RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The objections to the drawings made of record in the office action mailed on 11/26/2025 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 02/16/2026
The 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 rejections of claims made of record in the office action mailed on 11/26/2025 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 02/16/2026.
REJECTIONS
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1- are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson et al. (EP 3789370) (cited in the IDS filed on 10/04/2023) in view of Zimmermann et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2014/0287149.
Regarding claim 1, Jackson et al. discloses a gas turbine engine article having a silicate-resistant barrier coating thereon. (Abstract). Jackson et al. discloses a core/shell granule formed from a coarse core with a plurality of fine shell particles applied onto the surface thereof. (Fig. 8 and par. [0059]). Jackson et al. discloses that the core may be a refractory matrix particle (par. [0059]) which would meet the limitation of a gettering particle. The shell particles are calcium aluminosilicate (CAS) additive particles which include metal oxides meeting the limitations of “matrix” or “diffusive” material as well as precursors thereof. (par. [0059] and [0065]). Jackson et al. teaches that the compositions of the granules can include a variety of materials having different chemical compositions and properties including silicates, zirconia, oxides and combinationst hereof. (par. [0036] and [0070]).
Jackson et al. does not teach the inclusion of a first feedstock and second feedstock.
Zimmerman et al. teaches a coating system applied to a turbomachine (i.e. gas turbine) including a base of at least two different base powders which are responsible for imparting a specific property to the coating system. (Abstract). Examples of mixture of powders in Zimmerman et al. include powders having a core and shell structure wherein the composition of the core and/or the shell are different. (par. [0098]). The different powder fractions can include materials such as metallic, ceramic, carbides/nitrides having an MAX structure, glass and organic polymers (par. [0085]-[0092]) and examples of different properties which can be imparted include powders with improved ductility/oxidation resistance. (par. [0134]-[0135]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include at least a first and second feedstock powder in granules taught in Jackson et al. as disclosed in Zimmerman et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a first and second feedstock powder in order to impart different properties to the matrix of Jackson et al. such as ductility or oxidation resistance by selection of appropriate materials in the feedstock powder. With particular respect to the limitations “diffusive material” and “matrix material”, these terms do not have specific definitions in the specification and are therefore broadly being interpreted as referring to materials capable of diffusion or being formed into a matrix. The materials taught in Jackson and Zimmerman et al. including CMAS compositions, metallic, ceramic, carbides/nitrides having an MAX structure, glass and organic polymers would therefore all meet the requirements of a “diffusive material” and “matrix material” as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, the diameter of the coarse core is greater than 10 micrometers and the fine shell particles of less than 5 microns, such as 1-2 microns which would mean the ratio of thickness of the fine particles on the surface of the coarse particle is at least 10 times the size of the coarse granules (par. [0060]). Furthermore, Jackson et al. teaches that the overall final size of the particles should generally be over 10 microns for thermal spray processes (par. [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the overall thickness of the fine shell coating particles on the surface of the coarse particles disclosed in Jackson et al., based on the disclosure thereof of the relative size difference and the desire to control the final particle size for use in a thermal spray process. "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05
Regarding claim 3, Jackson et al. discloses the diameters of the particles lying in the range of 10 to 150 micrometers, which encompasses the presently claimed range. (par. [0060]). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 4, the coating of fine shell particles may include multiple layers (i.e. 2 or more). (par. [0064]).
Regarding claim 5, the fine shell particles may be configured to melt during thermal spray deposition based on the thickness of the coating and temperature of the thermal spray process
Regarding claim 7, Jackson et al. discloses forming silicon oxycarbide particles dispersed in silicon-containing matrix. (par. [0035]). It would therefore have been obvious to form a thermal spray powder composition where the coarse granule includes silicon oxycarbide with fine particles of a silicon oxide matrix to form the coating composition taught in Jackson et al.
Regarding claim 8, the fine shell particles may include SiO2 (par. [0065]).
Regarding claim 10, the fine particles coated on the coarse particles would meet the limitation of diffusive material, sacrificial material and matrix material, in particular with the combination of layers or constituents of the coatings as disclosed in par. [0064]-[0065]).
Regarding claim 21, Zimmerman et al. discloses that the particles mixture is co-deposited to form a coating composition. (par. [0025]-[0027]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to co-deposit the mixture of particles in Jackson et al. to provide a coating composition having the combined properties provided by each feedstock powder as taught by Zimmerman et al.
Regarding claim 25, Jackson et al. teaches shell particles on the surface of the core particles which are calcium aluminosilicate (CAS) (par. [0059] and [0065]).
Claims 22-24 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson et al. (EP 3789370) (cited in the IDS filed on 10/04/2023) in view of Zimmermann et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2014/0287149, further in view of Li et al. (EP 3418420)
Jackson in view of Zimmermann et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above. Jackson et al. discloses forming silicon oxycarbide particles dispersed in silicon-containing matrix. (par. [0035]). It would therefore have been obvious to form a thermal spray powder composition where the coarse granule includes silicon oxycarbide with fine particles of a silicon oxide matrix to form the coating composition taught in Jackson et al. Zimmerman et al. teaches the inclusion of a silicide/carbide material. (par. [0085]-[0092]).
Jackson et al. does not disclose one of the particles including a core made of a silicide or silicon carbide.
Li et al. teaches a method of forming a barrier layer on a CMC substrate by including a thermal powder spray composition including a plurality of particles having a coating material which encapsulates the first particle (i.e. a core/shell structure). (Abstract and Fig. 3). Li et al. teaches using silicide/silicon carbide particles for altering the properties of the coating including chemical resistance, oxidation resistance and coefficient of thermal expansion. (par. [0036]-[0037]). The particle may further include a silicon with transition metal boride, nitride or carbide (i.e. silicides). (par. [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include silicide and silicon carbide as the core materials in Jackson et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include silicon carbide and silicide materials in view of the disclosure in Li et al. that such compounds are known in the art to provide particular properties of interest to thermal sprayed ceramic coating compositions such as chemical resistance, oxidation resistance and coefficient of thermal expansion and are known to be used as particles having a core/shell structure. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.07.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 02/16/2026 regarding the prior art rejections of record have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
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 ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 04/13/2026
Prosecution Insights