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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/07/22 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The NPL publications which were not provided with the 12/07/22 IDS are lined through on this document. These NPL documents were later listed on the 12/21/22 IDS and are considered therein as they were provided with that IDS.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-8, 10-12, 14, 16, 18, 21, and 23 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/28/25.
Applicant's election with traverse of the invention of group 5, claims 26-28 and 30, in the reply filed on 10/28/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the amendment to the claims render the claims as having a special technical feature. This is not found persuasive because the materials used by Chen are the same as those instantly disclosed (See Pages 10-11 of WO publication). The compositions created are combinations of Yttrium and aluminum oxide with a dopant in a variety of crystal structures, such as YAG, YAM, YAP and simple oxides (See WO section Y-Al-O). These are the same as those compositions and structures described by Chen in Figure 1. It is further noted that the first process in Figure 1 shows a 2 step process wherein the first step creates crystalline material and a second crystalline material is created through thermal exposure at a higher temperature. The various structures described as meeting the function of claim 1 (Such as those materials disclosed at pages 10-11) are well known in the art and described at least by Chen. The discovery of a new use, function, or property of a known material does not render the old material patentably distinct and the material itself does not represent a contribution over the prior art. Thus the amended features of claim 1 cannot be considered a special technical feature.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 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) 26-28, 30, 32-33, 35-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabhiou in their publication “Phosphorescent thermal history sensors” in view of Feist in US20110069735.
Regarding Claim 26: Rabhiou teaches a material that may be used as a material for determining thermal history. The material of Rabhiou is a temperature sensitive material of composition Y2SiO5:Tb (ceramic oxide host Y2SiO5; luminescent dopant Tb). Rabhiou teaches that the material shows various emission spectra and decay lifetimes based upon its thermal history and may be useful for showing thermal histories up to 1400C (See Section 4.1.5). Rabhiou teaches that the phosphor composition has a low temperature phase (X1) and a high temperature phase (X2; phase transformation at or above its crystalline temperature) and luminescence changes with said phase change (See Figure 5). Rabhiou teaches that this phase appears at temperatures above 1200C (See Section 4.1.1). Rabhiou teaches that it is known that thermal history can be ascertained by phase changes within a material (See Section 3.2). Therefore, those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the phosphor of Rabhiou in an X1 phase and use it as a thermal history material to detect exposure to temperatures in the range between 1200 and 1400C based on such a phase change. Rabhiou teaches that the detection material (DM), Y2SiO-5:Tb, may be provided with a reference material (RM) that is not affected by the temperature (See Section 4.1.4).
Rabhiou teaches that the material as a thermal paint but is silent in terms of its actual use in a method of determining a thermal history of the material.
However, Feist teaches that the thermal history of such a material may be determined by using a monitoring system to determine the thermal history of the component following subjection to a high-temperature environment from the lifetime decay of the detection material, where the lifetime decay is used to determine the thermal history of the component by comparing to a look-up table or fitted to a curve . Thus Feist teaches obtaining at least one first measurement of luminescence as a function of time from the material (decay is time dependent; See Paragraph 94)
Feist also teaches that the thermal history of such a material may be determined by using a monitoring system to determine the thermal history of the component following subjection to a high-temperature environment from a ratio of the intensity of an emission line from the DM to that of the RM at various wavelengths, wherein the intensity ratio is used to determine the thermal history of the component from a look-up table or fitted to a curve. Thus Feist teaches obtaining at least one second measurement of luminescent as a function of wavelength from the material (See Paragraph 93).
Feist teaches that these first and second measurements are compared to a look-up table (calibration data for the material) or fitted to a curve to determine a temperature to which the material has been subjected (thermal history of the material). Feist teaches that both of these measurements can be used concurrently to ascertain such a temperature (See Paragraph 95).
Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the material of Rabhiou in the detection system of Feist and would have found it obvious to use any of the thermal history concepts as set forth in section 3 of Rabhiou in order to determine thermal history. On this basis it would have been obvious to provide a crystalline composition of phase X1, which has luminescence that is a function of one or more phase transformations of the material above its X1 crystalline temperature, in order to determine if the material was exposed to temperatures between 1200 to 1400C as is set forth by Rabhiou. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the detection system of Feist as it provides for multiple means for ascertaining thermal history and allows for determination of thermal history based on both decay and wavelength concurrently, which are both reported as varying with temperature by Rabhiou. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the system of Feist as it is the conventional means for determining thermal history of turbines and is compatible with materials that undergo a state (phase) change (See Paragraph 15-17).
Regarding Claim 27: Feist teaches that the decay measurements are acquired from an average of fifteen pulses of the excitation light (See Paragraph 109-110). Thus the at least one first measurement of lifetime decay in the process of Rabhiou in view of Feist is following pulsed excitation.
Regarding Claim 28: Feist shows by way of example that the amplitude of lifetime decay in the first measurement can be correlated to thermal history (See Figure 7 and 8a; Paragraph 107-109).
Regarding Claim 30: Feist teaches that the second measurement may be in terms of determining a ratio of the intensity of two emission peaks (See Paragraph 93).
Regarding Claim 32-33: Feist teaches that the second measurement is in terms of an emission spectrum of the material (See Paragraph 93). Rabhiou shows such a spectra in Figure 9.
Regarding Claim 35: Rabhiou teaches that the temperature that may be determined is from 1200-1400C (See Section 4.1.5 and Figure 4-5).
Regarding Claim 36-37: Feist teaches that the thermal history material may be provided to a substrate as a coating by an air plasma spraying method (See Paragraph 105).
Regarding Claim 38: Rabhiou teaches that the material may be provided as a powder (See Section 4).
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabhiou in view of Feist as applied to claim 26 above, as evidenced by Choi in their publication “Luminescence and decay behaviors of Tb-doped yttrium silicate”.
Rabhiou in view of Feist teach a method for determining a luminescent material according to claim 26 as is set forth above.
Rabhiou in view of Feist is silence in terms of the decay rate of the Y2SiO5:Tb phosphor.
However, decay rate of Y2SiO5:Tb is a material property. Choi evidences that the decay rate of such a phosphor is either single-exponential or multi-exponential as is shown in Figure 5. The decay rate of Rabhiou’s phosphor is necessarily the same as that of Choi as it is the same material. It is noted that Choi is not relied upon as prior art and is only used in an evidentiary capacity.
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabhiou in view of Feist as applied to claim 26, 35 and 37 above, and further in view of Kang in their publication “Luminescence Characteristics of Y2SiO5:Tb Phosphor Particles Directly Prepared by the Spray Pyrolysis Method”.
Rabhiou in view of Feist teach a method for determining a luminescent material according to claim 26, 35 and 37 as is set forth above.
Rabhiou in view of Feist are silent in terms of preparing an X1 type yttrium silicate through a spray drying and sintering process.
However, Kang teaches a means of providing phosphor powders of X1 type Y2SiO5:Tb. Kang teaches that a solution containing tetraethylorthosilicate (TEOS), yttrium nitrate (at least two precursors) and terbium nitrate (a dopant) is created. The solution is atomized with a ultrasonic spray generator operated at a temperature between 600 and 1200C, which would necessarily dry the solutions as set forth providing precursor particles. The powder as created is then sintered at a temperature between 800 and 1400C to provide crystalline powders (See Experimental section). Kang shows in Figure 2 that the powder may be provided with an X1 type crystal phase by sintering at a temperature between 1000 and 1200C (ceramic oxide powder). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the various materials of Rabhiou by the processes of Kang as Rabhiou explicitly references Kang as a suitable means for creating such materials (See Section 4 of Rabhiou). Those of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to create the X1 material of Kang for use in a phase-change thermal history sensor as is taught by Rabhiou (See Section 3.2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW E HOBAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/Matthew E. Hoban/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734