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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/21/25 has been entered, claims 1, 4, and 8-17 are currently pending.
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, 4, 8-14, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Golden et al (US 2021/0221749; hereafter Golden) in view of Kirby et al (US 2010/0154422; hereafter Kirby), Kaneko et al (EP 0228022; hereafter Kaneko), Freling et al (US 2017/0176007; hereafter Freling), Tang et al (US 2021/0071537; hereafter Tang), and Kirby et al (US 2016/0108510; hereafter Kirby510).
Claims 1, 4, and 14: Golden teaches a method for manufacturing an environmental barrier (see, for example, abstract, Fig 1, [0012-0013], [0017], [0034]),
the method comprising the following steps:
coating a rare earth silicate powder with a precursor of a densification agent (additional material acts as sintering aid to densify the coating) in order to form a rare earth silicate (such as RE-disilicate) powder coated with the precursor of the densification agent (such as core-shell powders) (See, for example, [0017], [0021] [0051]);
thermally spraying the coated powder onto a substrate in order to obtain an at least partially amorphous environmental barrier on the substrate (See, for example, [0057]);
and thermally treating the environmental barrier in order to crystallize and densify the environmental barrier (see, for example, [0057].
Golden teaches the method of claim 1 above, but is silent as to appropriate means to achieve coated particles for use in the taught method. Kirby is similarly directed to providing EBCs for CMC articles, and particularly wherein the feedstock for the barrier coating is in the form of coated particles, further still wherein the core particle is a rare-earth silicate (see, for example, abstract, [0022], [0026], [0039]). Kirby further teaches wherein such coated particles can be accomplished by any conventional method known in the art, and further describes coating via a gas process or wet process, such as a solution / sol gel process, wherein the process further involves fluidization in a solvent and organometallic precursor (see, for example, [0039-0041]). 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 the coating via a wet process further wherein the core powder (a rare earth silicate powder) is fluidized in a solution comprising a solvent and an organometallic precursor of the coating material (densification agent) since such methods are conventional in the art and predictably achieve the result of providing a coated rare-earth silicate feedstock powder; and since when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference.
Golden in view of Kirby teach the method above wherein the rare earth silicate powder is immersed in a solution comprising a solvent and the precursor of the densification agent to form a coated powder (see, for example, [0039-0041] of Kirby). The examiner notes that the method of Kirby includes drying the mixture (See, for example, [0039]) to at least form a mass of dried particles which would imply an agglomeration of said particles, but they are silent as to the morphology of the resulting formed coated powder so they do not explicitly teach an agglomerated coating powder and further subsequent deagglomeration to form the coated powder. Kaneko teaches a method of obtaining a powder coated via a immersing the core powder in a solution of solvent and coating precursor for providing a feedstock for protective turbine applications (see, for example, abstract, pg 2). Kaneko further teaches and evidences wherein during evaporation of solvent / heat treatment / drying the powder mixture undergoes agglomeration to some extent, and the agglomerates should be broken up to avoid deterioration of strength and promote improved density and strength in the end use product (See, for example, pg 3 lines 3-27). Therefore if not already implicit that agglomeration of powders would have resulted, 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 performed the evaporation resulting in agglomerated powders since such steps result in predictable precursor coated powder and it further 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 deagglomerated the agglomerated dried powders since it would predictably avoid deterioration of strength and promote improved density and strength in the end use product. Kaneko further teaches wherein the drying / evaporation is predictably performed 80-100oC (See, for example, pg 3 lines 3-27, and pg 4 examples). Although such a drying temperature is not explicitly 90oC, 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 a temperature 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), and / or since generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical.(MPEP 2144.05 II A)
Golden has taught wherein the densification agent / shell material on the coated substrate surface is metal oxide (see, for example [0017], [0021]) and Kirby has taught wherein the predictability of using organometallic precursors for achieving such metal oxide materials (See, for example, [0039-0041]). But they do not explicitly teach dehydration and oxidation of the organometallic precursor during thermal spraying to form the desired metal oxide densification agent around the rare earth silicate powder. Freling is directed to thermal spraying protective barrier coatings onto turbine components (See, for example, abstract, [0002-0004]). Freling further teaches wherein it is well known in the art for metal oxide precursors in combination with suspended powder particles to be used in the thermal spray feedstock and converted to the desired metal oxide materials during flight (See, for example, [0025], [0051-54]). 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 thermal spraying of the organometallic precursor coated particles as the feedstock for thermally spraying the desired metal oxide core/ shell derived barrier coating since such precursors are known to predictably dry and undergo oxidization conversion into desired metal oxides while in flight during thermal spraying, and as such an incorporation would reduce the number of heat treatment processes by shifting the conversion into the thermal spray process, and since selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946).
Golden in view of Kirby, Kaneko, and Freling have taught wherein the coated powder is a core shell powder comprising the precursor on the surface of the rare earth silicate core powder (see above), but is silent as the structure of the core shell powder, so it does not explicitly teach the precursor shell comprises particles. Tang teaches a method of preparing environmental barrier coatings comprising using engineered rare earth silicate/additive core /shell particles in order to predictably provide the additive phase at grain boundaries of the applied structure (See, for example, abstract, [0007], [0023], [0058], [0074], [0079-81]). Tang further teaches wherein engineered core shell particles provided as a core coated powder having particles of the additive present thereon as the shell limits the fine shell particles from agglomerating and segregating, and achieves preferential placement of additive / shell material at grain boundaries of a deposited EBC (see, for example, [0079-0084], Fig 8). 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 the coated powder as having particles formed by the precursor of the densification agent present on surface of the rare-earth silicate powder as such a structure is a known and predictable core-shell granule in the art which limits the fine shell particles from agglomerating and segregating, and further provides the predictable benefit of achieving well dispersed additive shell phase through the grain -boundaries.
Golden has further taught implementing a prescribed heat treatment of the environmental barrier in order to crystallize and densify it at a temperature of from 700oC to 1600oC, further up to 1500oC for a CMC substrate (see, for example, [0057], [0068]). Although such a teaching is not explicitly up to 1300oC, 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 up to 1300oC 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). Golden is silent as to an appropriate ramp rate, so it does not explicitly teach a ramp rate of 100oC/hr for the crystallizing / densification treatment. Kirby510 teaches a method of manufacturing an environmental barrier, further comprising rare earth silicate applied via thermal spray (See, for example abstract). Like Golden, Kirby510 similarly teaches a densification thermal treatment following thermal spraying, such as at temperature of from 1100oC to 1700oC, with exemplary embodiments at 1315oC (See, for example, [0052-0054] and Table 4). Kirby510 further teaches wherein a predictable rate to heat the samples for densification is from 1oC/min to 15oC/min (60oC/hr to 900oC/hr) (see, for example, [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 ramp rate at a value within 60oC/hr to 900oC/hr since such a rate is recognized in the prior art to predictably perform densification treatment for rare earth silicate EBCs deposited via thermal spraying, and since when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference. Although such a range is not explicitly 100oC / hr, 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 a ramp rate 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 8: Golden further teaches wherein the substrate is a ceramic matrix composite material substrate (see, for example, abstract, [0005]).
Claim 9: Golden further teaches wherein the environmental barrier comprises a bonding layer (such as bond coat 14) (See, for example, Fig 1, [0029-31]).
Claim 10: Golden further teaches wherein the EBC comprises a yttrium disilicate layer comprising the densification agent (See, for example, Fig 1, [0017], [0021], [0023], [0035], [0051], [0061].
Claim 11: refer to the rejection of claim 10 above, and Golden further teaches wherein the EBC further comprises a silica layer (such as via oxidation of silicon bond coat) at the interface between the yttrium disilicate layer and the bonding layer (see, for example, [0015]).
Claim 12: Golden further teaches wherein the densification agent is a sintering agent including magnesium or iron oxide (See, for example, [0017])
Claim 13: Golden further teaches wherein the densification agent is a healing agent that includes at least one of mullite or silica (see, for example, [0017], [0046], [0056]).
Claim 16: Golden has taught wherein the densification agent / shell material on the coated substrate surface is metal oxide, further magnesium oxide (see, for example [0017], [0021], [0038], [0086]) and Kirby has taught wherein the predictability of using organometallic precursors, further alkaline earth acetates, for achieving such metal oxide materials (See, for example, [0039-0041]). Although not explicitly stating magnesium acetate as the precursor of the densification agent, 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 magnesium acetate as magnesium is an alkaline earth, and as magnesium oxide is explicitly desired to be formed from the precursor, thus directly leading to the selection of magnesium acetate from the disclosed alkaline earth acetates, and / or 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 17: Golden in view of Kirby, Kaneko, Freling, Tang, and Kirby510 teach the method of claim 1 above. Golden further teaches wherein the EBC comprises from 1 to 30 vol% phases formed from additive materials (inclusive of densification agent). Kaneko further teaches wherein a suitable amount of particular sintering additive oxide (such as MgO) comprises 0.56, 0.84, 1.4, 2, 3, or 5% by weight (See, for example, Examples and Table 1 (pg 8) wherein as ratios of the oxides are presented each particular oxide is taught at a fraction of the total percentages (such as 1:1 ratio of 6% would result in 3% of a singular particular oxide)). Although no singular exemplary embodiment of Golden explicitly teaches the agent at a value within the claimed range, 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 an amount 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) and / or since amounts such as 0.56, 0.84, 1.4, 2, 3, or 5% by weight have been demonstrated in the art as suitable concentrations for a densification agent to perform its intended function predictably and / or since generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical.(MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Golden in view of Kirby, Kaneko, Freling, Tang, and Kirby510 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Bolcavage et al (US 2020/0277694; hereafter Bolcavage).
Claim 15: Golden in view of Kirby, Kaneko, Freling, Tang, and Kirby510 teach the method of claim 1 above, wherein by combination a thermal treatment temperature of 1300oC for densification had been obviated (see above). Kirby510 has further taught 50 hrs as a predictable duration for a densification thermal treatment hold (See, for example, Table 4). As the articles are taught to be heat treated for a finite duration, there would inherently involve a decrease in temperature or cooling down to ambience upon cessation of thermal treatment, but they are silent as to the conditions of such cooling, so they do not explicitly teach a cooling ramp of 100oC/hr down to 20oC. Bolcavage teaches a method of heat treatment of thermally sprayed EBC coatings, further those of RE-disilicate (see, for example, abstract, [0004], [0013]). Bolcavage further teaches wherein controlling the post -deposition temperature cooling rate at a level of about 5oC/min or less (300oC / hr or less) to a temperature of 500oC or less can allow for control over the transition from amorphous to crystalline phase in the EBC in a manner that minimizes internal stresses of the EBC system and relaxes the EBC system (see, for example, [0015-16], [0052-0053]). 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 controlling the decrease in temperature to 300oC/hr or less down to at or below 500oC since it would predictably enhance control over crystallization behavior and provide for reduction of internal EBC stress. Although such a range is not 100oC / hr down to approximately 20oC, 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 a rate and endpoint temperature 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) 1, 4, 8-14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenzweig et al (US 2016/0003063; hereafter Rosenzweig) in view of Kirby, Kaneko, Freling, Tang, and Kirby510.
Claims 1, 4, and 14 : Rosenzweig teaches a method for manufacturing an environmental barrier (see, for example, abstract, Fig 1-3, [0011]),
the method comprising the following steps:
thermally spraying a powder mixture comprising a rare earth silicate onto a substrate in order to obtain an at least partially amorphous environmental barrier on the substrate (See, for example, [0016], [0049]);
and thermally treating the environmental barrier in order to crystallize and densify the environmental barrier (see, for example, [0016], [0049]).
Rosenzweig further teaches wherein the feedstock spray powder comprises a densification agent (ceramic material / aluminosilicate material) in addition to the rare-earth silicate, as the densification agents presence is intended to reduce porosity via flowing and sealing pores (see, for example, abstract, [0027-0031]). Rosenzweig further teaches where a common source of such porosity that needs to be sealed is attributed to intersplat boundaries formed via thermal spray (see, for example, [0004]), but it does not explicitly teach coating the rare earth silicate powder with a precursor of the densification agent in order to form a rare earth silicate powder coated with the precursor of the densification agent. Kirby is similarly directed to providing EBCs for CMC articles, and particularly wherein the feedstock for the barrier coating is a mixture of phases further comprising a rare-earth silicate and a phase intended to reside at grain boundaries (see, for example, abstract, [0022], [0026], [0039]). Kirby further teaches wherein such grain boundary phases can be predictably achieved by coating the rare earth silicate powders with a precursor of the boundary phase (See, for example, [0039]). 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 coated the rare earth silicate powder with a precursor of the densification, as it would predictably improve the targeted sealing / densification by more reliably positioning the densification agent at intersplat boundaries, wherein its intended purpose of sealing pores common to such boundaries is desired.
Kirby further teaches wherein the coated particles can be accomplished by any conventional method known in the art, and further describes coating via a wet process, such as a solution / sol gel process, wherein the process further involves fluidization in a solvent and organometallic precursor (see, for example, [0039-0041]).
Rosenzweig in view of Kirby teach the method above wherein the rare earth silicate powder is immersed in a solution comprising a solvent and the precursor of the organometallic densification agent and subsequent solvent evaporation to form a coated powder (see, for example, [0039-0041] of Kirby). The examiner notes that the method of Kirby includes drying the mixture (see, for example, [0039]) to at least form a mass of dried particles which would imply an agglomeration of said particles, but they are silent as to the morphology of the resulting formed coated powder so they do not explicitly teach an agglomerated coating powder and further subsequent deagglomeration to form the coated powder. Kaneko teaches a method of obtaining a powder coated via a immersing the core powder in a solution of solvent and coating precursor for providing a feedstock for protective turbine applications (see, for example, abstract, pg 2). Kaneko further teaches and evidences wherein during evaporation of solvent / heat treatment / drying the powder mixture undergoes agglomeration to some extent, and the agglomerates should be broken up to avoid deterioration of strength and promote improved density and strength in the end use product (See, for example, pg 3 lines 3-27). Therefore if not already implicit that agglomeration of powders would have resulted, 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 performed the evaporation resulting in agglomerated powders since such steps result in predictable precursor coated powder and it further 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 deagglomerated the agglomerated dried powders since it would predictably avoid deterioration of strength and promote improved density and strength in the end use product. Kaneko further teaches wherein the drying / evaporation is predictably performed 80-100oC (See, for example, pg 3 lines 3-27, and pg 4 examples). Although such a drying temperature is not explicitly 90oC, 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 a temperature 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), and / or since generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical.(MPEP 2144.05 II A)
Rosenzweig has taught wherein the densification agent / shell material on the coated substrate surface is metal oxide (see, for example [0031]) and Kirby has taught wherein the predictability of using organometallic precursors for achieving such metal oxide materials (See, for example, [0039-0041]). But they do not explicitly teach dehydration and oxidation of the organometallic precursor during thermal spraying to form the desired metal oxide densification agent around the rare earth silicate powder. Freling is directed to thermal spraying protective barrier coatings onto turbine components (See, for example, abstract, [0002-0004]). Freling further teaches wherein it is well known in the art for metal oxide precursors in combination with suspended powder particles to be used in the thermal spray feedstock and converted to the desired metal oxide materials during flight (See, for example, [0025], [0051-54]). 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 thermal spraying of the organometallic precursor coated particles as the feedstock for thermally spraying the desired metal oxide core/ shell derived barrier coating since such precursors are known to predictably dry and undergo oxidization conversion into desired metal oxides while in flight during thermal spraying, and as such an incorporation would reduce the number of heat treatment processes by shifting the conversion into the thermal spray process, and since selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946).
Rosenzweig in view of Kirby, Kaneko, and Freling have taught wherein the coated powder is a core shell powder comprising the precursor on the surface of the rare earth silicate core powder (see above), but is silent as the structure of the core shell powder, so it does not explicitly teach the precursor shell comprises particles. Tang teaches a method of preparing environmental barrier coatings comprising using engineered rare earth silicate/additive core /shell particles in order to predictably provide the additive phase at grain boundaries of the applied structure (See, for example, abstract, [0007], [0023], [0058], [0074], [0079-81]). Tang further teaches wherein engineered core shell particles provided as a core coated powder having particles of the additive present thereon as the shell limits the fine shell particles from agglomerating and segregating, and achieves preferential placement of additive / shell material at grain boundaries of a deposited EBC (see, for example, [0079-0084], Fig 8). 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 the coated powder as having particles formed by the precursor of the densification agent present on surface of the rare-earth silicate powder as such a structure is a known and predictable core-shell granule in the art which limits the fine shell particles from agglomerating and segregating, and further provides the predictable benefit of achieving well dispersed additive shell phase through the grain -boundaries.
Rosenzweig has further taught implementing a prescribed heat treatment of the environmental barrier in order to crystallize and densify it at a temperature of from about 800oC to 1350oC (see, for example, [0016], [0043], [0049] [0062]). Although such a teaching is not explicitly up to 1300oC, 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 up to 1300oC 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). Rosenzweig is silent as to an appropriate ramp rate, so it does not explicitly teach a ramp rate of 100oC/hr for the thermal treatment. Kirby510 teaches a method of manufacturing an environmental barrier, further comprising rare earth silicate applied via thermal spray (See, for example abstract). Like Rosenzweig, Kirby510 similarly teaches a densification thermal treatment following thermal spraying, such as at temperature of from 1100oC to 1700oC, with exemplary embodiments at 1315oC (See, for example, [0052-0054] and Table 4). Kirby510 further teaches wherein a predictable rate to heat the samples for densification is from 1oC/min to 15oC/min (60oC/hr to 900oC/hr) (see, for example, [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 ramp rate at a value within 60oC/hr to 900oC/hr since such a rate is recognized in the prior art to predictably perform densification treatment for rare earth silicate EBCs deposited via thermal spraying, and since when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference. Although such a range is not explicitly 100oC / hr, 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 a ramp rate 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 8: Rosenzweig further teaches wherein the substrate is a ceramic matrix composite material substrate (see, for example, [0022]).
Claim 9: Rosenzweig further teaches wherein the environmental barrier comprises a bonding layer (such as bond coat 204) (See, for example, Fig 2, [0052]).
Claim 10: refer to the rejection of claim 1 above with respect to the EBC comprising the RE silicate and a densification agent, Rosenzweig further teaches wherein the RE silicate further comprises yttrium disilicate (See, for example, [0004], [0036], [0040], and [0062]).
Claim 11: refer to the rejection of claim 10 above, and Rosenzweig further teaches wherein the EBC further comprises a silica layer (such as formation of oxide scale on the silicon bond coat) at the interface between the yttrium disilicate layer and the bonding layer (see, for example, [0064]).
Claim 12: refer the rejection of claim 1 above, Kirby510 further teaches the conventionality of incorporating a sintering aid such as iron oxide as a densification agent as it would predictably reduce the sintering temperature and enhance hermetic density at lower temperatures (See, for example, [0052]). 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 iron oxide as the densification agent / sintering agent.
Claim 13: Rosenzweig further teaches wherein the densification agent is a healing agent that includes at least one of silica (see, for example, [0030-32]).
Claim 17: Rosenzweig in view of Kirby, Kaneko, Freling, Tang, and Kirby510 teach the method of claim 1 above. Rosenzweig further teaches wherein the sealing material of the EBC makes up at least 1 vol% of the layer (see, for example, 0028]). And further wherein such material can be interpreted as comprising of any number of individual densification agents including aluminum oxide, silicon oxide, rare earth oxides (see, for example, [0031]). Although no singular exemplary embodiment of Rosenzweig explicitly teaches the agent at a value within the claimed range, 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 an amount 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) and / or since generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical.(MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Rosenzweig in view of Kirby, Kaneko, Freling, Tang, and Kirby510 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Bolcavage.
Claim 15: Rosenzweig in view of Kirby, Kaneko, Freling, Tang, and Kirby510 teach the method of claim 1 above, wherein by combination a thermal treatment temperature of 1300oC for densification had been obviated (see above). Kirby510 has further taught 50 hrs as a predictable duration for a densification thermal treatment hold (See, for example, Table 4). As the articles are taught to be heat treated for a finite duration, there would inherently involve a decrease in temperature or cooling down to ambience upon cessation of thermal treatment, but they are silent as to the conditions of such cooling, so they do not explicitly teach a cooling ramp of 100oC/hr down to 20oC. Bolcavage teaches a method of heat treatment of thermally sprayed EBC coatings, further those of RE-disilicate (see, for example, abstract, [0004], [0013]). Bolcavage further teaches wherein controlling the post -deposition temperature cooling rate at a level of about 5oC/min or less (300oC / hr or less) to a temperature of 500oC or less can allow for control over the transition from amorphous to crystalline phase in the EBC in a manner that minimizes internal stresses of the EBC system and relaxes the EBC system (see, for example, [0015-16], [0052-0053]). 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 controlling the decrease in temperature to 300oC/hr or less down to at or below 500oC since it would predictably enhance control over crystallization behavior and provide for reduction of internal EBC stress. Although such a range is not 100oC / hr down to approximately 20oC, 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 rate and endpoint temperature 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (Kaneko teaches preparation of silicon nitride ceramics, not EBCs, and not involved in coating rear earth silicate powders with an organometallic precursor of a densification agent, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The rejection is over a combination of the art, not Kaneko alone, wherein at least references such as Golden / Rosenzweig, and Kirby have taught the argues deficiencies directed to RE-silicate EBCS and organometallic precursors, and further wherein Kirby further has taught the conventionality of drying of the precursor the mixture (See, for example, [0039]), thus Kaneko is not additionally required to teach such content.
As to the remaining dependent claims they remain rejected as no additional separate arguments are provided.
Conclusion
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