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 .
Status of Claims
1. Claims 1, 3-13, and 15-17 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments/Allowable Subject Matter
2. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the prior art suggestions combined with the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art provides sufficient motivation for the proposed combination of references.
3. Specifically, Arbell suggests that the materials taught by Khatkhatay could be used in its coating system. And, Khatkhatay establishes that the materials it teaches are suitable for use in a nuclear fuel rod cladding system. Thus, the references are obvious to combine. Both reference include motivation for their combination.
4. Claims 6 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Applicant’s arguments are persuasive with respect to AAPA applied in the rejection of claim 6 previously. There is no teaching in the prior art of a multilayer ceramic coating with a bond coat layer as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
6. For applicant's benefit, the portions of the reference(s) relied upon in the below rejections have been cited to aid in the review of the rejections. While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that prior art must be considered in its entirety, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arbell et al., WO 97/31376 in view of Khatkhatay et al., “Superior corrosion resistance properties of TiN-based coatings on Zircaloy tubes in supercritical water” in further view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
9. Regarding claims 1, 3, and 8, Arbell discloses a method of providing a nuclear fuel cladding in a radioactive fuel reactor (Abs., p. 1, lines 7-20), the method comprising the steps of coating a nuclear fuel cladding with a coating system including a multilayer coating on the substrate including adjacent layers (Fig. 3, p. 11, lines 23-37); exposing the nuclear fuel cladding in pure water at at least 360 °C and a saturation pressure of 18.7 MPa (p. 13, lines 15-231), wherein the coating system is maintained without spallation or delamination for at least a period of time in a range of 3 to 90 days (p. 13, lines 20-23; p. 12, lines 30-32).
Arbell’s specific example is a multilayer coating of alternating layers of Ti and TiN, but Arbell further suggests a variety of materials suitable for use in its coating system, including a the binary metal compound TiN and the ternary metal compound TiAlN (see p. 6, lines 17-23).
Khatkhatay teaches that both TiN and TiAlN posess the physical properties necessary for use a nuclear fuel rod cladding coating materials, based on exposing such material to water at at least 360 °C and a saturation pressure of 18.7 MPa (see 1. Introduction, 2. Experimental, 4. Conclusions). Khatkhatay further teaches that TiN is more stable to oxidation than TiAlN (3. Results and discussion), suggesting that it is more suitable as a top coat layer than TiAlN.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to apply the coating system materials taught by Khatkhatay to the method of Arbell because Arbell suggests using the materials taught by Khatkhatay in a multilayer nuclear fuel cladding coating system and Khatkhatay establishes that such materials are suitable for use in a nuclear fuel cladding coating system. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397.
Finally regarding claim 1, neither Arbell nor Khatkhatay teach a bond coat layer. However, AAPA teaches that a Ti-bond layer between a TiN coating and a metal substrate increases adhesion (see published application at [0011], citing NPL published in 1991). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have been motivated to combine such a bond coat layer with the coating system of Arbell as modified by Khatkhatay for the predictable purpose of improving adhesion between the coating and the substrate.
Accordingly, Arbell as modified by Khatkhatay and AAPA results in a multilayer coating system (Arbell) including:
(i) a Ti bond coat on the substrate (AAPA)
(ii) alternating adjacent ceramic layers on the bond coat layer at least one of the adjacent ceramic layers including TiAlN and at least one of the adjacent ceramic layers including TiN (Arbell+Khatkhatay), and
(iii) a top coat layer of TiN (Khatkhatay).
10. Regarding claims 5 and 7, the method of Arbell as modified by the materials taught by Khatkhatay and AAPA renders claim 1 obvious. Arbell and Khatkhatay are silent as to the absolute value of the thickness of the individual layers in their coating systems. However, Arbell states that the coating as a whole has a thickness of 5-20 µm (p. 12, line 34 through p. 13, line 2) and that the coating is made up of 5-10 layers (p. 13, line 16). Therefore, the thickness of the individual layers is 1 µm to 4 µm. That is, a 5 µm coating of 5 layers would consist of layers that are 1 µm thick, while a 20 layer coating of 10 µm thickness would have individual layers of 0.5 µm thickness. AAPA (PGPub at [0011]) discloses a bond coat thickness falling within the claimed range.
11. Regarding claim 12, the method of Arbell as modified by the materials taught by Khatkhatay and AAPA renders claim 1 obvious. Arbell further discloses a method wherein coating the nuclear fuel cladding comprises coating by a physical vapor deposition (PVD) coating process or a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) coating process (p. 7 line 29 through p. 8, line 6).
12. Claims 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arbell et al., WO 97/31376 in view of Khatkhatay et al., “Superior corrosion resistance properties of TiN-based coatings on Zircaloy tubes in supercritical water.”
13. Regarding claims 13 and 15, Arbell discloses a method of providing a nuclear fuel cladding in a radioactive fuel reactor (Abs., p. 1, lines 7-20), the method comprising the steps of coating a nuclear fuel cladding with a coating system including a multilayer coating on the substrate including at least one layer including a binary metal compound (Fig. 3, p. 11, lines 23-37); exposing the nuclear fuel cladding in pure water at at least 360 °C and a saturation pressure of 18.7 MPa (p. 13, lines 15-232), wherein the coating system is maintained without spallation or delamination for at least a period of time in a range of 3 to 90 days (p. 13, lines 20-23; p. 12, lines 30-32).
Arbell’s specific example is a multilayer coating of alternating layers of Ti and TiN, but Arbell further suggests a variety of materials suitable for use in its coating system, including a the binary metal compound TiN and the ternary metal compound TiAlN (see p. 6, lines 17-23).
Khatkhatay teaches that both TiN and TiAlN posess the physical properties necessary for use a nuclear fuel rod cladding coating materials, based on exposing such material to water at at least 360 °C and a saturation pressure of 18.7 MPa (see 1. Introduction, 2. Experimental, 4. Conclusions). Khatkhatay further teaches that TiN is more stable to oxidation than TiAlN (3. Results and discussion), suggesting that it is more suitable as a top coat layer than TiAlN.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to apply the coating system materials taught by Khatkhatay to the method of Arbell because Arbell suggests using the materials taught by Khatkhatay in a multiplayer nuclear fuel cladding coating system and Khatkhatay establishes that such materials are suitable for use in a nuclear fuel cladding coating system. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397.
Accordingly, Arbell as modified by Khatkhatay results in a multilayer coating system (Arbell) including:
(i) at least one layer including TiAlN and at least one layer including TiN (Arbell+Khatkhatay), and
(ii) a top coat layer of TiN (Khatkhatay).
14. Regarding claim 16, the method of Arbell as modified by the materials taught by Khatkhatay renders claim 13 obvious. Arbell further discloses a method wherein coating the nuclear fuel cladding comprises coating by a physical vapor deposition (PVD) coating process or a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) coating process (p. 7 line 29 through p. 8, line 6).
15. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arbell et al., WO 97/31376 in view of Khatkhatay and AAPA, in further view of Bryan et al., US 5,301,211.
16. Regarding claim 4, the method of Arbell as modified by the materials taught by Khatkhatay and AAPA renders claim 1 obvious. Neither Arbell nor Khatkhatay teach CrN as a top coat layer. However, Bryan equates CrN with TiN as nuclear fuel cladding coatings (see column 1, lines 5-9 and Table 1). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to include a top coat layer of CrN as taught by Bryan for the predictable purpose of providing a nuclear fuel assembly component wear or corrosion resistant coating that can maintain its integrity during operation” (Bryan column 1, lines 51-54). Additionally, “[i]t is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted) and MPEP §2144.06.
18. Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arbell et al., WO 97/31376 in view of Khatkhatay and AAPA, in further view of Moser et al., "Yttrium-induced structural changes in sputtered Ti1− xAlxN thin films."
19. Regarding claims 9-11, the method of Arbell as modified by the materials taught by Khatkhatay and AAPA renders claim 1 obvious. Arbell and Khatkhatay are silent as to the inclusion of a dopant in their ceramic multilayer coatings. Moser teaches the addition of 3-9 at% yttrium as a dopant in ceramic coatings, noting that the dopant provides “improve[d] mechanical properties and oxidation resistance due to the Y-segregation caused grain refinement during film growth and the strong affinity of Y for oxygen.” Accordingly, Moser provides motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing to modify the coatings of Arbell and Khatkhatay in such a manner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON M DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6882. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00 - 5:00 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, Jack Keith can be reached on 571-272-6878. 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.
/SHARON M DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 The saturation pressure of water is a known physical property that is a function of the temperature. Therefore, because Arbell discloses exposure to pure water at the same temperature as the claim, Arbell inherently and necessarily also discloses the same saturation pressure. See the calculator available at https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-vapor-saturation-pressure-d_599.html
2 The saturation pressure of water is a known physical property that is a function of the temperature. Therefore, because Arbell discloses exposure to pure water at the same temperature as the claim, Arbell inherently and necessarily also discloses the same saturation pressure. See the calculator available at https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-vapor-saturation-pressure-d_599.html