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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7 and 9 are pending. Independent claim 7 is amended. Claims 1, 3-4 and 6 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant's amendment filed 7/30/2025.
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed with respect to the rejection of present claims 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strangman et al. (US 2006/0024528; “Strangman”) in view of Apte et al. (US 2008/0199722; “Apte”) have been fully considered, but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection based on Strangman in view of newly discovered reference EP 2612954 to Calla et al. as discussed in detail in the body of the rejections below.
Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated in the present Office Action, are hereby withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strangman et al. (US 2006/0024528; “Strangman”) in view of EP 2612954 to Calla et al. (“Calla”).
Regarding independent claim 7, Strangman teaches a coating film (film 10, para [0013]-[0015], Fig. 1) comprising:
- a bond coating (bond coating layer 24]) obtained by baking a coating material including a coarsely particulate ceramic and a finely particulate ceramic (para [0006] [0014] [0021], the bond coating layer 24 is of an oxide composition includes alumina, which is ceramic material) on a base material (the base material 20, para [0014], Fig. 1, while the specific embodiment of Fig.1 shows the inclusion of a insulation layer 22, Strangman teaches at para [0014] the layer 22 is optional, thus, in the embodiment of Strangman not including such insulation layer 22, the coating layer 24 is on the base material 20, meeting the claimed structural limitations) configured with an oxide-based ceramics matrix composite (para [0018], the base material 20 is of an oxide-based ceramics matrix composite, i.e., alumina matrix, meeting the claimed material limitations); and
- a top coating (top coating layer 26) formed by thermally spraying a ceramic onto the bond coating (bond coating 24) (para [0014], Fig. 1, top coating layer 26/bonding coating 24/base material 20 in this order, meeting the claimed structural limitation), wherein the top coating is a zirconia abradable top coating (para [0024], the suitable materials for the top coating layer 26 include zirconia).
PNG
media_image1.png
540
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It should be noted that the recitation that the bond coating is “obtained by baking a coating material” of claim 7 is considered as product-by-process limitation. It is the examiner’s position that the recited process does not result in a patentably distinctive structural difference in the resultant bond coating. Also, it should be noted that the recitation that the top coating is “formed by thermally spraying” of claim 7 is considered as product-by-process limitation. It is the examiner’s position that the recited process does not result in a patentably distinctive structural difference in the resultant top coating.
In addition, the recitation of claim 7 that a first bond coating “obtained by sintering … are mixed at a first proportion …”, and a second bond coating “obtained by sintering … are mixed at a second proportion …” are considered as product-by-process limitations. It is the examiner’s position that the recited process of sintering and/or mixing does not result in a patentably distinctive structural difference in the resultant first bond coating and the resultant second bond coating, and the recited process merely results in bonding coating that includes a first bonding coating and a second bonding coating, and the proportion of coarsely particulate ceramic and the finely particulate ceramic in the second bond coating is lower than the proportion of coarsely particulate ceramic and the finely particulate ceramic in the first bond coating. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. [E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Strangman teaches its bond coating (bond coating layer 24]) is of ceramic material, i.e., an oxide composition includes alumina (para [0006] [0014] [0021]). Strangman does not specifically teach in the bonding coating, a proportion of coarse particles decreases towards a surface of the bond coating, and that the bonding coating includes a first bonding coating and a second bonding coating, and the proportion of coarsely particulate ceramic and the finely particulate ceramic in the second bond coating is lower than the proportion of coarsely particulate ceramic and the finely particulate ceramic in the first bond coating.
Calla teaches cold spraying process of applying multilayer bond coatings to substrate/article to provide good wear resistance and longer operating life (para [0013]). Calla teaches utilizing a multi-modal size distribution of powdered material feedstock to achieve a bond coat layer with a microstructure that consists of a mixture of fine grains and coarse grains, wherein the fine grains are mixed with the coarse grains of same or different materials (para [0013] [0015]), Calla further teaches that the bond coating can be applied as a plurality of bond coating layers (para [0005] [0007] [0020]), of which the bond coating layers comprising desired gradient multi-modal particle size distribution, i.e., a larger particle size distribution of one bond coating layer, and a smaller particle size distribution of the subsequent bond coating layer (para [0005] [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coating film of Strangman in view the teachings of Calla, to have incorporated the multilayer bond coating as taught by Calla in the coating film of Strangman, such as to provide a multilayer bond coating including a first bond coating having a larger particle size distribution (i.e., having a (first) proportion of more coarser particles) as the first/inner bond coating layer, and a second bond coating having a smaller particle size distribution (i.e., having a (second) proportion of lesser coarser particles) as the second/outer bond coating layer (i.e., starting with the top coating/a second bond coating with finer particle size/a first bond coating with coarser particle size/substrate) as taught by Calla (para [0005] [0007] [0020]), such that the second bond coating having a proportion of coarse particles lower than that in the first proportion of the first bond coating, to provide a coating film with good wear resistance and longer operating life as taught by Calla (para [0013]), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory coating film that is the same as instantly claimed, i.e., in the bonding coating, a proportion of coarse particles decreases towards a surface of the bond coating, and that the bonding coating includes a first bonding coating and a second bonding coating, and the proportion of coarsely particulate ceramic and the finely particulate ceramic in the second bond coating is lower than the proportion of coarsely particulate ceramic and the finely particulate ceramic in the first bond coating.
Regarding claim 9, Strangman teaches its coating film is suitable for application to a turbine shroud as an inner surface (para [0008]).
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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAN LAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM-4PM.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 5712728935. 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.
/YAN LAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782