DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The non-final office action issued on October 16, 2025 was withdrawn (see Letter Withdrawing/Vacating office Action” mailed on November 19, 2025).
The Applicant's amendment filed on August 21 2025 was received. Claims 31 was amended. Claims 1-20 were canceled. No claim was added. No claim was added.
The Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on November 21, 2025 was received. Claims 40 was amended. Claims 1-20 were canceled. No claim was added. No claim was added.
The text of those sections of Title 35. U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action Issued April 21, 2025.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 21, 2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
The restriction requirement issued on October 1, 2024 is withdrawn, because Applicant’s arguments filed on August 21, 2025 are persuasive. Accordingly, claims 21-40 are being considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, on claim 28-29 is withdrawn, because the claim has been amended.
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 claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolcavage (US20110097538) in view of Nagaraj (US20090252985), and further evidenced by Singh (US20020110698), on claims 21, 32-34, 36 and 38-39 are withdrawn, because Applicant’s remarks filed on August 21, 2025 are persuasive.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolcavage (US20110097538) in view of Nagaraj (US20090252985) and further evidenced by Singh (US20020110698), Strock (US20110116920) and Candelori (US20150300180), on claims 22 and 27-31 are withdrawn, because Applicant’s remarks filed on August 21, 2025 are persuasive.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolcavage (US20110097538) in view of Nagaraj (US20090252985), Strock (US20110116920), Candelori (US20150300180) and Meschter (US20140162027), on claims 24-25 are withdrawn, because Applicant’s remarks filed on August 21, 2025 are persuasive.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolcavage (US20110097538) in view of Nagaraj (US20090252985), Singh (US20020110698) and Lutjen (US20110300342), on claims 35 and 37 are withdrawn, because Applicant’s remarks filed on August 21, 2025 are persuasive.
The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolcavage (US20110097538) in view of Nagaraj (US20090252985), Strock (US20110116920) and Candelori (US20150300180), on claim 40 is withdrawn, because Applicant’s remarks filed on August 21, 2025 are persuasive.
Claims 21, 32-33, 36 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skelly (US5419971) in view of Nagaraj (US20090252985).
Regarding claim 21, Skelly teaches a thermal barrier coating (TBC) system and method of forming the TBC on a turbine engine component, such as blade or vane (column 1 lines 5-20, column 4 lines 55-65). Skelly teaches the component comprises substrate 32 and a interfacial layer 34 (bond layer) are made of metallic alloy (column 4 lines 55-60, column 5 lines 3 to 25, figure 2), wherein the metallic interfacial layer 34 have a plurality of recesses (see figure 2, the recess areas; column 5 lines 29-35) (a metallic substrate having a plurality of recesses along a first region). Skelly teaches TBC 44 has columnar grains and is applied on the upper surface of the bond layer 38 terminated above the grooves 40 (column 7 lines 5-32, figure 2) (a second coating away from the recesses and comprising a columnar layer atop the substate without an intervening spatted layer). Skelly teaches an irregular ceramic structure 46 of the same material as the TBC 44 is provided in the grooves 40, while the same columnar grains TBC 44 is on top of an irregular ceramic structure 46 (a first coating at least at the recesses and comprising a irregular structure layer and a column layer atop of the irregular structure layer). Skelly teaches the first and second coating columnar layer is formed by physical vapor deposition or thermal spraying (column 7 lines 20-25). Skelly teaches the TBC 44 and 46 are yttria stabilized zirconia YSZ (column 7 lines 10-12).
Skelly does not explicitly teach the irregular ceramic structure is a splatted layer applied by air plasma spray, and the physical vapor deposition of forming the columnar layer is electron beam physical vapor deposition (EB PVD). However, Nagaraj teaches a method of forming a CMAS resistant thermal barrier coating system (TBC) for a gas turbine engine component (abstract, paragraph 0011). Nagaraj teaches to form a single layer EB PVD coating for a thinner TBC coating (less than 70mils), and an EB PVD coating on top of an air plasma spray APS coating for a thicker TBC coating (greater than 15mils) (paragraphs 0027-0028), wherein the TBC coating material is YSZ and the EB PVD coating has a columnar grained microstructure (paragraphs 0012, 0022 and 0032) and the ASP coating forms a splatted layer (paragraphs 0005 and 0029).
Skelly teaches the columnar layer is 3 to 15mil (column 78 lines 10-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the columnar coating by electron beam physical vapor deposition (EB PVD), and the irregular ceramic structure in the two layers TBC as a splatted layer formed by air plasma spraying as suggested by Nagaraj in the method of Skelly because Nagaraj teaches such EB PVD columnar grained structure TBC coating (alone when it’s a thin layer, and combined with APS layer when it’s a thick layer) has improved coating resistance to CMAS infiltration as compared to comparable APS applied coatings (paragraphs 0027-0028), which can prevent spallation and then accelerated oxidation of the exposed metal (paragraph 0009).
Regarding claim 32, Skelly teaches the bond coat 34 is along respective bases of the recesses and a second bond cot is along a second region (figure 2, column 7 line 1-15, column 5 lines 3-20).
Regarding claim 33, Skelly teaches the bond coats are MCrAlY (column 5 lines 15-22).
Regarding claim 36, Skelly teaches the first and second coating system columnar layer 44 are formed at the same time and they are the same material (column 7 lines 25-35, figure 2).
Regarding claim 39, Skelly teaches a thermal barrier coating (TBC) system and method of forming the TBC on a turbine engine component, such as blade or vane (column 1 lines 5-20, column 4 lines 55-65). Skelly teaches the component comprises substrate 32 and an interfacial layer 34 (bond layer) are made of metallic alloy (column 4 lines 55-60, column 5 lines 3 to 25, figure 2), wherein the metallic interfacial layer 34 have a plurality of recesses (see figure 2, the recess areas; column 5 lines 29-35) (a metallic substrate having a plurality of recesses along a first region). Skelly teaches TBC 44 has columnar grains and is applied on the upper surface of the bond layer 38 terminated above the grooves 40 (column 7 lines 5-32, figure 2) (a columnar layer in a region away from the recesses not atop any splatted ceramic coating layer). Skelly teaches an irregular ceramic structure 46 of the same material as the TBC 44 is provided in the grooves 40, while the same columnar grains TBC 44 is on top of an irregular ceramic structure 46 (a splatted ceramic coating layer in the recesses and a columnar ceramic coating layer atop the splatted coating layer at the recesses). Skelly teaches the first and second coating columnar layer is formed by physical vapor deposition or thermal spraying (column 7 lines 20-25). Skelly teaches the TBC 44 and 46 are yttria stabilized zirconia YSZ (column 7 lines 10-12).
Skelly does not explicitly teach the irregular ceramic structure is a splatted layer applied by air plasma spray, and the physical vapor deposition of forming the columnar layer is electron beam physical vapor deposition (EB PVD). However, Nagaraj teaches a method of forming a CMAS resistant thermal barrier coating system (TBC) for a gas turbine engine component (abstract, paragraph 0011). Nagaraj teaches to form a single layer EB PVD coating for a thinner TBC coating (less than 70mils), and an EB PVD coating on top of an air plasma spray APS coating for a thicker TBC coating (greater than 15mils) (paragraphs 0027-0028), wherein the TBC coating material is YSZ and the EB PVD coating has a columnar grained microstructure (paragraphs 0012, 0022 and 0032) and the ASP coating forms a splatted layer (paragraphs 0005 and 0029).
Skelly teaches the columnar layer is 3 to 15mil (column 78 lines 10-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the columnar coating by electron beam physical vapor deposition (EB PVD), and the irregular ceramic structure in the two layers TBC as a splatted layer formed by air plasma spraying as suggested by Nagaraj in the method of Skelly because Nagaraj teaches such EB PVD columnar grained structure TBC coating (alone when it’s a thin layer, and combined with APS layer when it’s a thick layer) has improved coating resistance to CMAS infiltration as compared to comparable APS applied coatings (paragraphs 0027-0028), which can prevent spallation and then accelerated oxidation of the exposed metal (paragraph 0009).
Claims 34 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skelly (US5419971) in view of Nagaraj (US20090252985) as applied to claims 21, 32-33, 36 and 39 above, and further in view of Bolcavage (US20110097538).
Regarding claim 34, Skelly teaches the metallic substrate is nickel-based superalloy casting (column 4 lines 55-60). Skelly teaches the columnar layer (in first and second coating system) has a thickness of 0.003 and 0.05 thick (column 7 lines 5-15). Skelly in view of Nagaraj teaches all the limitations of this claim, except the thickness of splatted layer. However, Bolcavage teaches a method coating an article for gas turbine engine with TBC (abstract, paragraphs 0002-0003, 0029 and 0139). Bolcavage teaches the metallic substrate have a first array of features (a plurality of recess) at a first location (a first region), (paragraphs 0009, 0040 and 0139, see for example figures 1B, 8, 11A and 11B). Bolcavage teaches the thermal barrier coating comprises a first coating layer 234 and a second coating layer 242 in the recess (first coating) and the surrounding surface (second coating away from the recesses) (paragraph 0139, see figures 11 A and 11B). Bolcavage teaches the first coating is formed inside the recess by applying a yttria stabilized zirconia layer (YSZ) with air plasma spraying (ASP) (paragraphs 0139 and 0187), which intricially has a splatted structure. Bolcavage teaches the splatted layer has a thickness of 0.05 inches to 0.005inches, which overlaps with the claimed range (paragraph 0187). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the APS splatted layer in the TBC stacks in the thickness as suggested by Bolcavage in the method of Skelly in view of Nagaraj because Bolcavage teaches such thickness provide protection of the substrate against elevated temperature (paragraphs 0003-0004 and 0007).
Regarding claim 38, Skelly teaches the article is airfoil (column 5 lines 3-5), which intrinsically comprises a leading edge, a trailing edge, a pressure side and a suction side. Bolcavage teaches also teaches the substrate coated with the TBC is an airfoil having a leading edge, trailing edge, pressure side and a suction side (paragraphs 0136-0137), where the recess features were formed based predicted thermal stress (paragraphs 0011-0013 and 0006). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize pattern (area percentage of recess, area percentage of first coating and area percentage of second coating with respect to the surface area) in the process to yield the desired thermal protection from the coating. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skelly (US5419971) in view of Nagaraj (US20090252985) as applied to claims 21, 32-33, 36 and 39 above, and further in view of Bolcavage (US20110097538) and Lutjen (US20110300342).
Regarding claim 35, Skelly teaches the metallic substrate is nickel-based superalloy casting (column 4 lines 55-60). Skelly teaches the columnar layer is YSZ (in first and second coating system) has a thickness of 0.003 and 0.05 thick (column 7 lines 5-15). Skelly teaches the irregular ceramic structure ceramic layer formed in the recess is also YSZ (column 7 lines 25-65, figure 2).
Skelly in view of Nagaraj teaches all the limitations of this claim, except the thickness of splatted layer. However, Bolcavage teaches a method coating an article for gas turbine engine with TBC (abstract, paragraphs 0002-0003, 0029 and 0139). Bolcavage teaches the metallic substrate have a first array of features (a plurality of recess) at a first location (a first region), (paragraphs 0009, 0040 and 0139, see for example figures 1B, 8, 11A and 11B). Bolcavage teaches the thermal barrier coating comprises a first coating layer 234 and a second coating layer 242 in the recess (first coating) and the surrounding surface (second coating away from the recesses) (paragraph 0139, see figures 11 A and 11B). Bolcavage teaches the first coating is formed inside the recess by applying a yttria stabilized zirconia layer (YSZ) with air plasma spraying (ASP) (paragraphs 0139 and 0187), which intricially has a splatted structure. Bolcavage teaches the splatted layer has a thickness of 0.05 inches to 0.005inches, which overlaps with the claimed range (paragraph 0187). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the APS splatted layer in the TBC stacks in the thickness as suggested by Bolcavage in the method of Skelly in view of Nagaraj because Bolcavage teaches such thickness provide protection of the substrate against elevated temperature (paragraphs 0003-0004 and 0007).
Skelly in view of Nagaraj and Bolcavage does not explicitly teach the splatted layer is GSZ. However, Lutjen teaches a method of forming a TBC on a turbine article (paragraphs 0006 and 0026-0027), and discloses GSZ and YSZ are functionally equivalent TBC material (paragraphs 0026-0027). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute GSZ for YSZ as TBC material in the method disclosed by in view of Skelly, Nagaraj and Bolcavage.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skelly (US5419971) in view of Nagaraj (US20090252985) as applied to claims 21, 32-33, 36 and 39 above, and further in view of Lutjen (US20110300342).
Regarding claim 37, Skelly teaches the irregular structure ceramic layer and the thermal barrier columner layers are YSZ (column 7 lines 25-35, column 7 lines 5-15, figure 2). Thus, Skelly in view of Nagaraj teaches all limitations of this claim, except the columnar layers are GSZ. However, Lutjen teaches a method of forming a TBC on a turbine article (paragraphs 0006 and 0026-0027), and discloses GSZ and YSZ are functionally equivalent TBC material (paragraphs 0026-0027). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute GSZ for YSZas TBC material in the method disclosed by Skelly in view of Nagaraj.
Response to Arguments
As stated above, the non-final office action mailed on October 16, 2025 was withdrawn, accordingly, the response to arguments of this current office action is directed to the arguments filed on August 21, 2025 (not to the arguments directed to the withdrawn non-final office action mailed on October 16, 2025). The preliminary claim amendment directed to a minor correction on claim 40 filed on November 21, 2025 is being entered. Since claim 40 is being corrected from the minor typo from previous claim set filed on August 21, 2025, no objection was issued or required to be withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments (filed on August 21, 2025) with respect to claims 21-40 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-31 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art on the record, Skelly (US5419971) in view of Nagaraj (US20090252985), does not teach or suggest the method for manufacturing an article as recited in claims 22, 31 and 40. Specifically, Skelly teaches the recess is formed on the surface of the bond coating, and does not teach to apply an addition bond coating (the first bond coating) to the recess via high velocity oxy-fuel spray or a second bondcoat to a second region via vapor deposition, plasma-spray or cathodic arc deposition (claims 22 and 40). Skelly also does not teach the first coating system extends along the walls and segmentation cracks extend from the walls through the first coating system splatted layer and the first coating system columnar layer (see Skelly figure 2 where no segmentation cracks extend from the walls through the first coating system splatted layer and first coating system coating layer) (claim 31). Thus, Skelly in view of Nagaraj do no teaches these features in the context of claims 22, 31 and 40.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGA LEUNG V LAW whose telephone number is (571)270-1115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on 5712721295. 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.
/NGA LEUNG V LAW/Examiner, Art Unit 1717