DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 9, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-14 and 16-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites “the coating” in line 6 of claim 10, and this phrase “the coating” clearly refers to the “a coating” recited in line 1 of claim 10. Later, “a coating” is recited in line 9 of claim 10. Thus, when applicant recites “the coating” in line 18 of claim 10, it is unclear if the phrase “the coating” in line 18 refers to the “a coating” of line 1 or the “a coating” of line 9. It is possible for a component to comprise more than one coating. For purposes of examination, it was presumed that applicant intended to write “the coating” instead of “a coating” in line 9 of claim 10.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the colling channel" in line 24 of claim 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the colling channel" in line 24 of claim 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the component". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the component material". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2015/0059802 by Weaver in view of RU 2714976 by Katsuba in view of KR20210147881 by Eiichi in view of GB 2074872 by Froud in view of RO 131623 by Luca.
With regard to claim 10, Weaver teaches a method of removing a coating from a turbine component, wherein the method comprises contacting the coated turbine component with potassium hydroxide (KOH) liquid solution at “at least about 120 degrees Celsius and an elevated pressure of about 0.1 to 1 MPa”, wherein this high-temperature, high-pressure treatment is “performed simultaneously with providing ultrasonic energy to said liquid” (Abstract; Par. 0009-0014 and 0048-0052, all quoted language from Par. 0052).
Weaver doesn’t teach that this treatment with high-temperature, high-pressure, and ultrasonic radiation is achieved using a vessel with a sealable volume therein.
Katsuba provides detail about a vessel that can successfully be used to remove a coating from a turbine blade using a combination of heated and pressurized potassium hydroxide solution agitated with ultrasonic radiation (Abstract; pages 3-6 and 8-10 and claims 1-3 of translation). Katsuba teaches that the treated blade(s) can be loaded into a blade-containing basket that is then inserted into a coating-removal vessel that comprises a body with a sealable processing volume therein (pages 3-6 and 8-10 and claims 1-3 of translation). Katsuba teaches providing the KOH cleaning solution as a liquid while the processing volume is pressurized to atmospheric pressure, and Katsuba then teaches heating the KOH solution such that a desired high-temperature and high-pressure environment is achieved inside said vessel (pages 3-6 and 8-10 and claims 1-3 of translation). Katsuba teaches using a temperature maintenance system to heat the KOH cleaning solution to the desired temperature, wherein the temperature maintenance system comprises heaters (items 12 in Figure 1) outside exterior surfaces of the coating-removal vessel (pages 8-9 of translation). Katsuba teaches that coating-removal can be enhanced by using an ultrasonic transducer to apply ultrasonic radiation to the KOH solution liquid (Par. 9 pf translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Weaver such that Weaver’s coating-removal (using KOH solution, high-temperature, high-pressure, and simultaneous ultrasonic radiation) is achieved using a coating-removal vessel of the type taught by Katsuba. In this method of Weaver in view of Katsuba, Weaver’s coated blade is loaded into a blade-containing basket, said basket is then loaded into a coating-removal vessel that comprises a body and a sealable processing volume therein, Weaver’s KOH solution is provided as a liquid while the processing volume is pressurized to atmospheric pressure (reads on surrounding ambient pressure), Weaver’s KOH solution is heated (using Katsuba’s above-discussed temperature maintenance system) such that Weaver’s high-temperature (“at least about 120 degrees Celsius”, see Weaver’s Par. 0052) and Weaver’s high-pressure (“an elevated pressure of about 0.1 to 1 MPa”, see Weaver’s Par. 0052) are achieved, and wherein the KOH solution is in liquid phase during the high-temperature, high-pressure treatment such that Katsuba’s ultrasonic transducer can simultaneously apply ultrasonic radiation to the KOH liquid solution during the high-pressure, high-temperature removal of the coating. Weaver doesn’t provide much detail about any apparatus for performing his coating-removal (using KOH solution, high-temperature, high-pressure, and simultaneous ultrasonic radiation, as discussed in Par. 0052 of Weaver), and motivation for performing the modification was provided by Katsuba, who provides a detailed description of a coating-removal vessel and a technique for operating said vessel, and wherein Katsuba teaches that such a vessel and operation technique can successfully be used to remove a coating from a turbine blade using a combination of KOH at high-temperature and high-pressure and ultrasonic radiation.
The combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba does not explicitly recite that the high-temperature (“at least about 120 degrees Celsius”, see Weaver’s Par. 0052) KOH solution is above the boiling point of the KOH solution at surrounding ambient pressure (that is, atmospheric pressure). However, the temperature to which the KOH cleaning solution is raised during the cleaning (at high temperature and high pressure) is considered to be a result-effective variable because Weaver teaches that the temperature of the cleaning solution is a result-effective variable that affects the effectiveness of the coating-removal process (Par. 0047 of Weaver). In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Weaver in view of Katsuba such that the temperature to which the KOH cleaning solution is raised during the high-temperature, high-pressure cleaning is optimized, as Weaver teaches that the temperature of the cleaning solution is a result-effective variable that affects the effectiveness of the coating-removal process.
As discussed, Katsuba teaches using a temperature maintenance system to heat the KOH cleaning solution to the desired temperature, wherein the temperature maintenance system comprises heaters (items 12 in Figure 1) outside exterior surfaces of the coating-removal vessel (pages 8-9 of translation). The combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba does not recite that any of the heaters (of Katsuba’s temperature maintenance system) are surrounding any of said exterior surfaces.
Eiichi teaches that when using a heater to heat fluid inside a cleaning tank, the heater can successfully perform its heating function while surrounding part of the cleaning tank (Abstract; pages 10-11 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Weaver in view of Katsuba such that the heaters surround the exterior surfaces of the coating-removal vessel. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Eiichi, who teaches that when using a heater to heat fluid inside a cleaning tank, the heater can successfully perform its heating function while surrounding part of the cleaning tank.
The combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Eiichi does not recite that the temperature maintenance system also comprises a cooling channel.
Froud teaches that when performing cleaning in a sealed vessel with heated cleaning fluid, it is advantageous to allow the internal temperature of the vessel to fall to a safe level before opening the vessel to remove cleaned objects (Abstract; pages 3-4).
When discussing the background of his invention, Katsuba teaches that alkaline solution heated to high temperature can be potentially dangerous to personnel (page 2 of Katsuba translation).
Luca teaches that when using a vessel of cleaning liquid to remove coatings from components, cooling of the cleaning liquid can successfully be accomplished by a cooling channel, wherein the cooling channel functions by having cooling fluid flow through the channel such that heat from the cleaning liquid can be transferred to the flowing cooling fluid, wherein the cooling channel is arranged within the cleaning liquid in the vessel, wherein the cooling channel comprises opposed first and second ends within the vessel (Abstract; pages 6-9 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Eiichi such that the vessel comprises a cooling channel inside the vessel such that the cooling channel contacts KOH cleaning liquid inside the vessel, wherein the cooling channel comprises opposed first and second ends within the vessel, wherein the cooling channel performs its cooling by having cooling fluid flow through the channel such that heat from the KOH cleaning liquid can be transferred to the flowing cooling fluid, and wherein the cooling channel is used to cool the cleaning liquid down to a safe temperature after the treating of the blade with hot KOH solution is complete and prior to opening the vessel such that the blade can be separated from the used KOH solution and removed coating material therein. Motivation for cooling the KOH solution after heat treatment is complete was provided by Froud, who teaches that when performing cleaning in a sealed vessel with heated cleaning fluid, it is advantageous to allow the internal temperature of the vessel to fall to a safe level before opening the vessel to remove cleaned objects. Katsuba teaches that alkaline solution heated to high temperature can be potentially dangerous to personnel, and cooling the KOH solution to a safe temperature prior to opening the vessel would advantageously prevent harm to personnel. The motivation for using a cooling channel to perform the cooling was provided by Luca, who teaches that when using a vessel of cleaning liquid to remove coatings from components, cooling of the cleaning liquid can successfully be accomplished by a cooling channel, wherein the cooling channel is arranged within the cleaning liquid in the vessel, wherein the cooling channel comprises opposed first and second ends within the vessel, and wherein the cooling channel functions by having cooling fluid flow through the channel such that heat from the cleaning liquid can be transferred to the flowing cooling fluid. In this combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Eiichi in view of Froud in view of Luca, the cooling channel is considered to be part of the temperature maintenance system.
The combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Eiichi in view of Froud in view of Luca, as developed thus far, does not recite that cooling the KOH cleaning solution to a safe temperature comprises cooling the KOH cleaning solution to a temperature less than the boiling point of that solution at surrounding ambient pressure. However, in the method of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Eiichi in view of Froud in view of Luca, the temperature to which the KOH solution is cooled by the cooling channel is considered to be a result-effective variable, as the point of cooling the KOH solution is to prevent harm to personnel and it is well-known that the temperature of a liquid affects how much harm it can potentially do to a human (for example by scalding a human). Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Eiichi in view of Froud in view of Luca such that, when KOH cleaning solution is cooled down prior to opening the vessel to remove the cleaned blade, the temperature down to which the KOH cleaning liquid is cooled is optimized, as that temperature is a result-effective variable that affects the potential of the KOH solution to harm human personnel.
In the developed combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Eiichi in view of Froud in view of Luca, when the cooling channel is used to cool the KOH cleaning liquid, heat is transferred from the KOH cleaning liquid into a cooling fluid flowing through the cooling channel – thereby actively reducing the temperature of the KOH cleaning solution.
In the developed combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Eiichi in view of Froud in view of Luca, the KOH cleaning solution is cooled down to an optimized temperature before the vessel is opened in order to remove the treated blade. In the combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Eiichi in view of Froud in view of Luca, the act of opening the vessel in order to remove the blade corresponds to applicant’s step of venting the sealable volume to the surrounding ambient atmosphere.
With regard to claim 11, the combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Eiichi in view of Froud in view of Luca teaches removing the coating “without damaging or affecting” (Par. 0038 of Weaver) the material of the component, and thus the combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Eiichi in view of Froud in view of Luca is considered to teach removing the coating while removing less than 0.05% of the material of the component.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2015/0059802 by Weaver in view of RU 2714976 by Katsuba in view of KR20210147881 by Eiichi in view of GB 2074872 by Froud in view of RO 131623 by Luca as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of U.S. 3,563,711 to Hammond.
With regard to claim 12, the combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Eiichi in view of Froud in view of Luca does not explicitly teach removing the KOH cleaning solution that has contacted the coating from the vessel and providing fresh removal fluid to the processing volume.
Hammond teaches a method of cleaning turbine components with heated caustic solution in a sealed vessel (Abstract; column 2, line 44 to column 4, line 35). Hammond teaches that used caustic fluid can be drained from the sealed vessel once treatment of a turbine component has been successfully completed (column 3, line 27 to line 42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Eiichi in view of Froud in view of Luca by draining the used KOH cleaning solution from the vessel such that fresh, unused KOH cleaning solution is later supplied into the vessel for removing coating from a new set of blade(s). Hammond teaches that used caustic fluid can be drained from a vessel once treatment of a turbine component has been successfully completed, and the motivation for performing the modification would be to drain away the used KOH fluid and any entrained contaminants. The motivation for later adding the fresh, unused KOH cleaning solution would be to advantageously allow another set of blade(s) to be treated in order to remove undesired coating therefrom.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2015/0059802 by Weaver in view of RU 2714976 by Katsuba in view of KR20210147881 by Eiichi in view of GB 2074872 by Froud in view of RO 131623 by Luca as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of U.S. 2006/0029733 by Bhatia.
With regard to claim 13, in the combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Eiichi in view of Froud in view of Luca, the turbine component is made of silicon carbide (Par. 0045 of Weaver).
Weaver teaches that the reasons for removing coatings from turbine components include the desire to remove damaged coatings and to perform repairs on components (Par. 0006 and 0031 of Weaver).
The combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Eiichi in view of Froud in view of Luca teaches that the removed coating of the turbine blade is an environmental barrier coating made from oxide material (Par. 0029, 0036-0038, and 0045 of Weaver), but the combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Eiichi in view of Froud in view of Luca does not recite that the environmental barrier coating is made from hafnium oxide or aluminum oxide.
Bhatia teaches that hafnium oxide can successfully be used as the oxide environmental barrier coating of a turbine component made from silicon carbide (Par. 0014-0019).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Eiichi in view of Froud in view of Luca such that the method of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Eiichi in view of Froud in view of Luca is used to treat a silicon carbide component that has a hafnium oxide environmental barrier. Bhatia teaches that hafnium oxide can successfully be used as the oxide environmental barrier coating of a turbine component made from silicon carbide, and the motivation for performing the modification would be to allow the coating-removal method of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Eiichi in view of Froud in view of Luca to advantageously remove a to-be-removed coating from such a component. Weaver teaches that the reasons for removing coatings from turbine components include the desire to remove damaged coatings and to perform repairs on components (Par. 0006 and 0031 of Weaver). In the combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Eiichi in view of Froud in view of Luca in view of Bhatia, the coating-removing method of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Eiichi in view of Froud in view of Luca is used to successfully remove the hafnium oxide environmental barrier from the component.
Claims 14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2015/0059802 by Weaver in view of RU 2714976 by Katsuba in view of GB 2074872 by Froud in view of RO 131623 by Luca in view of U.S. 2006/0029733 by Bhatia.
With regard to claims 14, 17, and 18, Weaver teaches a method of removing a coating from a turbine component, wherein the method comprises contacting the coated turbine component with potassium hydroxide (KOH) liquid solution at “at least about 120 degrees Celsius and an elevated pressure of about 0.1 to 1 MPa”, wherein this high-temperature, high-pressure treatment is “performed simultaneously with providing ultrasonic energy to said liquid” (Abstract; Par. 0009-0014 and 0048-0052, all quoted language from Par. 0052). In the method of Weaver, the heated caustic fluid removes the coating “without damaging or affecting” the material of the component (Par. 0038 of Weaver).
Weaver doesn’t teach that his method involves heating and cooling the KOH solution using a temperature maintenance system.
Katsuba provides detail about a vessel that can successfully be used to remove a coating from a turbine component using a combination of heated and pressurized potassium hydroxide solution agitated with ultrasonic radiation (Abstract; pages 3-6 and 8-10 and claims 1-3 of translation). Katsuba teaches that the treated component(s) can be loaded into a component-containing basket that is then inserted into a coating-removal vessel that comprises a body with a sealable processing volume therein (pages 3-6 and 8-10 and claims 1-3 of translation). Katsuba teaches providing the KOH cleaning solution as a liquid while the processing volume is pressurized to atmospheric pressure, and Katsuba then teaches heating the KOH solution such that a desired high-temperature and high-pressure environment is achieved inside said vessel (pages 3-6 and 8-10 and claims 1-3 of translation). Katsuba teaches using a temperature maintenance system to heat the KOH cleaning solution to the desired temperature, wherein the temperature maintenance system comprises heaters (items 12 in Figure 1) outside exterior surfaces of the coating-removal vessel (pages 8-9 of translation). Katsuba teaches that coating-removal can be enhanced by using an ultrasonic transducer to apply ultrasonic radiation to the KOH solution liquid (Par. 9 pf translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Weaver such that Weaver’s coating-removal (using KOH solution, high-temperature, high-pressure, and simultaneous ultrasonic radiation) is achieved using a coating-removal vessel of the type taught by Katsuba. In this method of Weaver in view of Katsuba, Weaver’s coated component is loaded into a component-containing basket, said basket is then loaded into a coating-removal vessel that comprises a body and a sealable processing volume therein, Weaver’s KOH solution is provided as a liquid while the processing volume is pressurized to atmospheric pressure (reads on surrounding ambient pressure), Weaver’s KOH solution is heated (using Katsuba’s above-discussed temperature maintenance system) such that Weaver’s high-temperature (“at least about 120 degrees Celsius”, see Weaver’s Par. 0052) and Weaver’s high-pressure (“an elevated pressure of about 0.1 to 1 MPa”, see Weaver’s Par. 0052) are achieved, and wherein the KOH solution is maintained in liquid phase during the high-temperature, high-pressure treatment such that Katsuba’s ultrasonic transducer can simultaneously apply ultrasonic radiation to the KOH liquid solution during the high-pressure, high-temperature removal of the coating. Weaver doesn’t provide much detail about any apparatus for performing his coating-removal (using KOH solution, high-temperature, high-pressure, and simultaneous ultrasonic radiation, as discussed in Par. 0052 of Weaver), and motivation for performing the modification was provided by Katsuba, who provides a detailed description of a coating-removal vessel and a technique for operating said vessel, and wherein Katsuba teaches that such a vessel and operation technique can successfully be used to remove a coating from a turbine component using a combination of KOH at high-temperature and high-pressure and ultrasonic radiation.
The combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba teaches that the heated KOH solution may contact the coated component for “30 seconds or more” (Par. 0052 of Weaver), but Weaver does not teach that the heated caustic fluid is maintained at a temperature (what applicant calls a first temperature in claim 14). However, in the method of Weaver in view of Katsuba, the temperature of the heated caustic fluid throughout the period of time when the component is contacted is considered to be a result-effective variable because Weaver teaches that the temperature of the cleaning solution is a result-effective variable that affects the effectiveness of the coating-removal process (Par. 0047 of Weaver). Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the temperature of the heated caustic cleaning fluid throughout its contact with the turbine component during the coating removal process. Motivation for performing the optimization was provided by Weaver, who teaches that the temperature of the cleaning solution is a result-effective variable that affects the effectiveness of the coating-removal process
The combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba does not recite that the temperature maintenance system can also perform cooling.
Froud teaches that when performing cleaning in a sealed vessel with heated cleaning fluid, it is advantageous to allow the internal temperature of the vessel to fall to a safe level before opening the vessel to remove cleaned objects (Abstract; pages 3-4).
When discussing the background of his invention, Katsuba teaches that alkaline solution heated to high temperature can be potentially dangerous to personnel (page 2 of Katsuba translation).
Luca teaches that when using a vessel of cleaning liquid to remove coatings from components, cooling of the cleaning liquid can successfully be accomplished by a cooling channel, wherein the cooling channel is arranged within the cleaning liquid in the vessel, and wherein the cooling channel functions by having cooling fluid flow through the channel such that heat from the cleaning liquid can be transferred to the flowing cooling fluid (Abstract; pages 6-9 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Weaver in view of Katsuba such that the vessel comprises a cooling channel inside the vessel such that the cooling channel contacts KOH cleaning liquid inside the vessel, wherein the cooling channel performs its cooling by having cooling fluid flow through the channel such that heat from the KOH cleaning liquid can be transferred to the flowing cooling fluid, and wherein the cooling channel is used to cool the cleaning liquid down to a safe temperature after the treating of the component with hot KOH solution is complete and prior to opening the vessel such that the component can be separated from the used KOH solution and removed coating material therein. Motivation for cooling the KOH solution after heat treatment is complete was provided by Froud, who teaches that when performing cleaning in a sealed vessel with heated cleaning fluid, it is advantageous to allow the internal temperature of the vessel to fall to a safe level before opening the vessel to remove cleaned objects. Katsuba teaches that alkaline solution heated to high temperature can be potentially dangerous to personnel, and cooling the KOH solution to a safe temperature prior to opening the vessel would advantageously prevent harm to personnel. The motivation for using a cooling channel to perform the cooling was provided by Luca, who teaches that when using a vessel of cleaning liquid to remove coatings from components, cooling of the cleaning liquid can successfully be accomplished by a cooling channel, wherein the cooling channel is arranged within the cleaning liquid in the vessel, and wherein the cooling channel functions by having cooling fluid flow through the channel such that heat from the cleaning liquid can be transferred to the flowing cooling fluid. In this combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca, the cooling channel is considered to be part of the temperature maintenance system.
The combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca, as developed thus far, does not recite that cooling the KOH cleaning solution to a safe temperature comprises cooling the KOH cleaning solution to a temperature at or less than a temperature where the KOH cleaning solution is a liquid at atmospheric pressure. However, in the method of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca, the temperature to which the KOH solution is cooled by the cooling channel is considered to be a result-effective variable, as the point of cooling the KOH solution is to prevent harm to personnel and it is well-known that the temperature of a liquid affects how much harm it can potentially do to a human (for example by scalding a human). Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca such that, when KOH cleaning solution is cooled down prior to opening the vessel to remove the cleaned component, the temperature down to which the KOH cleaning is cooled is optimized, as that temperature is a result-effective variable that affects the potential of the KOH solution to harm human personnel.
In the combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca, the turbine component is made of silicon carbide (Par. 0045 of Weaver).
The combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca teaches that the removed coating of the turbine component is an environmental barrier coating made from oxide material (Par. 0029, 0036-0038, and 0045 of Weaver), but the combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca does not recite that the environmental barrier coating is made from hafnium oxide or aluminum oxide.
Bhatia teaches that hafnium oxide can successfully be used as the oxide environmental barrier coating of a turbine component made from silicon carbide (Par. 0014-0019).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca such that the method of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca is used to treat a silicon carbide component that has a hafnium oxide environmental barrier. Bhatia teaches that hafnium oxide can successfully be used as the oxide environmental barrier coating of a turbine component made from silicon carbide, and the motivation for performing the modification would be to allow the coating-removal method of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca to advantageously remove a to-be-removed coating from such a component. Weaver teaches that the reasons for removing coatings from turbine components include the desire to remove damaged coatings and to perform repairs on components (Par. 0006 and 0031 of Weaver). In the combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca in view of Bhatia, the coating-removing method of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca is used to successfully remove the hafnium oxide environmental barrier from the component.
The combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca in view of Bhatia does not recite that the removal liquid “is reactive with the coating but non-reactive with the underlying material on which the coating resides at a temperature where the removal liquid is a liquid at atmospheric conditions at surrounding ambient psi pressure”. However, since the combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca in view of Bhatia teaches using the chemistries as those recited by applicant, it is reasonably expected that those chemistries will have the same properties as those recited by applicant – namely that the KOH solution (of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca in view of Bhatia) will be reactive with the hafnium oxide coating but non-reactive with the silicon carbide turbine component at a temperature where the KOH solution is a liquid at atmospheric ambient pressure.
In the developed combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca in view of Bhatia, when the cooling channel is used to cool the KOH cleaning liquid, heat is transferred from the KOH cleaning liquid into a cooling fluid flowing through the cooling channel – thereby actively reducing the temperature of the KOH cleaning solution.
With regard to claim 16, in the combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca in view of Bhatia, the heated caustic fluid removes the coating “without damaging or affecting” the material of the component (Par. 0038 of Weaver), and therefore, the heated caustic fluid is not considered to etch the silicon carbide component.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RU 2714976 by Katsuba in view of GB 2074872 by Froud in view of RO 131623 by Luca in view of U.S. 3,563,711 to Hammond.
With regard to claim 24, Katsuba teaches a method of removing a ceramic coating from a metallic blade of a gas turbine engine, wherein the method comprises inserting the metallic blade into a basket (reads on coating removal vessel), inserting the blade-containing basket into a treatment chamber (reads on containment vessel), sealing said chamber with a lid (item 4 in Figure 1), injecting cleaning solution into the sealed chamber, and maintaining the cleaning solution at high temperature and high pressure such that the coating is removed (Abstract; pages 3-6 and 8-10 and claims 1-3 of translation). Katsuba’s coating treatment chamber has a body (see Figure 1) and a sealable processing volume therein (page 8 of translation). Katsuba teaches providing the cleaning solution as a liquid while the processing volume is pressurized to atmospheric pressure (reads on at atmospheric pressure; page 8 of translation). Katsuba teaches heating the cleaning solution to within the range of 180 to 320 °C while the pressure in the treatment chamber is 1 to 4 MPa such that the heated and pressurized cleaning solution removes the coating from the metallic blade (Abstract; pages 3-6 and 8-10 and claims 1-3 of translation). Katsuba teaches using a temperature maintenance system to heat the cleaning solution to the desired temperature, wherein the temperature maintenance system comprises heaters (items 12 in Figure 1) outside exterior surfaces of the treatment chamber (pages 8-9 of translation).
Katsuba does not explicitly recite that the cleaning solution is a liquid during the high-pressure (1 to 4 MPa), high-temperature (180 to 320 °C) removal of the ceramic coating. The examiner doesn’t have a phase chart (illustrating what phase – solid, liquid, gas, or supercritical – the cleaning solution is in as a function of various combination of temperature and pressure) available for Katsuba’s particular cleaning solution. However, Katsuba is considered to clearly suggest having the cleaning solution be liquid during the high-pressure, high-temperature cleaning because Katsuba teaches combining such high-pressure, high-temperature cleaning with ultrasonic cleaning, wherein the ultrasonic cleaning enhances the cleaning by having ultrasonic waves propagated through the cleaning solution while the cleaning solution is in its liquid phase (pages 4, 5, 9, and 13 and claim 3 of Katsuba). Therefore, in the method of Katsuba, the cleaning solution in the high-pressure, high-temperature removal of coating either is maintained as a liquid (again, the examiner doesn’t have a phase chart for Katsuba’s particular cleaning solution) or, if it isn’t in the liquid phase during the high-pressure, high-temperature removal of coating, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Katsuba such that the particular pressure and temperature values of the high-pressure, high-temperature cleaning are values that result in the cleaning solution in contact with the cleaning blade being maintained in liquid phase, and the motivation for performing the modification is that Katsuba suggests as much.
Katsuba does not explicitly recite that the high-temperature (180 to 320 °C) cleaning solution is above the boiling point of the cleaning solution at ambient pressure (that is, atmospheric pressure). However, the temperature to which the cleaning solution is raised during the cleaning (at high temperature and high pressure) is considered to be a result-effective variable because Katsuba teaches that the elevated temperature of the cleaning solution contributes to the effect of removing the ceramic coating (page 5 of translation). Indeed, in the art of cleaning, it is well-known that the temperature of a cleaning fluid can affect its cleaning effectiveness because the temperature of the fluid affects how energic the cleaning fluid molecules are. In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Katsuba such that the temperature to which the cleaning solution is raised during the high-temperature, high-pressure cleaning is optimized due to that temperature being considered a result-effective variable, as Katsuba teaches that the elevated temperature of the cleaning solution contributes to the effect of removing the ceramic coating and as, in the art of cleaning, it is well-known that the temperature of a cleaning fluid can affect its cleaning effectiveness because the temperature of the fluid affects how energic the cleaning fluid molecules are.
Katsuba does not teach that the temperature maintenance system also performs cooling of the cleaning solution.
Froud teaches that when performing cleaning in a sealed vessel with heated cleaning fluid, it is advantageous to allow the internal temperature of the vessel to fall to a safe level before opening the vessel to remove cleaned objects (Abstract; pages 3-4).
When discussing the background of his invention, Katsuba teaches that cleaning solution heated to high temperature can be potentially dangerous to personnel (page 2 of Katsuba translation).
Luca teaches that when using a vessel of cleaning liquid to remove coatings from components, cooling of the cleaning liquid can successfully be accomplished by a cooling channel, wherein the cooling channel is arranged within the cleaning liquid in the vessel (Abstract; pages 6-9 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Katsuba such that the treatment chamber comprises a cooling channel inside the chamber such that the cooling channel contacts cleaning liquid inside the chamber, and wherein the cooling channel is used to cool the cleaning liquid down to a safe temperature after the treating of the blade with hot cleaning solution is complete and prior to opening the chamber such that the blade can be separated from the used cleaning solution and removed coating material therein. Motivation for cooling the cleaning solution after heat treatment is complete was provided by Froud, who teaches that when performing cleaning in a sealed vessel with heated cleaning fluid, it is advantageous to allow the internal temperature of the vessel to fall to a safe level before opening the vessel to remove cleaned objects. Katsuba teaches that cleaning solution heated to high temperature can be potentially dangerous to personnel, and cooling the cleaning solution to a safe temperature prior to opening the vessel would advantageously prevent harm to personnel. The motivation for using a cooling channel to perform the cooling was provided by Luca, who teaches that when using a vessel of cleaning liquid to remove coatings from components, cooling of the cleaning liquid can successfully be accomplished by a cooling channel, wherein the cooling channel is arranged within the cleaning liquid in the vessel. In this combination of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca, the cooling channel is considered to be part of the temperature maintenance system.
The combination of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca recites using a lid (item 4 in Katsuba’s Figure 1) to seal close the treatment chamber. The combination does not recite using a door.
Hammond teaches that when attempting to seal closed a chamber in which cleaning fluid is heated, a door (item 12 in Hammond’s Figure 1) can successfully be used to seal closed such a chamber (Col. 2, line 44 to Col. 4, line 35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca such that the lid is replaced with a door, and wherein the door is able to successfully perform the role of sealing closed the treatment chamber. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Hammond, who teaches that when attempting to seal closed a chamber in which cleaning fluid is heated, a door can successfully be used to seal closed such a chamber.
The combination of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca in view of Hammond teaches inserting the metallic blade into a basket (reads on coating removal vessel) before inserting the blade-containing basket into a treatment chamber (reads on containment vessel; pages 4-5 of Katsuba translation). The combination of Katsuba in view of Froud does not explicitly teaches that the insertion of the blade into the basket occurs at atmospheric pressure. However, it is well-known that an object can be successfully placed into a container while at ambient atmospheric pressure, and in the method of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca in view of Hammond, there is no need to perform the insertion of the blade into the basket at anything other than ambient atmosphere pressure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca in view of Hammond such that the loading of the to-be-treated blade into the basket occurs at ambient atmospheric pressure, as it is well-known that an object can be successfully placed into a container while at ambient atmospheric pressure.
With regard to claim 25, in the method of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca in view of Hammond, a container of pressurized inert gas (reads on pressure source) is selectively fluidly connected (via valve 6 in Figure 1 of Katsuba) to the interior of the treatment chamber, and pressurized inert gas (reads on pressurizing fluid) flows from its container into the treatment chamber (page 8 of Katsuba translation).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 9, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to claim 10, applicant states that “the coating removal fluid remains sealed in the processing volume during the removal process”. Firstly, it is noted that claim 10 does not recite that the coating removal fluid remains sealed in the processing volume during the entire removal process.
Applicant point out that “the cooling is by removing the heat from the coating removal fluid into the cooling fluid”. Applicant argues that “by keeping the coating removal fluid sealed in the processing volume during the removal process, the temperature of the coating removal fluid can be more precisely maintained at a desired temperature or series of temperatures”. This line of argument is not persuasive simply because the examiner’s above combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Eiichi in view of Froud in view of Luca does teach all the recited limitations of applicant’s claim 10. As articulated in the rejection, in the developed combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Eiichi in view of Froud in view of Luca, when the cooling channel is used to cool the KOH cleaning liquid, heat is transferred from the KOH cleaning liquid into a cooling fluid flowing through the cooling channel – thereby actively reducing the temperature of the KOH cleaning solution. Applicant’s argument seems to imply that some limitation in claim 10 is not met by the examiner’s combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Eiichi in view of Froud in view of Luca, but applicant’s argument(s) don’t precisely articulate what limitation(s) is unaddressed by the examiner’s combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Eiichi in view of Froud in view of Luca. Again, the examiner’s above combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Eiichi in view of Froud in view of Luca does teach all the recited limitations of applicant’s claim 10.
With regard to claim 14, applicant states that “the coating removal fluid remains sealed in the processing volume during the removal process”. Firstly, it is noted that claim 14 does not recite that the coating removal fluid remains sealed in the processing volume during the entire removal process.
Applicant point out that “the cooling is by removing the heat from the coating removal fluid into the cooling fluid”. Applicant argues that “by keeping the coating removal fluid sealed in the processing volume during the removal process, the temperature of the coating removal fluid can be more precisely maintained at a desired temperature or series of temperatures”. This line of argument is not persuasive simply because the examiner’s above combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca in view of Bhatia does teach all the recited limitations of applicant’s claim 14. As articulated in the rejection, in the developed combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca in view of Bhatia, when the cooling channel is used to cool the KOH cleaning liquid, heat is transferred from the KOH cleaning liquid into a cooling fluid flowing through the cooling channel – thereby actively reducing the temperature of the KOH cleaning solution. Applicant’s argument seems to imply that some limitation in claim 14 is not met by the examiner’s combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca in view of Bhatia, but applicant’s argument(s) don’t precisely articulate what limitation(s) is unaddressed by the examiner’s combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca in view of Bhatia. Again, the examiner’s above combination of Weaver in view of Katsuba in view of Froud in view of Luca in view of Bhatia does teach all the recited limitations of applicant’s claim 14.
With regard to claim 24, applicant argues that “none of Weaver, Katsuba, Froud, Luca, or Hammond disclose a coating removal process involving both heating and cooling the removal liquid during the removal process”. This line of argument is not persuasive. As articulated in detail in the above rejection of claim 24, the temperature maintenance system heats and cools the removal fluid during the process of removing the coating.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7376. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in