DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 23 January 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 4 – 6, and 9 – 11 remain pending in the application. Claims 13 – 18 are new claim(s) commensurate in scope with claim 1 or claim 6, as appropriate, and therefore are under consideration.
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.
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.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1) as being anticipated by Zaplatynsky (US 5,080,977 A), as evidenced by Bruce (US 5,418,003 A), Leatham (US 3,231,402 A), Hung (US 2018/0094182 A1), and Fourcade (US 2012/0141701 A1). Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaplatynsky (and the cited evidentiary references) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 1, Zaplatynsky discloses a gas turbine engine (e.g. Col. 1, ll. 18 – 22, 30 – 35 discuss background relating to engines which Zaplatynsky seeks to improve) article (e.g. Fig. 1, 2; Col. 1, l. 53, to Col. 4, l. 10) comprising:
a substrate (“substrate”, e.g. “substrate” 12: e.g. Fig. 1, 2; Col. 1, l. 66, to Col. 2, l. 2; Col. 2, ll. 8 – 20, 42 – 46); and
a silicate-resistant barrier coating disposed on the substrate (“composite thermal barrier coating”, e.g. “composite thermal barrier coating” 10: e.g. Fig. 1, 2; e.g. Col. 1, l. 56, to Col. 2, l. 20; Col. 2, l. 40, to Col. 4, l. 10), the silicate-resistant barrier coating having an engineered microstructure (defined at least in part by using particles in the starting mixture on the order of tens of micrometers: e.g. Col. 3, ll. 11 – 33) comprising,
a refractory matrix formed of grains (“zirconia grains” 22: e.g. Fig. 1, 2; Col. 2, ll. 52 – 65), and
calcium aluminosilicate additive (CAS additive) dispersed in grain boundaries between the grains (“glass phase” 24 composed of an “Al2O3-CaO-SiO2 system between the “zirconia grains” 22: e.g. Fig. 1, 2; Col. 1, l. 66, to Col. 2, l. 2; Col. 2, ll. 8 – 20; Col. 2, l. 58, to Col. 3, l. 60).
While Zaplatynsky does not directly disclose the silicate resistant barrier coating includes, by mol.%, 0.1 to 30 of the CAS additive, Zaplatynsky provides disclosure useful for determining this mol.%.
As an example, Zaplatynsky discloses a silicate-resistant barrier coating has a composition formed from a starting mixture of 1 part by volume of the CAS additive and 9 parts by volume of the refractory matrix, considering the “true densities” of both (e.g. Col. 3, ll. 21 – 26). The refractory matrix may be 8 wt.% yttria-stabilized zirconia (YSZ) (e.g. Col. 2, ll. 52 – 54), and the CAS additive may have 23.3 wt.% CaO, 14.6 wt.% Al2O3, and 62.1 wt.% SiO2 (e.g. Col. 2, l. 67, to Col. 3, l. 3; Col. 3, l. 12, to Col. 3, l. 18).
Relevant molecular weights and densities for these species are as follows:
Oxide
Molecular weight (g/mol)
True density (g/cm3)
ZrO2
123.22
5.9 – 6.1 (maximum theoretical for YSZ) (Bruce: Col. 6, ll. 64 – 65)
Y2O3
225.81
CaO
56.08
3.34 (Leatham: Col. 2, ll. 21 – 22)
Al2O3
101.96
3.95 (Hung: ¶ [0193])
SiO2
60.08
2.6 (Fourcade: ¶ [0087])
Because claim 1 refers to the silicate resistant barrier coating including CAS additive by a mol.%, it is understood the basis for calculation is the total composition of the silicate resistant barrier coating. Since Zaplatynsky’s silicate-resistant barrier coating above is composed of the CAS additive and the refractory matrix, the mol.% of the CAS additive is thus (x being mol.% and n being number of moles):
x
C
A
S
=
n
C
A
S
n
C
A
S
+
n
R
M
×
100
%
=
n
Z
r
+
n
Y
n
C
a
+
n
A
l
+
n
S
i
×
100
%
In the subscripts, CAS refers to the CAS additive, RM refers to the refractory matrix. Additionally, Zr refers to ZrO2, Y refers to Y2O3, Ca refers to CaO, Al refers to Al2O3, and Si refers to SiO2.
To calculate
n
Z
r
and
n
Y
, using cm3 as the basis for volume, Zaplatynsky’s “true densities” disclosure and 9 parts by volume indicates gives 54 g of YSZ (using 6 g/cm3 as the density to simplify calculations given the range Bruce discloses). Because Y2O3 is 8 wt.% of the YSZ, there is thus 4.32 g of Y2O3 and 49.68 g of ZrO2. Dividing these values by the respective molecular weights listed above thus means there is 0.019 mol of Y2O3 and 0.403 mol of ZrO2, or 0.422 mol of YSZ refractory matrix.
However, to calculate
n
C
a
,
n
A
l
, and
n
S
i
, an overall “true” density must first be evaluated for the CAS additive, which is
ρ
C
A
S
=
m
C
a
+
m
A
l
+
m
S
i
V
C
a
+
V
A
l
+
V
S
i
=
m
C
a
+
m
A
l
+
m
S
i
m
C
a
ρ
C
a
+
m
A
l
ρ
A
l
+
m
S
i
ρ
S
i
Using 100 parts by mass as a basis, e.g. 100 g, for the CAS additive, the wt.% Zaplatynsky discloses and the listed densities thus gives
ρ
C
A
S
=
23.3
g
+
14.6
g
+
62.1
g
23.3
g
3.34
g
c
m
3
+
14.6
g
3.95
g
c
m
3
+
62.1
g
2.6
g
c
m
3
=
2.90
g
c
m
3
Accordingly, when 1 part by volume, namely 1 cm3 is used in conjunction with the 9 cm3 as Zaplatynsky discloses, there is 2.90 g of the CAS additive. Using the weight percentages again as Zaplatynsky discloses, there is thus 0.42 g of CaO, 0.68 g of Al2O3, and 1.80 g of SiO2. Dividing these values by the respective molecular weights listed above means there is 0.012 mol of CaO, 0.004 mol of Al2O3, and 0.030 mol of SiO2, or 0.046 mol of the CAS additive.
Accordingly, the mol% of the CAS additive is
x
C
A
S
=
1
1
+
0.422
m
o
l
0.046
m
o
l
×
100
%
=
9.87
m
o
l
%
and thus is within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, as noted in the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1, Zaplatynsky discloses the refractory matrix is, e.g. zirconia (e.g. Col. 2, ll. 52 – 54) and the CAS additive includes SiO2, AlO1.5, and CaO (e.g. Col. 2, l. 67, to Col. 3, l. 3; Col. 3, l. 12, to Col. 3, l. 18).
Regarding claim 4, although Zaplatynsky does not explicitly state the silicate resistant barrier coating includes, by mol. %, 3 to 8 of the CAS additive, it should also be emphasized Zaplatynsky uses “about” in reference to the amounts of CaO, Al2O3, and SiO2 (e.g. Col. 2, l. 67, to Col. 3, l. 3; Col. 3, l. 12, to Col. 3, l. 18) and thus some deviation, up or down, from the 9.87 mol% calculated value in the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 is expected. Some of this is due to the variable density Bruce describes for stabilized YSZ. Furthermore, Zaplatynsky indicates the composition of the glass phase is not fixed to the compositions previously discussed (e.g. Col. 4, ll. 5 – 7, suggest B2O3 could be added). This means alternative amounts in the vicinity of that for the CAS additive above can be considered similarly useful so long as they maintain properties such as non-reactivity toward yttria-stabilized zirconia (e.g. Col. 3, ll. 3 – 10).
Accordingly, there is suggestion for the CAS additive to be present at amounts of 8 mol.% or lower, thus overlapping the range of claim 4. In the case where the claimed ranges “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). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the limitations of claim 4, using the values calculated in the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 for the individual amount of SiO2, Al2O3, and CaO as well as their total amount, Zaplatynsky’s CAS additive includes 64.91 mol% of SiO2, 8.99 mol.% of Al2O3, and 26.09 mol% of CaO. Each of these values is within the respective range of claim 5.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaplatynsky (and the cited evidentiary references) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yilbas (US 2017/0137329 A1).
Regarding claim 13, although Zaplatynsky permits the refractory matrix to be, or include, other ceramic species (“ceramic” is generally mentioned: e.g. Col. 1, l. 66, to Col. 2, l. 2), Zaplatynsky is not explicit as to a refractory matrix selected from hafnium silicate, zirconium silicate, and combinations thereof.
However, Yilbas describes a matrix of, e.g., zirconium silicate serving a similar purpose to yttria-stabilized zirconia, namely a stable ceramic for use with engines (e.g. ¶¶ [0054], [0055]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Zaplatynsky’s refractor matrix to be, e.g., zirconium silicate as Yilbas suggests, the rationale being that a substitution yields substantially the same, i.e. predictable result, wherein a stable composition for a refractory matrix in an engine is provided. MPEP § 2143, I, B.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9 – 11, and 14 – 18 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Zaplatynsky mixes particles of a refractory matrix material and particles of a calcium aluminosilicate additive to provide the features of claim 1 but does not suggest configuring particles in either of the configurations as required of independent claim 6 or claim 16. Notably, Zaplatynsky does not teach the attachment required of the particular core and shell configurations of either of these claims.
A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph. Accordingly, claims 9 – 11, 14, 15, 17, and 18 are allowed for similar reasons as their respective base claim.
Parent application 16/562,078 to the instant application, of which the instant application is a divisional thereof, has a filing date of 5 September 2019 with no earlier priority, making this date the terminus for assessing patentability under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). Golden (US 2021/0221749 A1) discloses structures similar to Zaplatynsky but has a publication date (22 July 2021), a filing date (21 December 2020), and provisional filing date (24 December 2019) and therefore is ineligible for consideration as prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 6, filed 23 January 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 6 – 7, filed 23 January 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 – 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Zaplatynsky.
Applicant asserts patentability on the basis that the prior art fails to teach a CAS additive present in the amount claimed in claim 3 (now canceled, and whose subject matter is amended into claim 1). Zaplatynsky discloses a CAS additive which meets both the structural and composition requirements of claim 1 and therefore is cited for the new grounds of rejection herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN A UTT whose telephone number is (571)270-0356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Central.
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.
/ETHAN A. UTT/ Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights