DETAILED ACTION
1. This Final Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed August 5, 2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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 § 103
3. 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.
4. Claim 1-7, 10-16, and 18-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Goberman reference (WO2015/147960A1).
5. Regarding claim 1, the Goberman reference discloses:
an article (20) comprising:
a ceramic-based substrate (24) [Paragraph 0032]; and
a barrier layer (22) on the ceramic-based substrate (FIG. 1), the barrier layer including:
a matrix phase (26),
a network of gettering particles (28) in the matrix phase, wherein the gettering particles (28) each have a maximum dimension (implicitly disclosed by explicit disclosure of ‘particle’), have an average maximum dimension between about 30 and 70 microns [Paragraph 0016], wherein the gettering particles (28) have maximum dimensions (FIG. 1—the particles have maximum dimensions), and
a dispersion of diffusive particles (30) in the matrix phase (26) (FIG. 1). The Goberman reference discloses the invention as essentially claimed.
However, the Goberman reference fails to disclose the maximum dimension that range from about 1 to 100 microns and that at least 72% by volume of the particles having the maximum dimension within 50% of the modal particle size the gettering particles have a modal particle size and at least the gettering particles having the maximum dimension (implicit) within the modal particle size.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a range from about 1 to 100 microns and at least 72% by volume within 50%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 (II-A). Furthermore, this is an example of applying a known technique (adjusting a particle mixture including modality to arrive at certain percentages) to a known device (article) ready for improvement (increased utility under specific conditions) to yield predictable results (adjusting the particle mixture in the matrix would certainly be a predictable way to affect the performance of gas turbine engine components).
6. Regarding claim 2, the Goberman reference further discloses:
wherein the barrier layer includes, by volume, 30-94% of the gettering particles [Paragraph 0009].
7. Regarding claim 3, the Goberman reference further discloses:
wherein the barrier layer includes, by volume, 60-90% of the gettering particles [Paragraph 0009].
8. Regarding claim 4, the Goberman reference further discloses:
wherein the barrier layer includes, by volume, 1-30% of the diffusive particles, 5-40% of the matrix of SiO2, and a balance of the gettering particles [Paragraph 0009].
9. Regarding claim 5, the Goberman reference further discloses:
wherein the diffusive particles have an average maximum dimension that is smaller than the average maximum dimension of the gettering particles [Paragraph 0029].
10. Regarding claim 6, the Goberman reference further discloses:
wherein the gettering particles have an average maximum dimension that is between about 40 and 60 microns [Paragraph 0016].
11. Regarding claim 7, the Goberman reference further discloses:
wherein the gettering particles have dimensions between about 5-75 microns [Paragraph 0016].
12. Regarding claim 10, the Goberman reference further discloses:
wherein the gettering particles include at least one of silicon oxycarbide (SiOC) particles (28), silicon carbide (SiC) particles, silicon nitride (Si3N4), silicon oxycarbonitride (SiOCN) particles, silicon aluminum oxynitride (SiAION) particles, and silicon boron oxycarbonitride (SiBOCN) particles.
13. Regarding claim 11, the Goberman reference further discloses:
wherein the diffusive particles include at least one of barium magnesium aluminum silicate (BMAS) (30), barium strontium aluminum silicate, magnesium silicate, alkaline earth
aluminum silicate, yttrium aluminum silicate, ytterbium aluminum silicate, and rare earth metal aluminum silicate particles.
14. Regarding claim 12, the Goberman reference further discloses:
a distinct intermediate layer (234) between the barrier layer (22) and the ceramic-based substrate (24), the distinct intermediate layer including an intermediate layer matrix of SiO2 (236) and a dispersion of intermediate layer gettering particles (238) in the intermediate layer matrix.
15. Regarding claim 13, the Goberman reference further discloses:
wherein the gettering particles are silicon oxycarbide particles that have a composition Si0xMzCy, where M is at least one metal, x <2, y>0 and z<1 and x and z are non-zero [Paragraph 0030], and wherein the diffusive particles are barium magnesium aluminum silicate particles (30).
16. Regarding claim 14, the Goberman reference further discloses:
a ceramic-based top coat (132) on the barrier layer (22).
17. Regarding claim 15, the Goberman reference discloses:
a composite material (22) comprising:
a matrix of SiO2 (26);
a dispersion of silicon oxycarbide particles in the matrix (28), the silicon oxycarbide particles having Si, O, and C in a covalently bonded network (31), wherein the silicon oxycarbide particles each have a maximum dimension (implicit) and have an average maximum dimension between about 30 and 70 microns [Paragraph 0029], wherein the silicon oxycarbide particles (28) have maximum dimensions (FIG. 1); and
a dispersion of barium-magnesium alumino-silicate particles in the matrix (30).
The Goberman reference discloses the invention as essentially claimed.
However, the Goberman reference fails to disclose the maximum dimension that range from about 1 to 100 microns and that at least 72% by volume of the particles having the maximum dimension within 50% of the modal particle size, the silicon particles have a modal particle size and the silicon oxycarbide particles having the maximum dimension (implicit) within the modal particle size.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a range from about 1 to 100 microns and at least 72% by volume within 50%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 (II-A). Furthermore, this is an example of applying a known technique (adjusting a particle mixture including modality to arrive at certain percentages) to a known device (article) ready for improvement (increased utility under specific conditions) to yield predictable results (adjusting the particle mixture in the matrix would certainly be a predictable way to affect the performance of gas turbine engine components).
18. Regarding claim 16, the Goberman reference further discloses:
wherein the silicon oxycarbide particles have an average maximum dimension that is between about 40 and 60 microns [Paragraph 0029].
19. Regarding claim 18, the Gobernan reference further discloses:
wherein the silicon oxycarbide particles are reactive with respect to oxidant species (inherent).
20. Regarding claim 19, the Goberman reference discloses:
a method of applying a barrier layer to a substrate (FIG. 1) [Paragraph 0036], comprising:
mixing particles of barium-magnesium alumino-silicate, particles of SiO2, and particles of silicon oxycarbide in a carrier fluid to form a slurry [Paragraph 0036], wherein the silicon oxycarbide particles each have a maximum dimension (implicit) have an average maximum
dimension between about 30 and 70 microns [Paragraph 0029], wherein the silicon oxycarbide particles have maximum dimensions (FIG. 1); applying the slurry to a substrate [Paragraph 0036]; drying the slurry [Paragraph 0036]; and curing the slurry such that cross-linking occurs in the composite material [Paragraph 0036]. The Goberman reference discloses the invention as essentially claimed.
However, the Goberman reference fails to disclose the maximum dimension that range from about 1 to 100 microns and that at least 72% by volume of the particles having the maximum dimension within 50% of the modal particle size, the silicon oxycarbide particles have a modal particle size and the silicon oxycarbide particles having the maximum dimension (implicit) within the modal particle size;.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a range from about 1 to 100 microns and at least 72% by volume within 50%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 (II-A). Furthermore, this is an example of applying a known technique (adjusting a particle mixture with modality to arrive at certain percentages) to a known device (article) ready for improvement (increased utility under specific conditions) to yield
predictable results (adjusting the particle mixture in the matrix would certainly be a predictable way to affect the performance of gas turbine engine components).
21. Regarding claim 20, the Goberman reference further discloses:
wherein the applying is by spraying [Paragraph 0036].
22. Regarding claim 21, the Goberman reference fails to disclose:
wherein, by volume, 65% ±5% (obvious range MPEP 2144.05 (II-A) of the gettering particles have a maximum dimension of 30-70 microns [Paragraph 0016].
23. Regarding claim 22, the Goberman reference further discloses:
wherein the gettering particles have a maximum dimension (implicit).
However, the Goberman reference fails to disclose the maximum dimension that at least 10% by volume of the particles have a dimension within 5% of the modal particle size.
It would have been obvious to use such a range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 (II-A). Furthermore, this is an example of applying a known technique (adjusting a particle mixture with modality to arrive at certain percentages) to a known device (article) ready for improvement (increased utility under specific conditions) to yield predictable results (adjusting the particle in the matrix would certainly be a predictable way to affect the performance of gas turbine engine components).
24. Regarding claim 23, the Goberman reference fails to disclose:
wherein the gettering particles have a total effective surface area of between about 30,000 and 67,500 cm2 per centimeter of barrier layer thickness.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the gettering particles have a total effective surface area of between about 30,000 and 67,500 cm2 per centimeter of barrier layer thickness, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim (average maximum dimension of particles, spherical shape as illustrated in the FIGS., and total volume) are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 (II-A).
25. Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Goberman reference in view of the Pachaly reference (US Patent No. 5,130,400).
26. Regarding claim 17, the Goberman reference fails to disclose:
wherein the silicon oxycarbide particles are approximately spherical.
The Pachaly reference teaches it is conventional in the art of silicon oxycarbide particles to provide as taught in the (Title) wherein the silicon oxycarbide particles are approximately spherical (Title). Such configurations/structures would allow silicon oxycarbide particles from organopolysiloxanes (Title).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the article of the Goberman reference, such that the article further includes wherein the silicon oxycarbide particles are approximately spherical, as
clearly suggested and taught by the Pachaly reference, in order to allow silicon oxycarbide particles from organopolysiloxanes (Title).
Response to Arguments
The Applicant continues to assert the patentability of its pending claims. The Applicant alleges that (1) a prima facie case of obviousness hasn’t been established and (2) routine optimization has been incorrectly applied. Each of these will be discussed in turn.
There are seven rationales that may support a rejection under section 103. The fourth rationale is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and this has been applied.
Initially, the Applicant disputes that stating “adjusting a particle mixture including modality to arrive at certain percentages” is a known technique is erroneous because nothing in the Goberman reference discusses modal particle size.
Modal particle size is the value in a particle size distribution that occurs most frequently. In other words, it is the peak of the distribution of sizes on a graph. As noted by the Board, the Goberman reference discloses the silicon oxycarbide particles 28 as having an average maximum dimension of 1-75 micrometers. The average maximum dimension of 1-75 micrometers would normally be considered the mean.
Noting that a 102 rejection was not stated, this Goberman disclosure suggests modal particle size because the modal particle size is directly connected in either a normal or multinormal and a positive or negative skewed distribution to the mean size. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize these basic concepts and therefore are a known technique. Put simply, a person of ordinary skill in the art would know, based on the disclosure of average maximum dimension of 1-75 micrometers in Goberman, they could put an amount of particles having 1-75 micrometers in average maximum dimension into a (a) microscopy, dynamic image analysis (b) gas absorption (c) sedimentation, laser, diffraction, X-ray diffraction or (d) dynamic light scattering device depending on the application and get a computer imaging of the distribution of the particles showing the most common types of measurements the mean, median, and mode. Then they could easily optimize the modal particle size or other well-known mathematical values based on whatever desired final modal particle size is to be optimized. Finally, this is to a known device (particles) (misspelling in the earlier OA) which is clearly disclosed in the Goberman reference.
The Applicant objects to the other two portion of the 103 analysis. Ready for improvement (increased utility under specific conditions) to yield predictable results (adjusting the particle mixture in the matrix would certainly be a predictable way to affect the performance of gas turbine engine components). Expounding on the increased utility under specific conditions, the entire Goberman reference is centered around adjusting the types and amounts of the particles used in its disclosure so obviously it is disclosed that different arrangements of particles and amounts provide increased utility under specific conditions and therefore adjusting the modal particle size results in the similarity or difference of the particles which could be important in ease of manufacturing and application in the barrier. Certainly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that in the field of claim amendment, adjusting particle mixture, is something that would result in a device ready for improvement based on the disclosure in Goberman. The remainder of the establishment of the 103 rejections also relies on at least these reasons.
Even if the Applicant fails to find the Office rationale has provided a persuasive 103 prima facie case for the above discussed grounds, the claim is still rejectable under routine optimization. Modality as used in claims 1, 15, and 19 is a result effective parameter. In fact, there cannot be any other way. A group of particles with a mean maximum dimension of 1-75 micrometers must also have a modal particle size. This is unlike MPEP 2144.05 (III) (C) where the Antonie court found the claimed device was characterized by a ratio and the ratio was not disclosed by the prior art and was silent regarding one of the variables in the ratio. Here, the Goberman reference discloses the mean and inherently discloses the mode. There are three types of distributions that a person of ordinary skill in the art could find using a graph. A normal distribution where mean equals mode. And skewed distributions, positive or negative, with further multimodal distributions which must be either greater or less than each other.
The Antonie court was stated to be confined very narrowly: Antonie described the situation where a ‘parameter optimized was not recognized to be a result-effective variable’ as an ‘exception’ to the general principle in Aller that ‘the discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is normally obvious.’ MPEP 2144.05 (III) (C). Furthermore, “Our subsequent cases have confirmed that this exception is a narrow one. . . . In summarizing the relevant precedent from our predecessor court, we observed in Applied Materials that ‘[i]n cases in which the disclosure in the prior art was insufficient to find a variable result-effective, there was essentially NO disclosure of the RELATIONSHIP between the variable and the result in the prior art.” (Emphasis Added by Examiner). MPEP 2144.05 (III) (C). Certainly, there is some relationship between Goberman’s disclosed mean and the modal particle. They both lie on the curve generated by scientific analysis. Accordingly, there are two bases for rejecting all of the pending claims. Therefore, the claims are finally rejected.
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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 CHARLES JOSEPH BRAUCH whose telephone number is (313)446-6511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM to 6 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, Lindsay Low can be reached on (571) 272-1196. 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.
/CHARLES JOSEPH BRAUCH/
Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/LONG T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights