry as it predictably enhances control of expansion behavior and provides a self-healing function capable of healing cracks and preventing the propagation of cracks improving the service life and reliability of the barrier coating; additionally / alternatively since where two known alternatives are interchangeable for a desired function, an express suggestion to substitute one for the other is not needed to render a substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297,301 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 568 (CCPA 1967).
Wang has taught wherein the metal silicide is designed to oxidize (See, for example, [0021-0023]) and Mi further teaches the ability of the HfSi2 to oxidize under such high temperature conditions wherein such oxidation products are utilized to control expansion, forming the healing phase to heal cracks (See, for example, [0009]). Further as the same material (HfSi2) is taught in the prior art as is presently claimed as the metal compound, it too must possess the same material properties of being capable of oxidizing in air at a temperature that is below the sintering temperature. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to claim 2, filed 1/19/26, have been fully considered and are persuasive with respect to the previously applied 35 USC 112(b) and (d) rejections of claim 2, therefore they have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments that the references do not teach the newly added limitations are unconvincing in view of newly-cited / incorporated Mi, Mariani, and Wang references, 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 NATHAN H EMPIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30AM - 4 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, 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.
/NATHAN H EMPIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712