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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/10/2025 has been entered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
in [0006] amend “(E.g.,” to “(e.g.,”;
in [0032] amend “mean “on top of since” to “mean “on top of” since”;
in [0038] after “superalloy components.”, delete “.”;
in [0038] after “particular ceramic.”, delete “..”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Further, the lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 17 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In reference to claim 17, in line 3 amend “a layer of environmental contaminant compositions” to “the layer of environmental contaminant compositions”, in order to ensure consistency and proper antecedent basis in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
In reference to claim 21, in line 11 after “each” and before “of the plurality of”, insert “columnar segment”, in order to ensure consistency and proper antecedent basis in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
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 21 and 22 are 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.
In reference to claim 21, the limitation “a flat bottom” is recited in lines 9-10 and the limitation “flat bottom” is recited again in line 10. It is unclear if the second recitation of “flat bottom” is referring back to the flat bottom of the each individual slot or if the flat bottom is meant to be a different flat bottom of the each columnar segment. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the flat bottom recited in line 10 will be interpreted as referring to the flat bottom previously recited in the claim. However, clarification is requested.
Regarding dependent claim 22, this claim does not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 21 noted above, and is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2008/0038578), with claim 22 further taken in view of evidence by CMAS Attack (Oerlikon).
In reference to claim 21, Li teaches a superalloy component having a ceramic thermal barrier coating on at least a portion of its surface ([0014]) (corresponding to a coated component, comprising: a substrate defining a surface; a ceramic coating disposed on the surface of the substrate). The ceramic coating has a plurality of gaps extending from the top surface of the ceramic coating towards the substrate and defining a plurality of columns of the ceramic coating ([0014]) (corresponding to the ceramic coating comprises a plurality of slots disposed in the ceramic coating forming a plurality of segments of ceramic coating material, and wherein the slots define a plurality of columnar segments in the ceramic coating). FIG. 3, provided below, shows each columnar grain 30 has a top surface and a plurality of sidewalls (corresponding to each columnar segment defined by a top surface and a plurality of sidewalls).
FIG. 3 further shows the gaps 20 include angled sidewalls and a flat bottom (corresponding to each individual slot of the plurality of slots comprises a slot with angled sidewalls and a flat bottom).
Li further teaches an inorganic layer overlaying the ceramic coating and conformally coating the plurality of gaps ([0014]) (corresponding to a reactive phase coating disposed along the ceramic coating). FIG. 3 shows the inorganic layer 48 is applied to the top surface of the columnar grains 30, the plurality of sidewalls of each of the columnar gains 30 and on a portion of the flat bottom of the gaps 20 (corresponding to the reactive phase coating is applied to the top surface, flat bottom, and the plurality of sidewalls of each of the plurality of columnar segments of the ceramic coating).
Li further teaches the inorganic layer comprises an oxide selected from the group consisting of Al2O3, Sc2O3, Ta2O5, Ln2O3 and compounds thereof ([0035]). Given that Li discloses the inorganic layer comprises oxides of alumina and rare-earth elements that overlaps the presently claimed protective agent in the reactive phase coating including Al2O3, Sc2O3, Ta2O5, Ln2O3 and compounds thereof, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention, to use Al2O3, Sc2O3, Ta2O5, Ln2O3 and compounds thereof in the inorganic layer, which is both disclosed by Li and encompassed within the scope of the present claims.
Further, given that the instant application’s Specification at [0081]-[0082] and [0090] discloses the protective agent, such as a rare-earth oxide or alumina, react with the environmental contaminates it is clear the inorganic layer including alumina and/or rare-earth oxides is a reactive phase coating.
Alternatively, given that the inorganic layer of Li is substantially identical to the present claimed reactive phase coating in composition and structure, it is clear that the inorganic layer of Li would inherently be a reactive phase coating.
PNG
media_image1.png
472
952
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
In reference to claim 22, Li teaches the limitations of claim 21, as discussed above. Li further teaches the component is a combustor liner, shroud, nozzle, blade or combustor shield of a gas turbine engine ([0029]). As evidence by Oerlikon CMAS (calcia-magnesia-alumina-silicate) is debris that exists in the atmosphere as a result of volcanic activity and other natural and industrial processes. The CMAS particulate is ingested into gas turbine engines, where it becomes molten in the hot section areas where they solidify on cooling to from deposits on the turbine components (p. 1). Thus, it is clear when the component of Li is in use, a CMAS deposit is inherently formed on the inorganic coating (corresponding to a layer of environmental contaminant compositions on the ceramic coating and wherein the reactive phase coating is applied directly on the layer of environmental contaminant compositions).
Claims 1, 5-8, 12, 14-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Stowell et al. (US 6,465,090) (Stowell) and further in view of evidence by Oerlikon and Microstructure, Texture and Thermal Cycling Performance of EB-PVD TBCs Deposited under Different Processing Conditions (Das).
In reference to claims 1 and 8, Li teaches a superalloy component having a ceramic thermal barrier coating on at least a portion of its surface ([0014]) (corresponding to a coated component, comprising: a substrate defining a surface; a ceramic coating disposed on the surface of the substrate). The ceramic coating has a plurality of gaps extending from the top surface of the ceramic coating towards the substrate and defining a plurality of columns of the ceramic coating ([0014]) (corresponding to the ceramic coating comprises a plurality of slots disposed in the ceramic coating forming a plurality of segments of ceramic coating material, and wherein the slots define a plurality of columnar segments in the ceramic coating). FIG. 3, provided above, shows each columnar grain 30 has a top surface and a plurality of sidewalls (corresponding to each columnar segment defined by a top surface and a plurality of sidewalls).
Li further teaches an inorganic layer overlaying the ceramic coating and conformally coating the plurality of gaps ([0014]) (corresponding to a reactive phase coating disposed along the ceramic coating). FIG. 3 shows the inorganic layer 48 is applied to both the top surface and the plurality of sidewalls of each of the columnar gains 30 (corresponding to the reactive phase coating is applied to both the top surface and the plurality of sidewalls of each of the columnar segments of the ceramic coating).
Li further teaches the inorganic layer comprises an oxide selected from the group consisting of Al2O3, Sc2O3, Ta2O5, Ln2O3 and compounds thereof ([0035]) (corresponding to the reactive phase comprises a protective agent, wherein the protective agent comprises a ceramic oxide that includes aluminum, a rare-earth element, or a mixture thereof). Given that Li discloses the inorganic layer comprises oxides of alumina and rare-earth elements that overlaps the presently claimed protective agent in the reactive phase coating including Al2O3, Sc2O3, Ta2O5, Ln2O3 and compounds thereof, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention, to use Al2O3, Sc2O3, Ta2O5, Ln2O3 and compounds thereof in the inorganic layer, which is both disclosed by Li and encompassed within the scope of the present claims.
Further, given that the instant application’s Specification at [0081]-[0082] and [0090] discloses the protective agent, such as a rare-earth oxide or alumina, react with the environmental contaminates, thus it is clear the inorganic layer including alumina and/or rare-earth oxides is a reactive phase coating.
Alternatively, given that the inorganic layer of Li is substantially identical to the present claimed reactive phase coating in composition and structure, it is clear that the inorganic layer of Li would inherently be a reactive phase coating.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Li further teaches the component is a combustor liner, shroud, nozzle, blade or combustor shield of a gas turbine engine ([0029]). As evidence by Oerlikon CMAS (calcia-magnesia-alumina-silicate) is debris that exists in the atmosphere as a result of volcanic activity and other natural and industrial processes. The CMAS particulate is ingested into gas turbine engines, where it becomes molten in the hot section areas where they solidify on cooling to from deposits on the turbine components (p. 1). Thus, it is clear when the component of Li is in use, a CMAS deposit is inherently formed on the inorganic coating (corresponding to a layer of environmental contaminant compositions on the ceramic coating; the reactive phase coating is applied directly on the layer of environmental contaminant compositions).
Li does not explicitly teach the inorganic layer comprises particles having a particle size 90% of the surface roughness of the ceramic environmental barrier coating or less, as presently claimed.
However, Li teaches the ceramic thermal barrier layer is a yttria-stabilized zirconia layer deposited by electron beam physical vapor deposition (EB-PVD) ([0036]-[0037]). As evidence by Das, a surface roughness of YSZ EB-PVD coatings is in the approximate range of 1.5-2.7 µm (p. 544; Table 1). Thus, it is clear the ceramic thermal barrier layer will have a surface roughness of at least 1.5 µm.
Stowell teaches a protective coating for a thermal barrier coating (TBC) on a gas turbine engine component (col. 1, lines 16-20). The TBC is a yttria-stabilized zirconia (col. 3, lines 19-20). The protective coating comprises alumina particles having a bimodal particle size distribution (col. 4, lines 38-40). The particles include finer alumina particles having a size range of about 0.05 to about 0.8 micrometers in diameter (col. 4, lines 46-48). The finer particles are able to fill the spaces between the larger particles at the surface of the protective coating to achieve a surface roughness of not more than about 2.5 micrometers, thereby providing a smoother surface finish (col. 4, lines 52-55; col. 5, lines 10-14).
In light of the motivation of Stowell, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the inorganic layer of include bimodal oxide particles, such as bimodal alumina, having finer particles in the range of about 0.05 to about 0.8 micrometers in diameter, in order to provide an inorganic layer that can achieve a smooth surface which improves the aerodynamic performance of the component (Stowell, col. 2, lines 36-40).
Given that the surface roughness of the thermal barrier coating of Li in view of Stowell is at least 1.5 µm and the inorganic layer includes oxide particles having a size of about 0.05 to about 0.8 micrometers in diameter, it is clear the inorganic layer comprises particles having a particle size 90% or less the surface roughness of the thermal barrier coating.
In reference to claim 5, Li in view of Stowell teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Li teaches the superalloy component comprises a superalloy substrate ([0014]) (corresponding to the substrate comprises a superalloy).
In reference to claims 6 and 7, Li in view of Stowell teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Li further teaches the ceramic layer is a thermal barrier coating such as a yttria-stabilized zirconia layer ([0037]) (corresponding to the ceramic coating is a thermal barrier coating; the ceramic coating comprises yttrium stabilized zirconia).
In reference to claim 12, Li in view of Stowell teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. FIG. 3, provided above, shows the gaps 20 have a V-shaped profile (corresponding to each individual slot in the plurality of slots comprises a slot with a V-shaped profile).
In reference to claims 14 and 15, Li in view of Stowell teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Li teaches the inorganic layer is a conformal layer ([0014]; [0031]; [0032]). FIG. 3, provided above, shows the inorganic layer 48 is present on both the top surface and the plurality of sidewalls of each of the columns 30 and does not fill the gaps or bridge the gaps (corresponding to the reactive phase coating is applied to both the top surface and the plurality of sidewalls of each of the columnar segments of the ceramic coating in manner that does not fill the slots; a thickness of the reactive phase coating on the plurality of sidewalls does not bridge the slots).
In reference to claims 18 and 19, Li in view of Stowell teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Li teaches the superalloy component is a component within a gas turbine engine ([0002]; [0019]) (corresponding to a gas turbine assembly comprising the coated component of claim 1). The component includes high and low pressure turbine nozzles and blades, shrouds, combustor liners, combustor shields of gas turbine engines ([0029]) (corresponding to the coated component is a combustion liner, shroud, nozzle, blade, heat shield, or combination thereof).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Stowell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sansom et al. (WO 2016/105327) (Sansom).
In reference to claim 2, Li in view of Stowell teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Li further teaches a turbine blade is subject to the ceramic coating, wherein the turbine blade includes cooling holes ([0029]).
Li in view of Stowell does not explicitly teach the gaps are disposed relative to the one or more cooling holes such that the slots do not pass through any of the one or more cooling holes, as presently claimed.
Sansom teaches a component comprising at least a substrate and a thermal barrier coating (TBC) layer thereon (p. 3, lines 16-17). A plurality of cooling holes are disposed through the TBC and the substrate (p. 4, lines 4-6) (corresponding to the ceramic coating further comprises one or more cooling holes disposed in the ceramic coating).
Sansom further teaches a plurality of channels (i.e., slots) disposed about at least a portion of a perimeter of at least some of the cooling holes in a predetermined configuration, wherein the channels are effective to direct propagation of cracks originating from the cooling holes to respective channels (p. 4, lines 8-17) (corresponding to the slots are disposed relative to the one or more cooling holes such that the slots do not pass through any of the one or more cooling holes). The desired position of the channels limit crack propagation which occurs during the formation of any cooling holes (p. 10, lines 20-22).
In light of the motivation of Sansom, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to arrange the gaps of Li in view of Stowell such that they are disposed about at least a portion of a perimeter of the cooling holes, in order to limit crack propagation, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Claim 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Stowell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Opalka et al. (US 2018/0252111) (Opalka).
In reference to claim 17, Li in view of Stowell teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Li teaches the component is a turbine blade which is subject to hot combustion gases during use of the gas turbine engine ([0029]) (corresponding to the coated component is a hot gas path component of a gas turbine engine).
Li in view of Stowell does not explicitly teach the inorganic layer and the layer of environmental contaminant compositions form, after operation of the gas turbine engine, a protective layer having a fusion temperature that is greater than a fusion temperature of the environmental contaminant composition, as presently claimed.
Opalka teaches a coated component for a gas turbine engine (Abstract). The coating including a substrate, a thermal barrier coating and a coating containing polynuclear aluminum oxide/hydroxide clusters applied over the thermal barrier coating ([0007]). Opalka further teaches the component is subject to attack from environmental contaminates, CMAS (referring to mixed calcium magnesium aluminum silicon oxide compositions) ([0005]).
Opalka further teaches the coating containing polynuclear aluminum oxide/hydroxide clusters is contacted by molten CMAS (i.e., layer of environmental contaminant composition) and the Al-rich nanocrystallites in the coating initiate partial CMAS crystallization to a glass-ceramic type phase ([0067]-[0068]). This reaction prevents CMAS infiltration and dissolution into the thermal barrier material ([0068]).
In light of the motivation of Opalka, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the inorganic layer of Li in view of Stowell include polynuclear aluminum oxide/hydroxide clusters, in order to prevent CMAS infiltration and dissolution into the thermal barrier material.
Given that Li in view of Stowell and Opalka teaches a turbine component is subject to CMAS contaminates during use, it is clear that after operation of the turbine engine the turbine component will include a molten layer of CMAS on the inorganic layer which will react to form a glass-ceramic sealing layer (Opalka, [0005]; [0044]; [0067]-[0068]) (corresponding to the reactive phase coating and the layer of environmental contaminant composition form, after operation of the gas turbine engine, a protective layer). The inorganic layer initiates crystallization of the CMAS forming the glass-ceramic layer, thus it is clear the glass-ceramic layer melts at a temperature higher than that of CMAS alone (corresponding to a fusion temperature that is greater than a fusion temperature of the environmental contaminant composition).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Stowell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hong et al. (US 2017/0167373) (Hong).
In reference to claim 9, Li in view of Stowell teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Li in view of Stowell does not explicitly teach the ceramic coating defines a surface having a surface roughness wherein the inorganic layer has a thickness that is greater than the surface roughness of the ceramic coating, as presently claimed.
Hong teaches a coating layer applied to internal combustion engines of a vehicle (i.e., gas turbine engine) ([0002]; [0003]). The coating is a ceramic coating ([0010]). The surface roughness of the coating is less than about 1 µm ([0084]).
Hong further teaches when the surface roughness is less than about 1 µm the surface quality is more excellent and when the surface roughness is greater than about 1 µm low thermal conductivity and low heat capacity properties are degraded due to increase in surface area ([0084]-[0085]).
In light of the motivation of Hong, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the surface roughness of the ceramic coating of Li in view of Stowell be less than about 1 µm, in order to provide a ceramic coating having excellent surface quality and ensure low thermal conductivity and low heat capacity properties are not degraded.
Li in view of Stowell and Hong teaches the surface roughness of the ceramic coating is less than 1 µm and a thickness of the inorganic layer is about 5 nm to about 5,000 nm (Li, [0035]). Thus, it is clear the surface roughness of the ceramic coating and thickness of the inorganic layer maybe selected from the disclosed ranges such that the inorganic layer has a thickness greater than the surface roughness (i.e., surface roughness of 0.9 µm and thickness of 1,000-5,000 nm).
Claims 10-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Stowell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kulkarni et al. (US 2009/0017260) (Kulkarni).
In reference to claims 10 and 13, Li in view of Stowell teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Li teaches the thickness of the ceramic layer may be from about 0.05 mm to about 1.3 mm (i.e., about 50 to about 1300 microns) ([0037]). FIG. 3, provided below, shows the gaps 20 extend to the full depth of the ceramic layer. Thus, it is clear the depth of the gaps are about 50 microns to about 1300 microns (corresponding to each individual slot has a depth of about 50 microns to about 1000 microns).
Li in view of Stowell does not explicitly teach each individual gap in the plurality of gaps has a width of about 10 microns to 200 microns, as presently claimed.
Kulkarni teaches a ceramic thermal barrier coating for a gas turbine component ([0002]). The ceramic coating includes a dense top layer including a plurality of segments bounded by a plurality of gaps ([0029]). The width of the gaps is between 25-125 microns, such gap sizes are selected to provide the desired mechanical strain relief while having a minimal impact on aerodynamic efficiency ([0031]) (corresponding to each individual lot in the plurality of clots has a width of about 10 microns to about 200 microns).
In light of the motivation of Kulkarni, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have a width of the gaps of Li be 25-125 microns, in order to provide the desired mechanical strain relief while having a minimal impact on aerodynamic efficiency.
Given that Li in view of Stowell and Kulkarni teaches the depth of each gap is about 50 microns to about 1300 microns and the width is 25-125 microns, it is clear a ratio of the depth to the width is 0.4 to 52 (i.e., 1300/25 = 52; 50/125 = 0.4) (corresponding to each individual slot in the plurality of clots has a ratio of depth to width of about 2 to about 15).
PNG
media_image2.png
342
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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).
In reference to claim 11, Li in view of Stowell teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Li in view of Stowell does not explicitly teach each gap of the plurality of gaps is spaced apart from another gap of the plurality of gaps by about 0.25 mm to about 3 mm, as presently claimed.
Kulkarni teaches a ceramic thermal barrier coating for a gas turbine component ([0002]). The ceramic coating includes a dense top layer including a plurality of segments bounded by a plurality of gaps ([0029]). Kulkarni further a spacing between adjacent gaps is in the range of 500-1000 microns (i.e., 0.5 to 1 mm) ([0030]) (corresponding to each individual clot in the plurality of clots is spaced apart from another slot by about 0.25 mm to about 3 mm). teaches a smaller spacing between adjacent gaps will result in a greater reduction in stress ([0030]).
Kulkarni further teaches a spacing between adjacent gaps of less than 500 microns (i.e., 0.5 mm) will provide a high degree of stress reduction in the coating, however, there may be practical manufacturing issues that make it difficult to create gaps with very small spacings ([0030]).
In light of the motivation of Kulkarni, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the spacing between adjacent gaps of Li be 500-1000 microns, in order to provide a high degree of stress reduction in the ceramic coating while also maintaining a spacing that allows for practical manufacturing of the gaps.
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).
Response to Arguments
In response to amended claims 1 and 14, the previous Claim Objections of record are withdrawn. However, the new claims necessitate a new set of Claim Objections, as set forth above.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/10/2025 have been fully considered. The Applicant has sufficiently established common ownership and invoked the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C), thereby disqualifying Keshavan et al. (US 2018/0154392) (Keshavan) as prior art. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections over Li in view of Keshavan are withdrawn.
Applicant primarily argues:
“After the CMAS contacts the nanocrystallites, the CMAS is directly on the nanocrystallites, not the other way around.
It was alleged in the Advisory Action that the claims do not limit the layer of environmental contaminant composition to be underneath the layer of environmental contaminant composition. The Advisory Action states that ‘Nothing in the claims requires the layer of environmental contaminant composition be directly on the ceramic coating and the reactive phase is applied directly on top of the layer of environmental contaminant composition in a thickness direction of the coated component.’
It is the view of the Applicant that the reactive phase coating being applied directly on the layer of the environmental contaminant composition necessarily means that the reactive phase coating is directly on top of the environmental contaminant composition, and that such would be apparent to one of skill in the art.”
Remarks, p. 8
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Upon further consideration, it is noted that Opalka et al. (US 2018/0252111) (Opalka) is no longer used to meet the layer of environmental contaminant composition on the ceramic coating. Given that when in service the component of Li and Li in view of Stowell will inherently form a CMAS layer directly on the inorganic layer, as discussed in the rejection set forth above.
While the examiner agrees that the claims limit the layer of environmental contaminant compositions to be directly on the reactive phase coating. Li and Li in view of Stowell meets this limitation.
The Applicant argues that “the reactive phase coating being applied directly on the layer of the environmental contaminant composition necessarily means that the reactive phase coating is directly on top of the environmental contaminant composition, and that such would be apparent to one of skill in the art”. However, the instant application discloses at [0032]:
when a layer is being described as “on” or ‘over” another layer or substrate, it is to be understood that the layers can either be directly contacting each other or have another layer or feature between the layers, unless expressly stated to the contrary. Thus, these terms are simply describing a relative position of the layers to each other and do not necessarily mean “on top of since the relative position above or below depends upon the orientation of the device to the viewer.
In light of the above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the reactive phase coating is applied directly on the layer of environmental contaminant compositions” is the reactive phase coating is in direct contact with a surface of the layer of environmental contaminant compositions. The claims do not limit the layer of reactive phase coating be applied directly on top of a surface of the layer of environmental contaminant compositions, wherein the surface is an outermost surface of the layer of environmental contaminant compositions opposite the ceramic coating.
Given that Li in view of Stowell teaches a CMAS layer formed directly on the inorganic layer, it is clear the inorganic layer is applied directly on an inner surface of the CMAS layer.
Applicant further argues:
“As can be seen by the above reproduction of Figure 3 of Li, the inorganic layer 38 is applied only to the columnar grains 30. Thus, the inorganic layer 38 is not applied to a flat bottom in the structure of Li. Furthermore, Applicant respectfully submits that if the inorganic layers 38 are applied so thick as to touch, the structure of Li would lack a flat bottom, as is required by independent claim 21. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that Li fails to teach at least one of a reactive phase coating being applied to a flat bottom of an individual slot, or the individual slot having a flat bottom.”
Remarks, p. 9-10
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
FIG. 3, labeled above, shows that the gaps have a flat bottom. The inorganic layer 48 (i.e., reactive phase coating) is applied to the top surface of the columnar grains 30 (i.e., columnar segments), a portion of the flat bottom of the gaps and the sidewalls of the columnar grains. Thus, Li meets the presently claimed limitations.
Therefore, Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, namely Bewlay et al. (US 2018/0154381) (Bewlay), is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. However, the rejection using this reference would be cumulative to the rejection of record set forth above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary I Omori whose telephone number is (571)270-1203. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/MARY I OMORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784