DETAILED ACTION
An amendment, amending claims 1, was entered on 12/3/25.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Gold only teaches deflection of the coating material within a plasma stream to cause the coating to deposit at a non-zero angle and does not teach that the plasma flame propels the carrier fluid at the substrate (i.e. imparts a force that is perpendicular to the plane of the substrate). This is not persuasive. The claim language “propelling the gaseous ceramic toward a substrate via a momentum of the plasma flame” is broader than applicant’s interpretation (i.e. that the plasma flame must impart a force that is perpendicular to the plane of the substrate). In this case, Gold teaches that the plasma spray deflects (i.e. claimed propels) the stream toward the substrate where it is deposited. There does not appear to be any disclosure which would define propelling in the narrower manner suggested by applicant.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gold et al. (US 2019/0017177).
Claims 1, 4, 14 and 17: Gold teaches a plasma spray process of forming a yttrium-stabilized zirconia layer on a turbine component (Abst.; ¶ 0003) comprising the steps of: suspending yttrium-stabilized zirconia (i.e. claimed metal oxide) particles in water (¶¶ 0028-0029, 0066-0070) along with a dispersant (¶ 0072); ejecting the suspension onto the component via plasma spray (¶ 0073); vaporizing the particles in the plasma spray (i.e. claimed evaporating the particles to form a gaseous ceramic) (¶ 0073); deflecting the particles within the plasma spray towards the substrate (i.e. claimed propelling the ceramic via momentum of the plasma spray) (¶ 0068); and depositing the vaporized particles onto the substrate to form columnar grains via epitaxial growth (¶¶ 0032-0033, 0068).
While Gold does not expressly teach selecting a temperature for a given particle size, Gold teaches that each of the temperature and particle size can be adjusted to achieve a desired microstructure (¶ 0096). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have adjusted the temperature and the particle size together (i.e. in a proportional relationship) in order to have arrived at the desired microstructure.
Claim 5: Gold teaches that the particles vaporize before hitting the substrate (¶¶ 0073, 0101). Therefore, Gold teaches that the evaporation distance is less than the travel distance.
Claims 6-13: Gold teaches that each of the evaporation conditions (e.g. distance, velocity, particle size, temperature, feed rate, etc.) can be adjusted to achieve the desired microstructure, thickness, phase and porosity (¶ 0096). In addition, each of the relationships described in claims 6-13 are principles of thermodynamics which govern evaporation. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected desired evaporation conditions (e.g. distance, velocity, particle size, temperature, feed rate, etc.) using the claimed relationships as the principles governing the evaporation in Gold with the predictable expectation of success depending on the desired structure.
Claim 15: Gold teaches that the suspension is 1-30 vol% solids in the carrier (i.e. 70-99 vol% carrier) (¶ 0071). While Gold does not expressly discuss the weight percentage, Gold further teaches that the concentration can be adjusted to achieve the desired viscosity (¶ 0071). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a carrier concentration of 20-95 weight percent depending on the desired viscosity.
Claim 16: Gold teaches that the yttrium-stabilized zirconia is 92-94% zirconia (i.e. between 6YSZ and 8YSZ) (¶ 0029). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected 7YSZ.
Claim 18: Gold teaches that the particles are 0.01 µm to 1 µm (¶ 0068). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected particles sizes of 50 nm to 1 µm with the predictable expectation of success.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert A Vetere whose telephone number is (571)270-1864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 EST.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571) 270-1034. 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.
/ROBERT A VETERE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712