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 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 1-18 are 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.
Claim 1 is rendered indefinite because the claim does not clearly define the “one or more materials from Table 1”. Claims are to be complete in themselves. Incorporation by reference to a specific table “is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a table into the claim. The materials can reasonably be listed in the claim and it is not an exceptional circumstance. See MPEP 2173.05(s).
Claim 1 is rendered indefinite because if the term “adjusted”. The term “adjusted” is defined as “move or altered to fit”. The claim is indefinite because it does not provide for the location of the oxidation barrier layer to the diffusion layer. It is unclear if the term “adjusted” refers to disposing the diffusion layer on the oxidation barrier layer OR if the claim refers to disposing the oxidation layer on the diffusion layer OR if the claim refers to disposing the oxidation layer in the diffusion layer. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to the oxidation layer being disposed on the diffusion layer.
Claims 2-18 are rendered indefinite as they depend upon indefinite claim 1.
Claim 5 lacks antecedent basis for the phrase “the one layer” . Additionally, it is unclear if the phrase “the one layer” refers to the diffusion layer OR oxidation layer or the thermal barrier layer. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the phrase “the one layer” refers to either the diffusion layer OR oxidation layer OR the thermal barrier layer or all three layers: the diffusion layer, oxidation layer and thermal barrier layer.
Claim 8 is rendered indefinite because it is unclear if the claim refers to “Cr-Si” as any compound or alloy having a Cr-Si bond OR Cr3Si. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to any compound including a Cr-Si bond.
Claim 8 is rendered indefinite because it is unclear if the claim refers to “Mo-Si” as any compound or alloy having a Mo-Si bond OR Mo3Si OR Mo5Si3 OR MoSi2. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to any compound including a Mo-O bond.
Claim 8 is rendered indefinite because it is unclear if the claim refers to “Nb-Si” as any compound or alloy having a Nb-Si bond OR NbSi2 or Nb3Si. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to any compound including a Nb-Si bond.
Claim 8 is rendered indefinite because it is unclear if the claim refers to as any compound or alloy having a Hf-Si bond OR Hf2Si. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to any compound including a Hf2Si bond.
Claim 8 is rendered indefinite because it is unclear if the claim refers to as any compound or alloy having a Y-Si bond. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to any compound including a Y-Si bond.
Claim 9 is rendered indefinite because it is unclear if “Si-O” refers to any compound including a S-O bond or SiO2 [silica]. For purposes of examination, examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to any compound including an Si-O bond.
Claim 9 is rendered indefinite because it is unclear if the claim refers to any compound including an Al-O bond OR aluminum oxide [Al2O3]. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to any compound including an Al-O bond.
Claim 9 is rendered indefinite because it is unclear if the claim refers to any compound having an Al-Cr-O bond OR (Al2(CrO4)3 OR (Al,Cr)2O3. For purposes of examination, examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to any compound having an Al-Cr-O bond.
Claim 10 is rendered indefinite because it is unclear if the claim refers to any compound having an Al-Cr-O bond OR (Al2(CrO4)3 OR (Al,Cr)2O3. For purposes of examination, examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to any compound having an Al-Cr-O bond.
Claim 12 is rendered indefinite because if the term “adjusted”. The term “adjusted” is defined as “move or altered to fit”. The claim is indefinite because it does not provide for the location of the gradient layer with respect to the diffusion barrier layer. It is unclear if the gradient layer is disposed on the diffusion layer OR if the diffusion layer is disposed on the gradient layer OR if the gradient layer is disposed within the diffusion layer. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to the gradient layer being disposed on the diffusion layer.
Claim 14 is rendered indefinite because it is unclear if “Si-O” refers to any compound including a S-O bond or SiO2 [silica]. For purposes of examination, examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to any compound including an Si-O bond.
Claim 16 is rendered indefinite because the claim does not clearly define “wherein the coating comprises the layer sequence with at least one layer which forms the diffusion barrier for Ti according to one or more of the layer sequences specified in rows in Table 1”. The claims are to be complete in themselves. Incorporation by reference to a specific table “is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a table into the claim. The materials can reasonably be listed in the claim and it is not an exceptional circumstance. See MPEP 2173.05(s).
Claim 17 is rendered indefinite because the claim does not clearly define “wherein the oxidation barrier is adjusted to the diffusion barrier, which is adapted in accordance with table 2.”. The claims are to be complete in themselves. Incorporation by reference to a specific table “is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a table into the claim. The materials can reasonably be listed in the claim and it is not an exceptional circumstance. See MPEP 2173.05(s).
Claim 17 is rendered indefinite because if the term “adjusted”. The term “adjusted” is defined as “move or altered to fit”. The claim is indefinite because it does not provide for the location of the oxidation barrier layer with respect to the diffusion barrier layer. The term “adjusted” is defined as “move or altered to fit”. The claim is indefinite because it does not provide for the location of the oxidation barrier layer to the diffusion layer. It is unclear if the term “adjusted” refers to disposing the diffusion layer on the oxidation barrier layer OR if the claim refers to disposing the oxidation layer on the diffusion layer OR if the claim refers to disposing the oxidation layer in the diffusion layer. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to the oxidation layer being disposed on the diffusion layer.
Claim 18 is rendered indefinite because the claim does not clearly define “wherein the thermal barrier is adjusted to the oxidation barrier according to Table 3 ”. The claims are to be complete in themselves. Incorporation by reference to a specific table “is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a table into the claim. The materials can reasonably be listed in the claim and it is not an exceptional circumstance. See MPEP 2173.05(s).
Claim 18 is rendered indefinite because if the term “adjusted”. The term “adjusted” is defined as “move or altered to fit”. The claim is indefinite because it does not provide for the location of the thermal barrier layer with respect to the oxidation barrier layer. It is unclear if the term “adjusted” refers to disposing the thermal barrier layer on the oxidation barrier layer OR if the claim refers to disposing the oxidation layer on the thermal barrier layer OR if the claim refers to disposing the oxidation layer in the thermal barrier layer. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to the oxidation layer being disposed on the thermal barrier layer.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Schloffer et al., U.S. Pre Grant Publication 2016/0130704.
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Schloffer discloses a protective layer for TiAl materials for affording protection against oxidation wherein the protective layer has a layer sequence including an inner aluminum oxide layer, a first gradient layer comprising aluminum and a base metal, a base metal layer, a second gradient layer and an outer aluminum oxide layer [0001 and 0011]. Paragraph 0014 discloses a thermal barrier layer. Paragraph 0015 discloses a diffusion barrier layer. Applicant’s claim 1 does not provide any specifics to the layering sequence for the location of the diffusion barrier layer, thermal barrier layer and the oxidation barrier layer. Applicant’s claim 1 merely recites that the coating includes a diffusion barrier layer, and oxidation barrier and a thermal barrier. The abstract of Schloffer discloses a gradient layer comprising Al, which is a material listed in Table 1 of Applicant’s published specification. Applicant’s claim 1 does not exclude other layers.
Regarding claim 2, paragraph 0015 discloses that the protective layer can include a diffusion barrier layer arranged between the TiAl material [substrate] and the inner aluminum oxide layer [oxidation barrier layer]. Applicant’s claim 2 is not specific to the oxidation barrier layer.
Regarding claim 3, paragraphs 0064-0065 disclose that the thermal barrier layer is disposed on the oxidation barrier layer [see also figure 1]. Paragraph 0015 discloses an inner aluminum oxide layer. Applicant’s claim 3 is not specific to the oxidation barrier layer. Examiner is corresponding the aluminum oxide as Applicant’s oxidation barrier layer.
Regarding claim 15,paragraph 0017 discloses using PVD or CVD in providing the protective layer.
Regarding claim 17, paragraph 0015 discloses an aluminum oxide layer. Examiner is corresponding the aluminum oxide layer to Applicant’s oxidation barrier layer. Table 2 of Applicant’s published specification discloses Al-O for the oxidation barrier layer
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMIE S THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1530. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Jennifer Boyd, can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/CAMIE S THOMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786