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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-20 have parentheses around the reference numbers, these numbers should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 6-13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Sun (US 20190136360 A1) in view of Dickinson (US 20100272982 A1) and Sun ‘193 (US 2005/0037193 A1).
Claim 1. Sun discloses a method for producing a coating (ceramic coating, abstract) in which
- a substrate is provided (310, Fig. 3),
- the substrate is provided with the coating (312, Fig. 3) by plasma spraying,
wherein a plasma torch (thermal spray system 300, Fig. 3) with a torch nozzle (shaped nozzle 320, Fig. 3) is used, with which a plasma jet (high velocity plasma stream, par. 38, Fig. 3) is generated from a supplied process gas (delivered gas, par. 37), and wherein a supplied spraying material (powder 308, Fig. 3) is applied to the substrate with the plasma jet in order to obtain the coating (powder 308 is supplied with the plasma stream to form the coating, par. 39),
wherein the torch nozzle is characterized by a nozzle diameter or a minimum nozzle diameter in the range from 5 mm to 8 mm (nozzle diameter of 6 mm, claim 8),
wherein process gas flow is at least 100 slpm (gas flow rate can be 400 L/min, par. 37),
Sun does not disclose wherein a spray material with a mean particle diameter of at most 40 micrometers is used, and
Sun discloses selecting ceramic powders with specified particle sizes.
Dickinson discloses plasma spray coating internal components for semiconductor devices to protect from corrosion during process reactions when halogen compounds are used (par. 3) wherein the spray coating forms thermal sprayed splats (par. 50) and the spray powder particle size is less than 40 microns (par. 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sun to incorporate the teachings of Dickinson and select a powder size of less than 40 microns. Dickinson demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art trying to solve a similar problem with similar materials disclosed by Sun can select powder sizes less than 40 microns.
Sun in view of Dickinson does not disclose wherein the substrate is heated, at least in sections, to a temperature of at least 300C during the application of the coating.
Sun ‘193 discloses plasma spraying ceramic powders onto substrates wherein the substrate can have a temperature of 300 C (par. 53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sun in view of Dickinson to incorporate the teachings of Sun ‘193 and heat the substrate. Doing so would have the benefit of producing films at fast speeds while obtaining good adhesion (par. 53, Sun ‘193).
Claim 2. Sun in view of Dickinson and Sun ‘193 discloses method according to claim 1, wherein the process gas flow is at least 150 slpm (gas flow rate can be between 30 L/min to 400 L/min, par. 37).
Claim 3. Sun in view of Dickinson and Sun ‘193 discloses method according to claim 1, wherein the coating produced is single-layer (a coating layer 312, Fig. 3, par. 39) or multilayer coating is produced, and/or
wherein a silicon or silicate or aluminate layer, hafnate layer or perovskite layer or mixtures thereof is produced as the coating or as part of the coating.
Claim 4. Sun in view of Dickinson and Sun ‘193 discloses method according to claim 1, wherein the spray material is used which comprises or is given by at least one rare earth silicate, and/or that a spray material is used which comprises or is given by at least one rare earth aluminate (ceramic coating, claim 1).
Claim 6. Sun in view of Dickinson and Sun ‘193 discloses method according to claim 1, wherein the spray material with a mean particle diameter of at most 30 micrometers.
Claim 7. Sun in view of Dickinson and Sun ‘193 discloses method according to claim 1, wherein the spray material with a mean particle diameter in the range from 15 micrometers to 29 micrometers.
Claim 8. Sun in view of Dickinson and Sun ‘193 discloses method according to claim 1, wherein the spray distance between the torch nozzle and the substrate is in the range from 100 mm to 120 mm (plasma spray system can be a distance of 60 mm to 250 mm from the article, abstract).
Claim 9. Sun in view of Dickinson and Sun ‘193 discloses method according to claim 1, wherein the current is in the range from 400 A to 500 A (current has a range from 100 A to 1000 A, claim 1).
Claim 10. Sun in view of Dickinson and Sun ‘193 discloses method according to claim 1, wherein a burner speed is at most 2000 mm/s (torch has a raster speed of 700 mm/s, table 1).
Claim 11. Sun in view of Dickinson and Sun ‘193 discloses method according to claim 1, wherein a feed rate of the spray material is at least 5 g/min (powder injector rate of 20 g/ml, table 1).
Claim 12. Sun in view of Dickinson and Sun ‘193 discloses method according to claim 1, wherein the substrate is preheated at least in sections to a temperature of at least 200°C before the application of the coating (preheating to 200 C, par. 33, Sun ‘193).
Claim 13. Sun in view of Dickinson and Sun ‘193 discloses method according to claim 1, wherein the substrate comprises silicon (substrate can be made of silicon, par. 22), and/or
wherein the substrate comprises nickel, and/or the substrate comprises alumina-based composites.
Claim 15. Sun in view of Dickinson and Sun ‘193 discloses method according claim 1, wherein the process gas flow is in the range from 100 slpm to 500 slpm (gas flow rate can be between 30 L/min to 400 L/min, par. 37),
wherein the torch nozzle is characterized by a nozzle diameter or a minimum nozzle diameter in the range from 5 mm to 7 mm (nozzle diameter of 6 mm, claim 8),
wherein a spray material with a mean particle diameter in the range from 5 micrometers to 40 micrometers (the spray powder particle size is less than 40 microns, par. 36, Dickinson), and
wherein the substrate is heated to a temperature in the range from 300°C to 700°C (temperature of 300 C, par. 53, Sun ‘193).
Claim 16. Sun in view of Dickinson and Sun ‘193 discloses method according to claim 15, wherein the spray distance between the torch nozzle and the substrate is at least 100 mm (plasma spray system can be a distance of 60 - 250 mm from the article, par. 47), and
that the current is at least 400 A (current has a range from 100 A to 1000 A, claim 1).
Claim 17. Sun in view of Dickinson and Sun ‘193 discloses the component comprising a substrate and a coating obtained by carrying out the method according to claim 1 (see Fig. 3).
Claim 18. Sun in view of Dickinson and Sun ‘193 discloses method according to claim 2, wherein the coating produced is a single-layer (layer 312, Fig. 3) or multilayer coating, and/or
wherein a silicon or silicate or aluminate layer, hafnate layer or perovskite layer or mixtures thereof is produced as the coating or as part of the coating.
Claim 19. Sun in view of Dickinson and Sun ‘193 discloses method according to claim 2, wherein the spray material is used which comprises or is given by at least one rare earth silicate, and/or that the spray material is used which comprises or is given by at least one rare earth aluminate (ceramic coating, claim 1).
Claim 20. Sun in view of Dickinson and Sun ‘193 discloses method according to claim 3, wherein a spray material is used which comprises or is given by at least one rare earth silicate, and/or that a spray material is used which comprises or is given by at least one rare earth aluminate (ceramic coating, claim 1).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Dickinson and Sun ‘193 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Steinwandel (US 20150017044 A1).
Claim 5. Sun in view of Dickinson and Sun ‘193 does not disclose method according to claim 1, wherein a spray material is used which comprises or is given by at least one rare earth hexaaluminate.
Steinwandel discloses plasma spraying hexaaluminate coat (par. 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sun to incorporate the teachings of Steinwandel and depositing a hexaaluminate coating. Steinwandel demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to deposit a hexaaluminate coating based on desired specification and design (par. 19, Steinwandel).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Dickinson and Sun ‘193 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schaer (US 11839951 B2).
Claim 14. Sun does not disclose method according to claim 1, wherein the coating is produced in a single pass.
Schaer discloses an atmospheric plasma spray process wherein the coating can be applied with a single spray pass (claim 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sun to incorporate the teachings of Schaer and produce a coating in a single pass. Schaer demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of depositing a coating through a single spray pass (claim 7, Schaer).
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).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMPSON A CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/SIMPSON A CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights