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 Applicant's amendment filed on November 24, 2025 was received. Claim 1 was amended. No claim was canceled. No claim was added. Claims 18-20 are withdrawn.
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 August 27, 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 24, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “aspect ratio” renders the claim indefinite as the claim does not define which dimension are being referred to. In addition, ratio implies two different elements, thus should be represented by two numbers such as 1:10, 1:100. For purpose of examination, any dimension is considered as width to length. However, Applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jordan (US20190301000) and further as evidenced by Chen (Dense TiO2 Coating Using the Solution Precursor Plasma Spray Process) on claims 1-2, 6, 8, 10-11, 13 and 16-17 are withdrawn, because the claims have 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 Jordan (US20190301000) as evidenced by Chen (Dense TiO2 Coating Using the Solution Precursor Plasma Spray Process) as applied to claims 1-2, 6, 8, 10-11, 13 and 16-17, and further in view of Hazel (US20170016104) on claims 3 and 7 are withdrawn, because the claims have been amended.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan (US20190301000) as evidenced by Chen (Dense TiO2 Coating Using the Solution Precursor Plasma Spray Process) as applied to claims 1-2, 6, 8, 10-11, 13 and 16-17, and further in view of Darolia (US20080145674), on claims 4-5 are withdrawn, because the claims have been amended.
The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan (US20190301000) as evidenced by Chen (Dense TiO2 Coating Using the Solution Precursor Plasma Spray Process) as applied to claims 1-2, 6, 8, 10-11, 13 and 16-17, and further in view of Bast (US20040191544), on claim 9 is withdrawn, because the claim has been amended.
The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan (US20190301000) as evidenced by Chen (Dense TiO2 Coating Using the Solution Precursor Plasma Spray Process) as applied to claims 1-2, 6, 8, 10-11, 13 and 16-17, and further in view of Grossman (US20190169730), on claim 12 is withdrawn, because the claim has been amended.
The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan (US20190301000) as evidenced by Chen (Dense TiO2 Coating Using the Solution Precursor Plasma Spray Process) as applied to claims 1-2, 6, 8, 10-11, 13 and 16-17, and further in view of Bilhe (US20210277510), on claim 14 is withdrawn, because the claim has been amended.
The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan (US20190301000) as evidenced by Chen (Dense TiO2 Coating Using the Solution Precursor Plasma Spray Process) as applied to claims 1-2, 6, 8, 10-11, 13 and 16-17, and further in view of Darolia (US20080145674) and Gell (US20150044444), on claim 15 is withdrawn, because the claim has been amended.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8, 10-11, 13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan (US20190301000) in view of Gell (US20150044444) and further as evidenced by Chen (Dense TiO2 Coating Using the Solution Precursor Plasma Spray Process).
Regarding claim 1, Jordan teaches a method of forming a thermal barrier coating (TBC) having compositionally graded and porosity graded coating (abstract, paragraph 0011). Instant claim and specification do not define what is considered as non-linear gradient, thus, Jordan’s teaching of control desired flow vs time from different precursor sources A, B and C (first composition, second composition and third composition) (paragraph 0027) wherein the flow has continuously changing chemistry from different precursor sources over time is fed to the thermal spray process to make a continuously graded coating (paragraphs 0029-0030); and graded multi-layer coating with a dense inner layer, graded to a highly porous mid coating, then graded to a denser surface structure (paragraph 0046, figure 5B), all reads on the limitation of non-linear gradient. Jordan teaches to spraying a deposition mixture of a first precursor source A (a first composition) and a second precursor source B (a second composition) for a compositionally graded coating (paragraphs 0026-0030), or a mixture of a first precursor composition (a first composition) and an additive and/or organic solvent (a second composition for a porosity graded coating (paragraphs 0037- 0043) via a solution precursor plasma spray (SPPS) apparatus onto a surface of a substrate (paragraphs 0026 and 0046), while spraying the deposition mixture, adjusting the at least one deposition parameter such that the thermal barrier coating is formed with the non-linear gradient (paragraphs 0028-0030, flow rate of precursors A, B or C; paragraphs 0043, amount of additives or organic solvent). Jordan teaches liquid precursor forms splats in the SPPS (paragraphs 0024), thus, Jordan teaches the third composition comprises a plurality of nonspherical particles. In addition, it is reasonable expected some of the particles in the composition is nonspherical because even slightly less perfect sphere is considered as nonspherical. Furthermore, it is known that nonspherical particles are being produced from the liquid precursor and sprayed during SPPS (page 868 left column first paragraph, page 872 left column first paragraph, see figure 15).
Jordan does not explicitly teach the thermal barrier coating comprises vertical cracks. However, Gell teaches a YSZ thermal barrier coating formed by the solution precursor plasmas spray (SPPS) (abstract, paragraph 0031) (similar to Jordan). Gell teaches the coating has a vertical cracks extend from an outermost surface of the thermal barrier coating and the columnar structure can be generated by optimizing the standoff distance (paragraphs 0100, 0102, 0012 and 0030, figures 4, 9 and 22), wherein the vertical cracks have an aspect ratio of at least 10 (see figure 9). 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 include the vertical cracks in the thermal barrier coating as suggested by Gell in the method of Jordan because Gell teaches such vertical cracks are highly desired for enhanced coating compliance, and the coating with such microstructure would be highly strain-tolerant (paragraphs 100 and 0102).
Regarding claim 2, Jordan teaches to adjust the first flow rate of the first composition (A) to the SPPS apparatus according to a flow rate schedule (flow with continuously changing chemistry over time if fed to the SPPS), wherein the flow schedule is configured such that the thermal barrier coating is formed with non-linear compositional gradient of the first composition (paragraphs 0026-0030).
Regarding claim 6, Jordan teaches to adjust the second flow rate of the second composition (B) to the SPPS apparatus according to a flow rate schedule (flow with continuously changing chemistry over time if fed to the SPPS), wherein the flow schedule is configured such that the thermal barrier coating is formed with non-linear compositional gradient of the second composition (paragraphs 0026-0030).
Regarding claim, 8, Jordan teaches to adjust the third flow rate of the third composition (C) to the SPPS apparatus according to a flow rate schedule (flow with continuously changing chemistry over time if fed to the SPPS), wherein the flow schedule is configured such that the thermal barrier coating is formed with non-linear compositional gradient of the second composition (paragraphs 0026-0030).
Regarding claim 10, Jordan teaches to adjust the amount of additives and/or organic solvent or flow rate of the total precursor (paragraphs 0043-0044) to a parameter schedule, wherein the parameter schedule is configured such that the thermal barrier coating is formed with a non-linear porosity gradient (paragraphs 0046-0047, see figures 5A to 5C).
Regarding claim 11, the non-linear porosity gradient is defined by alternating periods of a relatively high porosity and a relatively low porosity in the thermal barrier coating (paragraphs 0046-0047, see figure 5B).
Regarding claim 13, Jordan teaches to adjust the plasma gas flow rate such that the parameter schedule is a plasma gas flow rate schedule that adjust the plasma gas flow rate of a plasma gas exciting the SPPS apparatus (claim 7).
Regarding claim 16, Jordan taches the at least one deposition parameter is continuously adjusted such that the thermal barrier coating is formed with the non-linear gradient that has a continuously changing non-linear gradient therein (paragraphs 0029, 0043-0044).
Regarding claim 17, Jordan teaches prior to spraying the deposition mixture, forming a bond coat on the surface of the surface, wherein he deposition mixture is sprayed onto the bond coat (paragraphs 0045-0047).
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan (US20190301000) in view of Gell (US20150044444) as evidenced by Chen (Dense TiO2 Coating Using the Solution Precursor Plasma Spray Process) as applied to claims 1-2, 6, 8, 10-11, 13 and 16-17 above, and further in view of Hazel (US20170016104).
Regarding claim 3, Jordan in view of Gell teaches all limitations of this claim, except the non-linear compositional gradient is defined by alternating periods of a relatively high concentration of the first composition and a relatively low concentration of the first composition in the thermal barrier coating. However, Hazel teaches a method of forming a plasma sprayed ceramic coating for thermal barrier coating (TBC) (abstract, paragraph 0028). Hazel teaches to form a multilayer thermal barrier coating comprising a first layer and a second layer in alternating series (paragraphs 0025), wherein one of the first or second layers comprises YSZ (paragraph 0055), which is the same TBC material in Jordan (see Jordan paragraph 0048). Since Jordan teaches the layers are compositional gradient of A and B precursors by continuously changing flow rates (gradient from mostly A with less B to mostly B with less A), the combination of Jordan and Hazel would result in an alternatively gradient layers (gradient from A to B to A to B), which requires alternating periods of relatively high concentration of the first composition (A) and relatively low concentration of the first composition in the thermal barrier coating. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternate the ceramic layers as disclosed by Hazel in the method of Jordan in view of Gell because Hazel teaches such method allows mix dissimilar chemistries which can be deployed for dual phase strengthen of coatings, and suitable for thermal barrier coatings for gas turbine engines (pargraph 0069).
Regarding claim 7, Jordan in view of Gell teaches all limitations of this claim, except the non-linear compositional gradient is defined by alternating periods of a relatively high concentration of the first composition and a relatively low concentration of the first composition in the thermal barrier coating. However, Hazel teaches a method of forming a plasma sprayed ceramic coating for thermal barrier coating (TBC) (abstract, paragraph 0028). Hazel teaches to form a multilayer thermal barrier coating comprising a first layer and a second layer in alternating series (paragraphs 0025), wherein one of the first or second layers comprises YSZ (paragraph 0055), which is the same TBC material in Jordan (see Jordan paragraph 0048). Since Jordan teaches the layers are compositional gradient of A and B precursors by continuously changing flow rates (gradient from mostly A with less B to mostly B with less A), the combination of Jordan and Hazel would result in an alternatively gradient layers (gradient from A to B to A to B), which requires alternating periods of relatively high concentration of the second composition (B) and relatively low concentration of the second composition in the thermal barrier coating. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternate the ceramic layers as disclosed by Hazel in the method of Jordan in view of Gell because Hazel teaches such method allows mix dissimilar chemistries which can be deployed for dual phase strengthen of coatings, and suitable for thermal barrier coatings for gas turbine engines (pargraph 0069).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan (US20190301000) in view of Gell (US20150044444) as evidenced by Chen (Dense TiO2 Coating Using the Solution Precursor Plasma Spray Process) as applied to claims 1-2, 6, 8, 10-11, 13 and 16-17 above, and further in view of Darolia (US20080145674).
Regarding claim 4, Jordan in view of Gell teaches all limitations of this claim, including the precursor can be rare earth stabilized zirconia, YSZ (yttria stabilized zirconia) (paragraph 0048). However, Jordan does not explicitly teach the rare earth (Y) has a gradient through the thermal barrier coating. Darolia teaches a method of forming a YSZ multilayer thermal barrier coating (abstract, paragraphs 0001 and 0027). Darolia teaches the rare earth have a gradient though the thermal barrier coating (paragraphs 0024, 0027, claim 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the YSZ TBC with rare earth (Y) gradient through the TBC as suggested by Darolia in the method of Jordan in view of Gell, because Darolia teaches such composition gradients provide the TBC with enhanced resistance to contaminants, such as CMAS to gas turbine engine components that operate at temperatures above the melting temperatures of the contaminants (paragraph 0008).
Regarding claim 5, Darolia teaches the rare earth varies from 4 to 8 wt% to at least 20 wt% (paragraphs 0026-0027).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan (US20190301000) in view of Gell (US20150044444) as evidenced by Chen (Dense TiO2 Coating Using the Solution Precursor Plasma Spray Process) as applied to claims 1-2, 6, 8, 10-11, 13 and 16-17 above, and further in view of Bast (US20040191544).
Regarding claim 9, Jordan in view of Gell teaches all limitations of this claim, except the nonspherical particles comprises fibers. However. Bast teaches a method of forming a thermal barrier coating by plasmas spraying (paragraphs 0002, 0011 and 0013) (similar to Jordan). Bast teaches to add a second phase fiber particles to the ceramic matrix to form the TBC (paragraphs 0031, 0026-0028), wherein the second phase (third composition) is introduced to the plasma apparatus (paragraph 0031). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the nonspherical particles as fibers in the TBC coating as suggested by Bast in the method of Jordan in view of Gell because Bast teaches such fiber improves the mechanical strength of the TBC (paragraphs 0007-0008).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan (US20190301000) in view of Gell (US20150044444) as evidenced by Chen (Dense TiO2 Coating Using the Solution Precursor Plasma Spray Process) as applied to claims 1-2, 6, 8, 10-11, 13 and 16-17 above, and further in view of Grossman (US20190169730).
Regarding claim 12, Jordan in view of Gell teaches all limitations of this claim, except the process parameter is a plasma temperature of the deposition mixture exciting the SPPS apparatus. However, Grossman teaches a method for controlling the porosity parameter of the thermal barrier coating (abstract). Grossman teaches to controls the temperature of the feedstock to achieve desired porosity of the coating (paragraph 0037). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the temperature of the feedstock (deposition mixture) as suggested by Grossman in the method in Jordan in view of Gell because Grossman teaches adjusting the temperature of the feedstock changes the porosity of the TBC (paragraphs 0037-0038).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan (US20190301000) in view of Gell (US20150044444) as evidenced by Chen (Dense TiO2 Coating Using the Solution Precursor Plasma Spray Process) as applied to claims 1-2, 6, 8, 10-11, 13 and 16-17 above, and further in view of Bilhe (US20210277510).
Regarding claim 14, Jordan in view of Gell teaches all limitations of this claim, except the sintering step. However, Bilhe teaches a method of forming a YSZ thermal barrier layer (paragraphs 0001 and 0014-0015) and discloses to sinter the plasma sprayed YSZ TBC layer (paragraphs 0015-0018). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to sinter the sprayed YSZ TBC layer as suggested by Bilhe in the method of Jordan in view of Gell because Bilhe teaches said sintering of the layer causes hardening thereof; it reduces porosity and leads to improved erosion resistance (paragraph 0018).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan (US20190301000) in view of Gell (US20150044444) as evidenced by Chen (Dense TiO2 Coating Using the Solution Precursor Plasma Spray Process) as applied to claims 1-2, 6, 8, 10-11, 13 and 16-17 above, and further in view of Darolia (US20080145674) and Gell (US20150044444).
Regarding claim 15, Gell teaches a thermal barrier coating (abstract) and discloses the thermal conductivity of as-sprayed SPPS YSZ is between 0.9 and 1.2 W/mK (from 100 to 1200ºC). Since Jordan also teaches a SPPS YSZ layer, thus, Jordan’s TBC inherently have the same thermal conductivity of 0.9 and 1.2 W/mK (from 100 to 1200ºC) which overlaps with the claimed range. 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.
Thus, Jordan in view of Gell teaches all limitations of this claim, except the thickness. However, Darolia teaches a method of forming a YSZ multilayer thermal barrier coating (abstract, paragraphs 0001 and 0027), and discloses the total thickness of the YSZ TBC is 25 to 508 micrometer plus 13 to 1524 micrometers (paragraphs 0028), which overlaps with the claimed range. 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 use the similar thickness as suggested by Darolia for the YSZ TBC layer in Jordan in view of Gell because Darolia teaches such layers provides sufficient thickness to provide the desired level of contaminant resistance and thermal protection (paragraph 0028).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on November 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
Gell does not teach the claimed aspect ratio of the vertical crack
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
As discussed above in 112 rejections, the aspect ratio is not properly defined in the claim. Since Gell teaches the vertical cracks with appears aspect ratio of at least 10 (see figure 9), Gell’s vertical cracks reads on the claimed limitations.
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