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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 13 November 2025 has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21, 28, and 29 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: each prior art reference of record does not teach or suggest, either per se or in combination, all limitations of claim 21 as amended. Specifically, the most pertinent reference, deemed to be the previously cited Ushmaev, fails to disclose a filled crack, the crack having a width less than about 100 nm, as the minimum width of the slots taught in Ushmaev is 1 µm.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. These references are generally directed to turbine coatings, in particular those having filled slots/ cracks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5, 8, and 22-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over GB 202207827 D0 or its U.S. counterpart publication U.S. 2023/0382816 A1 (“Ushmaev”).
Both GB 202207827 D0 and U.S. 2023/0382816 A1 are based on the disclosure of GB 2207827.3, which fully supports the disclosure of U.S. 2023/0382816 A1. The reference is thus available under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over GB 202207827 D0 or alternatively available under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) over Ushmaev.
Considering claims 1, 22 and 23, Ushmaev discloses a coated component comprising a substrate 102, a bond coat 122, and a dual-layered barrier coating having a lower segmented layer 108 (referred to as “top layer” in the reference) and an upper glazed layer 114. (Ushmaev ¶¶ 0031-0033 and 0076-0080; and Fig. 4C, reproduced infra). Ushmaev discloses that the segmented layer 108 has columnar microstructure, wherein adjacent columns are separated by openings (viz. slots) that extends through the entire thickness of the segmented layer 108. (Id. ¶ 0093 and Fig. 4C). In one particular configuration, Ushmaev discloses that the material of the glazed layer 114 at least partially fills some of the slots in segmented layer 108, with complete filling of multiple slots expressly shown. (Id. ¶ 0102). Ushmaev is analogous art, for it is directed to the same field of endeavor as that of the instant application (turbine coatings).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ushmaev discloses the presence of a thermally grown oxide layer between the substrate and the lower segmented layer 108, wherein the TGO layer impedes oxidation and corrosion. (Id. ¶ 0086). This is considered to be a barrier layer. Alternatively, as the bond coat 122 resists oxidation and is placed between the substrate and the lower segmented layer 108, it could also map onto the claimed barrier layer.
Ushmaev expressly discloses that its glazed layer 114 has a density greater than that of its lower segmented layer 108, and that the glazed layer is a densified layer. (Id. ¶¶ 0036, 0139, and 0154; and claim 12). The disclosure is taken to mean that an overall density of the glazed layer 114 is greater than an overall density of the segmented layer 108, as the glazed layer is as a whole densified. With express disclosure in the reference re: presence of slots that extend through the entire thickness of lower segmented layer 108 and the filling thereof, Ushmaev anticipates the claims. Alternatively, this particular configuration is obvious in view of the disclosures of the reference. Ushmaev anticipates or renders obvious claims 22 and 23.
Considering claims 5 and 24, usage of yttrium oxides and silicates (including monosilicate and disilicate) are expressly disclosed for the segmented layer 108. (Id. ¶ 0082). Its usage is at least obvious. Furthermore, yttrium disilicate has CTE of 4-5×10-6, which is within the range of claim 5.
Considering claim 25, usage of hafnium oxides is expressly disclosed for the segmented layer 108 (which is also the precursor for forming the glazed layer). (Id. ¶ 0082). Its usage is at least obvious.
Considering claim 26, inclusion of Al2O3 is expressly disclosed for the segmented layer 108 (which is also the precursor for forming the glazed layer). (Id. ¶ 0081). Its usage is at least obvious.
Considering claim 27, Ushmaev discloses the usage of YSZ for the segmented layer 108 (which is also the precursor for forming the glazed layer). (Id. ¶ 0080). YSZ has elastic modulus of 200-210 GPa, which is considered to read on less than about 200 GPa (upper bound of about 200 is deemed to be 230).
Considering claim 8, Ushmaev discloses that a thickness of its glazed layer 114 is at least 1 µm. (Id. ¶ 0083). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. (See In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379; MPEP § 2144.05).
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 202207827 D0 or its U.S. counterpart publication U.S. 2023/0382816 A1 (“Ushmaev”) or alternatively as evidenced by or in view of known teachings in the art of TBCs.
Considering claim 9, Ushmaev discloses that width of the slots in its segmented layer 108 is 1 µm or more. (Ushmaev ¶ 0147). While thickness of layer 108 is not disclosed, Ushmaev discloses that thickness of the cap portion of the glazed layer 114 is 1 µm or more, and that this thickness is less than or equal to 90% of the total thickness of the entirety of segmented layer 108 and glazed layer 114. (Id. ¶ 0087). From the foregoing, the thickness of the segmented layer 108 is at least 10% of the overall thickness, and if the glazed layer 114 is 1 µm thick, then thickness of the segmented layer 108 is at least 0.11 µm. At least 0.11 µm divided by at least 1 µm results in an unbounded inequality that overlaps the claimed range.
Furthermore, it is noted that the layer system of Ushmaev is primarily aimed to address deficiencies in existing thermal barrier coat (TBC) systems. (Id. ¶¶ 0002-0010). TBCs, which have elongated slots, generally have thicknesses of a few hundred microns. (See, e.g. U.S. 2009/0017260 having minimum thickness of 12 mil/ ~300 µm and U.S. 2018/0163062 having thickness of 25 to 1,000 µm). As such, person of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize the general thickness of a segmented TBC layer and know that the slots (which extend through the thickness of a TBC) generally have depth of a few hundred microns. This results in the claimed aspect ratio.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3954806 A1 (“Tang”, cited in IDS) in view of GB 202207827 D0 or its U.S. counterpart publication U.S. 2023/0382816 A1 (“Ushmaev”) or alternatively over GB 202207827 D0 or its U.S. counterpart publication U.S. 2023/0382816 A1 in view of Tang.
Considering claim 2, Tang discloses a protective coating for a substrate, the coating comprises, in the direction moving away from the substrate 104, bond coat 106 comprising getter particles and diffusive particles in a matrix, and a top coat 116. (Tang abs. and ¶¶ 0030-0057). Tang is analogous art, for it is directed to the same field of endeavor as that of the instant application (turbine coating). Tang differs from the claimed inventions, as it is silent regarding the claimed topcoat having filled cracks.
Tang discloses that its ceramic topcoat 116 contributes to thermal and environmental protection of the substrate. (Id. ¶ 0057). It is noted that in the art of turbine coatings, the provisioning of a ceramic TBC having filled columnar voids is known, as taught in Ushmaev (See discussion of Ushmaev in the present Office Action above). In particular, the TBC of Ushmaev imparts both thermal protection and protection against CMAS. (Ushmaev ¶¶ 0002-0010, 0154, and 0155). In particular, the protective coating system of Ushmaev has a segmented layer 108 and a glazed layer 114 deposited thereupon, wherein the glazed layer 114 is disclosed to be denser than the segmented layer 108 and fills some of the elongated slots in the segmented layer 108. (Id. ¶ 0104). As the TBC of Ushmaev exhibits the properties required of the topcoat 116 in Tang, it would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the claimed invention, to use the filled TBC of Ushmaev as the ceramic topcoat 116 in the protective coating of Tang.
Alternatively, the composite bond coat 106 of Tang is disclosed the protect the substrate from oxygen and steam. (Tang ¶ 0032). It would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the claimed invention, to have utilized the composite bond coat 106 of Tang for the bond coat in Ushmaev.
Response to Arguments
In view of amendments to the claims, the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 and 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection of claims 21, 28, and 29 over Ushmaev have been withdrawn.
The previous rejections relying on at least Ushmaev are still applicable to claims 2, 5, 8, 9, and 22-27, as Ushmaev does disclose respective overall densities.
Concluding Remarks
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zheren Jim Yang whose telephone number is (571)272-6604. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 - 7:30 ET.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached on (571)270-1547. 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.
/Z. Jim Yang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781