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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 24, 2026 has been entered.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments of claim 1. Claims 2 – 5, 7, 10, 13 – 16, 18, have been cancelled. Claims 1, 6, 8 – 9, 11 – 12, 17, 19 – 23 are examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 22 recites, “where the high emissivity layer comprises exactly two rare earth metal cations.” Claim 22 is dependent on claim 21, which is dependent on claim 9, which is dependent on claim 1. Claim 1 recites “the high emissivity layer comprises a ceramic matrix comprising a rare earth silicate” and a dispersed phase of a dopant composed of rare earth oxide particles.
Applicant’s specification teaches “the complex oxide (i.e., “the rare earth silicate” of the ceramic matrix) has two or more rare earth cations (specification, paragraphs [0035], [0052], [0064], [0075]). This does not take into account an embodiment in which the dopant of the dispersed phase (which is not the complex oxide ceramic matrix) is a rare earth oxide, and therefore does not teach a limitation on the number of rare earth cations in the entirety of the high emissivity layer.
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 1, 6, 8 – 9, 11 – 12, 17, & 19 – 23 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.
With regard to claims 1 & 12, Applicant’s claim limitation of “roughened…particle” is not a term of art. Applicant’s specification fails to define the term or provide an example. It is assumed the term “roughened particle” refers to a non-uniform-shaped rare earth oxide particle. However, clarification requested.
Claims 6, 8 – 9, 11, 17, & 19 – 23 are dependent on claims 1 or 12, and therefore also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 – 2, 5, 8, 12 – 13, 16, & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhen et al. (CN 103360124 A) (2013), in view of Matsumoto et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,376,431 B1), Eaton et al. (US 2005/0129973 A1), Kirby et al. (US 2009/0162561 A1), and Han et al. (“Development of high infrared emissivity porous ceramic coating using pre-synthesized flower-like CeO2 powder for higher temperature applications,” Ceramics International 48 (2022) 1340-1348).
**Evidentiary reference Kyocera Global
With regard to claims 1 & 12, Zhen et al. teach aerospace applications (i.e., a space vehicle) comprising a carbon/carbon composite (i.e., “a structural component”), a silicon carbide coating (i.e., “a metal carbide undercoat”) on a surface of the carbon-carbon composite, and a Mi-Si-O outer coating (pg. 3), wherein Mi-Si-O is a yttrium silicate or ytterbium silicate (i.e., rare earth silicates) (pg. 2) (i.e., “high emissivity layer comprising a ceramic matrix forming a continuous phase, the ceramic matrix comprising a rare earth oxide”). The Mi-Si-O coating which introduced on the surface of the SiC coating to protect the SiC coating from oxidation (Fig. 1 below). Applicant’s specification, paragraph [0027], teaches examples of “crystallized metal carbide undercoat” includes undercoats of crystallized silicon carbide.
PNG
media_image1.png
458
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zhen et al. do not teach the silicon carbide undercoat is crystallized.
Matsumoto et al. teach an aircraft comprising a carbon/carbon composite and a crystalline silicon carbide coating on a surface a carbon/carbon composite substrate. The crystalline silicon carbide coating reduces the rate of wear, which maintains the mechanical properties of the carbon/carbon composite beneath, compared to the high wear rates of noncrystalline silicon carbide coatings (Col. 1, Lines 54 – 64 & Col. 5, Lines 38 – 47).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Matsumoto et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to reduce the rate of wear of the silicon carbide coating, which maintains the mechanical properties of the carbon/carbon composite, by forming the silicon carbide coating taught by Zhen et al. as a crystalline silicon carbide coating.
Zhen et al. fail to teach the overcoat further comprises an abrasion resistant layer such that the high emissivity layer is deposed over abrasion resistant layer, and wherein the abrasion resistant layer comprises a rare earth silicate and is different than the high emissivity layer.
Eaton et al. teach a silicon-based substrate, an environmental barrier coating (EBS) with a top layer comprising a velocity barrier layer (paragraph [0007]). The silicon-based substrate may be composed of silicon carbide (paragraph [0008]). The EBC layer is a protective layer (i.e., “abrasion resistant layer”) comprising a rare earth silicate (paragraph [0009]). The top layer that forms a velocity barrier (i.e., “high transmissivity barrier”) is a ceramic layer comprising mixtures of various porous alumina plus mullite comprising 50 – 99 wt.% mullite (ceramic), yttrium silicate (rare earth silicate) comprising a 1:1 to 1:2 mole ratio of yttria and silica, yttria stabilized zirconia (YSZ) (ceramic) wherein yttria is present in the range of 1 – 20% by weight, and mixtures thereof (paragraph [0011]). The velocity barrier is position between a flowing gas stream and the underlying EBC protective layer in order to reduce the velocity of the gas stream which otherwise would impinge on the underlying EBC protective layer (paragraph [0007]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Eaton et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form an environmental barrier coating layer (EBC) (i.e., “abrasion resistant layer”) to protect the underlying SiC layer between the Mi-Si-O coating and the SiC layer and a top layer comprising rare earth silicate, such as yttrium silicate, as a velocity barrier in order to reduce the velocity of gas stream that would impinge the underlying EBC layer.
Kirby et al. (‘561) teach a barrier coating, such as a thermal barrier coating (TBC) formed of a refractory oxide, such as yttrium disilicate or ytterbium disilicate, ytterbium monosilicate, yttrium monosilicate (paragraphs [0007] & [0021]), comprising 0.01 – 30 mol% of a taggant, wherein the taggant comprises an oxide of a rare earth element (paragraph [0010] – [0011]). A taggant refers to any dopant capable of imparting a visible color or fluorescence to a TBC. Rare earth elements may be of particular interest for use as a taggant (paragraphs [0023] – [0024]). Taggants can be fluoresced using a radiation source for improved visibility (paragraph [0025]). Incorporation of the taggants into the barrier coating can allow for the determination of the chemistry and/or integrity of the individual layers of the barrier coating by visual inspection, which can significantly decrease the time need to make such assessments (paragraph [0033]). The barrier coating is applied to a CMC substrate, such as silicon carbide (P0017) via a bond coat layer and/or a transition layer (paragraph [0019]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Kirby et al. (‘561), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a dopant of rare earth oxide into a thermal barrier coating composed of silicate of yttrium or ytterbium for the purpose of in order to provide a fluorescent tag for visual inspection of the chemistry and/or integrity of the M-Si-O taught by Zhen et al.
The references cited above fail to teach either the particles of the rare earth oxide dopant (“high emissivity rare earth oxide particles”) are roughened.
Han et al. teach high infrared emissivity ceramic coating using an irregular or rough filler, such as a pre-synthesized flower-like (“roughened”) CeO2 (rare earth oxide) powder for high temperature applications. The high infrared emissivity of the coating could be attributed to its unique porous structure due to the unique shape of the CeO2 filler material. A large number of pores are distributed within and among the flower-shaped filler CeO2 filler particles compared to denser coatings formed by conventional CeO2 filler (pg. 1345 - 1346 & Fig. 5). As shown in Fig. 10, increasing porosity of the coating yielded greater emissivity (pg. 1347).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Han et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use irregular or flower-shaped (“roughened”) rare earth oxide filler particles, such as the rare earth oxide dopant taught by Kirby et al. (‘561), in the high emissivity coating disclosed by the references discussed above, for increasing the porosity, and therefore the infrared emissivity, of the coating taught by Zhen et al.
Zhen et al. do not explicitly teach the M-Si-O coating has an emissivity of at least about 0.95, which is a higher emissivity than the metal carbide undercoat.
However, based on the teachings of Han et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the content of roughened rare earth oxide filler through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired porosity, and therefore the desired emissivity, of the M-Si-O high emissivity coating taught by Zhen et al. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claims 8 & 19, Zhen teach the melting point of M-Si-O can be adjusted by changing the atomic ratio of M and Si in the material (pg. 1). It is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that Y-Si-O exists as Y2SiO5 (rare earth metal monosilicate) and Y2Si2O7 (rare earth metal disilicate). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the ratio of M and S (i.e., a monosilicate vs. a disilicate) through routine experimentation in order to achieve the M-Si-O coating with the desired melting point. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 11, Zhen et al. fail to teach the overcoat comprises a plurality of overcoat layers, wherein at least two layers of the plurality of overcoat layers include a ceramic matrix having at least one of a different CTE or a different thermal conductivity.
As discussed above, Eaton et al. teach an environmental barrier coating (EBC) (i.e., “abrasion resistant layer”) and a velocity barrier for a top layer (i.e., “high emissivity layer”), such that the layers form an overcoat layer of at least two layers. The porosity of the velocity barrier layer should be adjusted to compensate for a CTE difference with the EBC protective layer to reduce stresses to eliminate spallation and result in better durability (paragraph [0010]).
Furthermore, Eaton et al. teach the velocity barrier layer should have a thickness resistance and a thermal resistance such that the ratio of the velocity layer thickness to the overall coating thickness (EBC plus velocity barrier layer) is within +/- 25% of the ratio of the velocity barrier layer thermal resistance to the overall coating thermal resistance (paragraph [0010]). In other words, the thermal resistance of the velocity layer should be close, but not necessarily the same, as the EBC layer, such that the thermal resistance of the top layer is within 25% of the thermal resistance of the entire overcoat.
Therefore, based on the teachings of Eaton et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the porosity of the velocity layer to form an overcoat composed of a velocity layer and an EBC layer of matching CTE and thermal resistance (within 25%) that are different but sufficiently close in values to prevent stresses and thus better durability of the overcoat.
Claim(s) 6, 9, 17, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhen et al., Matsumoto et al., Eaton et al., Kirby et al. (‘561), & Han et al., as applied to claims 1 & 12 above, and further in view of Guo et al. “High-entropy rare-earth disilicate (Lu0.2Yb0.2Er0.2Tm0.2Sc0.2)2Si2O7: A potential environmental barrier coating” (Journal of the European Ceramic Society, Vol. 42, Iss. 8, July 2022, Pgs. 3570-3578).
With regard to claims 6 & 17, Zhen et al. teach the SiC reduces the thermal expansion difference between the carbon/carbon substrate and the M-Si-O coating (pg. 3). However, Zhen et al. do not teach the magnitude of the difference between a CTE of the high emissivity layer of the overcoat and CTE of the carbon-carbon composite substrate is less than 2 parts per million per degree Celsius (ppm/°C).
Guo et al. teach carbon-carbon (C/C) composites (substrates) have a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of 1 x 10-6/°C to 2 x 10-6/°C (pg. 3575), SiC-based materials have a CTE of 4.5 x 10-6/°C to 5.5 x 10-6/°C (pg. 3570), RE2SiO5 typically has a CTE of 5 x 10-6/°C to 9 x 10-6/°C (pg. 3570), and RE2Si2O7 typically has a CTE of 3.5 x 10-6/°C to 5.5 x 10-6/°C (pg. 3575). Furthermore, Guo et al. teach the high-entropy rare-earth silicate containing five rare earth elements (5RE0.2)2Si2O7 has a CTE of around 2.08 x 10-6/°C to 4.03 x 10-6/°C (pg. 3575). As such, an EBC (i.e., “high emissivity layer”) composed of disilicate compound containing five rare earth elements has a CTE has and the CTE of a carbon-carbon composite substrate have a magnitude of the difference that is less than 2 parts per million per degree Celsius (ppm/°C). Although the CTE matching between (5RE0.2)2Si2O7 and SiC matrix was slightly weaker than that of the RE2Si2O7, it can still be used as EBC on SiC surfaces (pg. 3575).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Guo et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the number of rare earth elements present in the complex oxide compound of the overcoating layer through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the overcoating layer relative to the CTE of the carbon-carbon composite substrate layer. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 9 & 20 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhen et al., Matsumoto et al., Eaton et al., Kirby et al. (‘561), & Han et al., as applied to claims 1 & 12 above, and further in view of Kirby (US 2016/0312628 A1).
With regard to claims 9 & 20, Zhen et al. fail to teach the complex oxide of the high emissivity layer of the overcoat comprises two or more rare earth cations.
With regard to claims 21 – 22, the references cited above do not explicitly teach the high emissivity layer comprises exactly two rare earth metal cations: yttrium and ytterbium.
Kirby (‘628) teaches an outermost abradable coating comprising at least one of silica, BSAS (ceramic particles), hafnium oxide, and rare earth disilicate (Ln2Si2O7), wherein the rare earth element (Ln) may include rare earth cations, such as yttrium or ytterbium (paragraph [0015], [0033], [0036], [0044], [0046], [0059], [0060]). The rare earth (Ln) disilicate is doped with a sintering aid, such as another rare earth disilicate (Lnb2Si2O7) (paragraph [0036], wherein Lnb is a rare earth element different than Ln (paragraphs [0015]). Sintering aids lower the temperature necessary for the particles to sinter around 2200 – 2450°F (paragraph [0056]), which allows the freedom to make a thicker, crack-free slurry (or gel) (paragraph [0060]). Without such sintering aids, the sintering process does not occur until excess of 2700°F. The sintering aid concentration is also kept as low as possible to provide the enhanced sintering effect without producing any secondary material (paragraphs [0015] & [0065]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Kirby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a rare earth disilicate (e.g., Y2Si2O7) and a dopant (e.g., Yb2Si2O7) as a sintering agent for lowering the sintering temperature during the sintering process, which allows the freedom to make a thicker, crack-free slurry (or gel).
With regard to claim 23, Kirby (‘628) teaches the sintering aid dopant Lnb2Si2O7 is kept as low as possible, but does not explicitly teach the amount of sintering aid dopant is in the range of about 0.05 to about 0.3 relative to the amount of Ln2Si2O7 such that the amount of rare earth silicate (Ln2Si2O7) and sintering aid dopant Lnb2Si2O7 is a total of 1.0.
However, based on the teachings of Kirby (‘628), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the amount of dopant Lnb2Si2O7 (sintering aid), such as Y2Si2O7 combined with the rare earth silicate (Ln2Si2O7), such as Yb2Si2O7, through routine experimentation in order to lower the temperature of the particles during the sintering process as needed. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, “Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner’s allegation that it is unclear whether the rare earth oxides are a different compound than the rare earth silicates. However, without conceding to the merits of the rejection, and solely in the interest of compact prosecution, Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite ‘a ceramic matrix forming a continuous phase’ and a ‘plurality of high emissivity particles forming a dispersed phase as a dopant with the continuous phase’ and ‘being a different compound than the rare earth silicate of the ceramic matrix and consisting of roughened rare earth particles.’ Claim 1 now clarifies that the roughened rare earth oxide particles are a dispersed phase as a dopant within the rare earth silicate matrix. Support for the amendments may be found in at least paragraphs [0033], [0036] and [0052] of Applicant’s specification as filed” (Remarks, Pg. 6).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: In light of Applicant’s amendments of claim 1, the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) is withdrawn.
It is worth noting that Applicant’s recitation of “a continuous phase” and “a “dispersed phase within the continuous phase” are redundant because a matrix is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be a continuous phase of a composition or layer and a dopant is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be a dispersed plurality of particles in said matrix.
Applicant argues, “In support of the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner cited Zhen in view of Matsumoto, Eaton, Niu, Guo, and Kirby. Applicant respectfully submits that none of the applied references disclose an overcoat that includes a high emissivity layer comprising roughened rare earth oxide particles disposed over an abrasion resistant layer, as required by claim 1, and one of ordinary skill in the art in possession of these references would have had no reason with rational underpinning to modify the references to arrive at the subject at the subject matter of amended claim 1” (Remarks, Pgs. 7 – 8).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: In light of Applicant’s amendment of a claim 1, Applicant’s recited roughened rare earth oxide particles are taught by newly cited reference of Han et al.
Applicant argues, “In the Advisory Action, the Examiner alleged that the bond strength and crack filling are merely results of the ‘liquid method of application rather the than the specific composition or layer order.’ Applicant respectfully submits that Zhen teaches that the M-Si-O coating is prepared specifically by ‘sol dipping’ to ensure the sol can ‘penetrate into the SiC coating.’ The Examiner’s propose to deposite an EBC layer on the SiC coating in a liquid state does not address how the subsequent M-Si-O layer would then fulfill its role of sealing the SiC cracks. Once the EBC layer is applied and occupies the space/cracks on the SiC surface, the M-Si-O sol is fundamentally prevented from performing the crack-sealing function that is the purpose of the M-Si-O layer of Zhen” (Remarks, Pgs. 8 – 9).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, Applicant’s assertion that the purpose of the M-Si-O is to seal the SiC cracks is incorrect. Pg. 1 of the Zhen translation teaches the composite coating provides heat resistance and oxidation resistance in the aerospace industry. Pg. 3 of Zhen et al. translation, under the subtitle “Beneficial effect,” explicitly states “The M-Si-O coating with high emissivity is used as the outer coating…” Furthermore, Zhen et al. teach the M-Si-O coating is for the purpose of providing oxidation protection and a coating deposited in the sol form on an intermediate layer can still provide this function (Zhen, pgs. 1 – 2). The M-Si-O layer serves the purpose of providing oxidation protection to the lower carbon-carbon substrate and SiC layer and providing a high emissivity surface.
Second, Zhen et al. teach the method of depositing said oxidation protection coating fills the SiC cracks and provides a strong bond between itself and the layer beneath it. However, if the filling of cracks and strong bond can be achieved by the presence of an intermediate layer, this does not render the M-Si-O layer inoperable because the purpose of the M-Si-O is for providing oxidation protection and a high transmissivity surface. The fact that an intermediate layer can meet the need for filling the cracks of the SiC layer does not defeat the purpose of the M-Si-O layer or render said layer inoperable because the intermediate layer does not interfere with the oxidation protection properties of the M-Si-O layer.
Third, there are numerous ways to provide a strong bond between layers. In the instance of an intermediate layer in between the SiC layer and the M-Si-O, the intermediate layer can be of sufficient viscosity to fills said cracks, and thus it is not necessary for the Mi-Si-O to be in a sol form when applied as a coating. However, this does not render the invention of Zhen as inoperable because the operation of the M-Si-O is for the purpose of providing oxidation protection and a coating deposited in the sol form on an intermediate layer can still provide this function (Zhen, pgs. 1 – 2).
Applicant argues, “Even if one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add the abrasion resistant layer of Eaton to the coating system of Zhen, which Applicant does not concede, the resulting coating system would not include ‘a high emissivity layer compris[ing] a plurality of high emissivity particles forming a dispersed phased as a dopant within the continuous phase…the plurality of high emissivity particles consisting of roughened rare earth oxide particles…defin[ing] an emissivity of at least about 0.95.’ Zhen describes only M-Si-O, which could only correspond to Applicant’s claimed continuous phase. While Eaton teaches a velocity barrier, Eaton’s velocity barrier is designed to ‘reduce the velocity of the gas stream which otherwise would impinge on the underlying protective layer.’ Easton does not disclose a plurality of roughened rare earth oxide particles as dispersed phase within the velocity barrier layer” (Remarks, Pg. 9).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: In light of Applicant’s amendments of claims 1 & 12, a new rejection is written in view of the teachings of Kirby et al. and Han.
Applicant argues, “The other applied references do not cure the deficiencies of Zhen in view of Matsumoto and Easton and were not cited for that purpose. For example, Guo describes a high-entropy ceramic layer where five rare earth elements are integrated into a single-phase solid solution, ‘the (5RE02)2Si2O7) synthesized by solid-phase sintering was a monoclinic solid solution.’ Guo therefore does not teach or suggest a two-phase system where roughened oxide particles are dispersed within a matrix as a dopant…Therefore, Applicant’s claimed combination of a two-phase high emissivity layer which includes dispersed roughened particles in a continuous matrix disposed over a separate abrasion resistant layer represents a significant departure from the coating system of the prior art” (Remarks, Pg. 9).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: In light of Applicant’s amendments of claims 1 & 12, a new rejection is written in view of the teachings of Kirby et al. and Han.
Applicant argues, “The other applied references do not cure the deficiencies of Zhen in view of Matsumoto and Easton and were not cited for that purpose…According to Kirby, the sintering aids are designed to dissolve into the primary material. In contrast, Applicant’s roughened form a physical ‘dispersed phase’ within the matrix to manipulate thermal radiation, rather than dissolving to facilitate processing. Therefore, Applicant’s claimed combination of a two-phase high emissivity layer which includes dispersed roughened particles in a continuous matrix disposed over a separate abrasion resistant layer represented a significant departure from the coating systems of the prior art” (Remarks, Pg. 9).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: In light of Applicant’s amendments of claims 1 & 12, a new rejection is written in view of the teachings of Kirby et al. and Han.
Applicant argues, “Furthermore, Applicant’s claimed coating system delivers a specific technical effect. Applicant’s high emissivity layer delivers a solution where the ‘component may be radiatively cooled in space by having an emissivity of ‘at least 0.95.’ Zhen does not disclose any emissivity values. Easton focuses on recession rates in gas turbines. The applied reference no suggestion that an outer high emissivity layer could be or should be optimized for an emissivity of 0.95 or higher by inclusion of a dispersed phase of roughened rare earth oxide particles” (Remarks, Pgs. 9 – 10).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, pg. 1 of the Zhen translation teaches the composite coating provides heat resistance and oxidation resistance in the aerospace industry. Pg. 3 of Zhen et al. translation, under the subtitle “Beneficial effect,” explicitly states “The M-Si-O coating with high emissivity is used as the outer coating…”
Second, newly cited reference Hans et al. teaches increasing the emissivity of a coating by increasing the porosity of said coating, such as via the presence of non-uniform-shaped (“roughened”) rare earth oxide particles. Therefore, based on the teachings of Hang et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use roughened rare earth oxide particles in the M-Si-O high emissivity coating taught by Zhen et al. in order to form a more porous coating for increasing the emissivity of the coating. As discussed above, the high emissivity value is an optimizable value.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-1552. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (9 a.m. to 10 p.m.).
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781