DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Applicant's amendment filed on October 22, 2025 was received. Claims 1 and 8 were amended. Claims 2, 4-7 and 9 were canceled. No claim was added.
The text of those sections of Title 35. U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action Issued August 11, 2025.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 22, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Th claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, on claim 7 is withdrawn, because the claim has been canceled.
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burd (US20140255158) in view of Hazel (US 20130224453), Liebert (US4402992) and Reid (US20160083829).
Regarding claim 1, Burd teaches a method of applying a thermal barrier coating (TBC) (abstract, paragraph 0036). Burd teaches to form a top coat 32 on the bond coat (paragraph 0039 and 0042), wherein the bond coat is formed on a gas turbine component subject to high thermal loads (paragraphs 0003 and 0034) (heat resistance base material). Burd teaches the bond coat and the top coat are formed by thermal spraying (paragraphs 0036 and 0042) while gas is flow through cooling holes on the surface of the heat-resistance based material (paragraphs 0041-0042, figure 7) (forming a bond coat layer on a heat-resistant alloy base material by thermal spraying and forming a top coat layer on the bond coat layer, which is formed on the heat resistant alloy base material by thermal spraying). Burd teaches to inject the gas to a surface opposite to the surface of the heat-resistant alloy base material during the plasma spray coating process of the top coat 32 (paragraphs 0040-0042, see figure 7) (forming the top coat layer by thermal spraying includes ejecting the gas from the plurality of holes). Burd teaches the gas is injected from a bladder 50 or sealed plenum 40 that is in communication with the internal passageways 26 in the component 20, wherein the gas to force through the cooling holes from the pressurized bladder or plenum from the opposite side of alloy base material from the thermal spray gun (see figures 1, 5 and 6, paragraphs 0040-0042), thus the connection of the bladder or the plenum to the component 20 is considered to be located on the opposite side of the thermal spray gun (see figures 5-7). The instant claim does not explicitly define the limitation of “cooling nozzle”, thus, the connection of the bladder and the plenum to the component is considered as a cooling nozzle as it is connected to pass gas through the cooling holes of the component (paragraph 0042). Nevertheless, Burd teaches the other system to force the gas through the cooling hole can be provided, and it is conventional to use a “cooling” nozzle to inject gas through cooling holes. Burd teaches the cooling holes are drilled normal or angled to the surface (paragraph 0035), with the injecting direction of the thermal spray material being substantially normal to the surface (see figures 7 and 10). Thus Burd teaches the angle between the extension direction of the holes and the injection direction of the thermal spray material is more than 0 (when the cooling hole is angled to the surface) to 90 (when cooling holes is drilled normal to the surface), which overlapped with the claimed range. Burd further teaches the cooling holes are 0.5-3.2mm in diameter (paragraph 0035), which overlap with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Burd does not explicitly teaches the heat resistance base material is alloy. However, Hazel teaches a method of forming multilayer TBC by plasma
spraying on a turbine component substrate (abstract, paragraphs 0005-0006, 0025 and 0041). Burd discloses the turbine component is blades, vanes etc (same as Burd, paragraph 0034) and made of metallic such as nickel based superalloy (paragraph 0024). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the alloy material for as the heat resistance material as suggested by Hazel in the method of Burd because Hazel teaches such alloy materials are suitable as the heat resistance material for turbine component.
Burd in view of Hazel does not explicitly teach to ejecting the gas from the plurality of holes during the formation of the bond coat. However, However, Liebert teaches a method of applying thermal barrier coating to a turbine component with cooling holes (abstract, and column 1 lines 10-25). Liebert teaches gas is passing through the cooling holes when applying the bond coating by spraying (column 2 lines 45-55). In addition, Liebert teaches the holes have a diameter of 0.01 to 0.02 inch (column 2 lines 2-10), the diameter governs the amount of cooling gas for the cooling film over the surface of the turbine component during operating (column 2 lines 2-10). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to further adjust and optimize the diameter of the cooling holes in the process to allow desired amount of cooling gas for the them during operation. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow gas passing through the cooling holes when applying the sprayed bond coating to reduce the blockage of the holes form the bond coat material (column 2 lines 45-55).
In regard to the limitation “ the top coat being formed by thermal spraying a suspension containing ceramic powder by high velocity flame spraying”, Burd teaches the top coat is applied by plasma (thermal) spraying ceramic powder (paragraphs 0042 and 0036) but does not teach to thermal spraying a suspension by high velocity flame spraying. However, Hazel teaches to apply the TBC coating by plasma spraying a ceramic powder suspension (paragraph 0039). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to thermal spray the ceramic powder in suspension as suggested by Hazel in the method of Burd because Hazel teaches the suspension enables a homogeneous coating composition of multi-component ceramics that have varied vapor pressure (paragraph 0039). Burd in view of Hazel does not explicitly teaches the thermal spraying is high velocity flame spraying. However. Reid teaches the TBC can be applied by high velocity flame spraying or plasma spraying (paragraphs 0003 and 0021) (functionally equivalent method of forming TBC). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute plasma spraying for high velocity flame spraying in method as disclosed by Burd in view of Hazel.
Regarding claim 3, Burd teaches to ejecting the gas from the plurality of holes by supplying the gas to a passage communicating with the plurality of holes (paragraphs 0040-0042, see figure 7).
Regarding claim 8, Burd teaches the bond coat layer is formed by plasma spraying (thermal spraying) (paragraphs 0036-0039). Thus, Burd teaches all limitations of this claim, except the bond coat is applied by high velocity flame spraying. However. Reid teaches the TBC or bond coat can be applied by high velocity flame spraying or plasma spraying (paragraphs 0003 and 0021) (functionally equivalent method of forming TBC). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute plasma spraying for high velocity flame spraying in method as disclosed by Burd in view of Hazel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on October 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
Figure 16 shows a non-linear and unpredictable effect: the hole clogging rate dramatically decreases from 1000% to 50% or less as soon as the hole diameter exceeds 0.5mm. Furthermore, the experiment demonstrating this remarkable effect was conducted under the precise condition of using S-HVOF method and at an application angle of 60 degrees, which is within the claimed range of 0 to 80 degrees, the clogging rate decreases to less than 25%. This evidence of criticality of the combination of the recited parameters distinguishes over the applied references.
Liebert is silent on the importance of the specific application angle or the S-HVOF method.
Hazel is unrelated to the core technical feature of the present application, which is prevention of the holes clogging by gas ejection.
Ried uses a physical masking material and does not teach of combine the gas ejection with specific geometric condition as in the present application.
Burd does not teach to form a bond coat on the base material while ejecting a gas from a plurality of holes opened in the surface of the base material (claim 1). Ried, does not cure the deficiency.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
Examiner disagrees that Figure 16 provided sufficient evidence to established the criticality of the claimed range. Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." (MEPE 716.02(d)). Figure 16 does not provide any data concerning S-HVOF with air-blowing (or any other method with air blowing) when the hole diameter less than 0.5mm; those data corresponding to less than hole diameter mm does not commensurate in scope with the claims. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range (716.02(d) II). There is no result of the outside of the claimed ranges (outside of diameter greater than 0.5mm, and outside of less than 0 and not greater than 80 degrees angle) corresponding to the claimed feature of S-HOVF with air blowing for comparison. In addition, it is well settled that the evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance (MEPE 716.02(b)). Figure 16 does establish the criticality of the claimed ranges from just one data point for both hole diameter and angle for S-HVOF with air blowing).
As discussed above, Burd teaches the claimed diameter. In addition, Liebert also teaches the claimed diameter is optimizable. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, 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 other references teach the claimed angle and S-HVOF.
In response to applicant's argument that Hazel is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Hazel teaches to form a TBC by thermal spraying on a turbine component substrate, which is considered to be in the same field of inventor’s endeavor.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, 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 other references teach the claimed angle and S-HVOF. Ried’s teaching is to show the plasma spraying and HVOF are functional equivalent, and not intended to replace air blowing method with the masking material.
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 NGA LEUNG V LAW whose telephone number is (571)270-1115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on 5712721295. 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.
/NGA LEUNG V LAW/Examiner, Art Unit 1717