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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 10125618).
Lee teaches wherein the layer comprises a first layer formed over the substrate and a second layer formed over the first layer, the first layer comprising a rare earth disilicate, the second layer comprising a rare earth monosilicate, and wherein an interface between the first layer and the second layer is distinct (See claims; i.e. 16).
The first and second layers of Lee are taught to be homogeneous (See claims and Examples). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the claimed percentages of at least 95%, and at least 50% silicates claimed in order to provide a homogeneous layer.
Regarding claim 2, the layer is formed and bonded directly on the substrate (See Examples).
Regarding claim 3, the interface layer between the first layer and the second layer is a compositionally graded transition that is predominately rare earth disilicate adjacent the first layer and predominately rare earth monosilicate adjacent the second layer (see claims; i.e. 17).
Regarding claim 4, the layers are part of a coating system (See Examples).
Regarding claim 5, the interface layer between the first layer and the second layer is a compositionally graded transition that is predominately rare earth disilicate adjacent the first layer and predominately rare earth monosilicate adjacent the second layer (see claims; i.e. 17).
One of ordinary skill can consider the graded interface layer to comprise three distinct compositions overlapping the claim 5’s second layer, third and fourth layers; alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the interface as multiple distinct layers with overlapping compositions claimed in a graded composition as opposed to one graded layer.
Regarding claim 6, the negative limitation claiming no sintering aid is a product by process claim limitation that is not patentably distinguishing when the article is otherwise taught absent a showing of a distinct product from evidence on the record.
The substrate (12) may be a ceramic that includes silicon, such as a silicon carbide (SiC), silicon nitride (Si.sub.3N.sub.4), or similar silicon-containing ceramic (see figres and description of 12).
The thicknesses of the coating would dictate maximum grain size as the grains fit within the coating thickness. The taught thicknesses would indicate grain sizes within greater than zero and overlapping the claimed range; thus it would be obvious to provide within that overlapping range dependent upon desired properties of the films/layers.
Regarding claim 9, the art teaches the claimed Yb silicate (See Examples and claims).
Regarding claim 10, the art is capable of being “configured” to be installed in a turbine engine. Applicant does not positively recite and claim a turbine engine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL H MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1534. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9-6.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/DANIEL H MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights