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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of the Information Disclosure Statement filed 08 November 2023. The Examiner has considered the reference cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see the attached USPTO Form.
Response to Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-9) with traverse in the reply filed on 27 July 2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that US-20060024527-A1 fails to disclose the specific special technical feature as " thermal spray powder comprising an erosion resistance phase and thermal conductivity phase comprising, wherein the chemical composition of component (A) is 93-96 mol% ZrO2 and 4-7 mol % Yb2O3. and the chemical composition of component (B) is 88-93 mol% ZrO2, 1-3 mol% Yb2O3, 5-6ml%Y203 and 1-3 mol % Gd2O3,wherein the thermal spray powder material includes 50-90 wt.% of component (A) and 10-50 wt.% of component (B). and wherein component (A) and component (B) are not alloyed together" recited in the pending claims. Applicant argues that Schlichting (US-20060024527-A1) merely discloses a broad and generic overlapping material (Remarks, page 6, para 2).
In response, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. It is noted that Schlichting was applied prior to the claim amendments, which were significantly broader in scope. As such, the combination of Torigoe (JP-2003160852-A) in view of Bahamirian et al. “Phase stability of ZrO2 9.5Y2O3 5.6Yb2O3 5.2Gd2O3 compound at 1100 °C and 1300 °C for advanced TBC applications”, and further in evidence of Schlichting (US-20060024527-A1, which corresponds to US-7927722-B2 located in Information Disclosure Statement) render the feature obvious.
Torigoe (JP-2003160852-A) teaches a thermal insulating coating/thermal barrier coating material comprising ZrO2 doped with Yb2O3, which is often used due to its relatively low thermal conductivity and relatively high thermal expansion coefficient (para [0002-0005]). Specifically, Torigoe teaches adding Yb2O3 in a proportion optimized for effective thermal cycle durability, namely 8 wt.% to 27 wt.% (2.65 mol% to 10.37 mol%) with the remainder ZrO2. This disclosure reads on the claimed chemical composition of component (A) as the ranges overlap of 93-96 mol.% ZrO2 and 4-7mol.% Yb2O3. Torigoe further teaches by controlling the Yb2O3 amounts within the ranges, one achieves superior thermal cycle durability (para [0027]). Because thermal stress generates cracks and structural weaknesses that directly cause coating degradation, thermal cycle durability is intrinsically linked to erosion resistance. Consequently, the powder disclosed by Torigoe would perform the function required for the present invention of component (A).
Torigoe does not teach a component (B) or the chemical composition of component (B).
In the same field of endeavor, Bahamirian et al. “Phase stability of ZrO2 9.5Y2O3 5.6Yb2O3 5.2Gd2O3 compound at 1100 °C and 1300 °C for advanced TBC applications” teaches a novel material for thermal barrier coatings, specifically a ZGYbY powder composition comprising ZrO2 9.5Y2O3 5.6Yb2O3 5.2Gd2O3 (Abstract). This disclosure reads on the claimed chemical composition as the composition falls within the specified ranges and yields the mole composition of 90.16 mol% ZrO2, 1.99 mol% Yb2O3, 5.86 mol% Y2O3, and 1.98 mol% Gd2O3.
Furthermore, Bahamirian et al. teaches that ZGYbY can be synthesized via chemical co-precipitation followed by calcination This method is technologically straightforward, cost-effective, and capable of producing homogeneously dispersed powders with complex compositions (Introduction, page 2, col. 1, paras. 6-7). Bahamirian et al. notes that increasing the concentration of zirconia stabilizers elevated the density of oxygen vacancies, thereby decreasing tetragonality to yield ZGYbY with enhanced phase stability at elevated operating temperatures (Conclusion, page 6 col 2). Because phase stability in coating often helps maintain a lower or more predictable thermal conductivity over time. Consequently, the powder disclosed by Bahamirian et al. would perform the function required for the present invention of component (B).
Torigoe and Bahamirian et al. do not explicitly teach motivation to combine the powders.
In the same field of endeavor, Schlichting (US-20060024527-A1) teaches a process for thermal barrier coating comprising a first rare earth oxide stabilized zirconia composition and a second composition, (e.g. yttria stabilized zirconia composition or a gadolinia stabilized zirconia composition, and mixtures thereof); blending the first and second composition to form a blended powder; and depositing the blended powder onto the substrate (Abstract). Schlichting further specifies that the first composition is present in the range of 50 wt.% to 90wt.% and the second composition is present in the range of 10 wt.% to 50 wt.% (para [0022]). These disclosures read on the material comprising two components within the concentration range.
Furthermore, Schlichting teaches that blending any of the second composition with the first powder increases coating toughness. This translates to enhanced spallation life (see FIG. 1) and superior erosion resistance (see FIG. 2) compared to coatings composed solely of the first powder (para [0019]). Schlichting further teaches that the combination from this powder mixture, exhibits a two-phase microstructure characterized by low thermal conductivity and a spallation resistance equal to or better than coatings made exclusively with the second powder composition (para [0023]). These disclosures collectively establish a clear motivation to optimize both erosion resistance and thermal conductivity by combining distinct powders.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the powder materials of Torigoe and Bahamirian et al. to the structural configuration demonstrated by Schlichting. Specifically, one would be motivated to modify Torigoe’s material of ZrO2 doped with Yb2O3 to further comprise ZrO2 9.5Y2O3 5.6Yb2O3 5.2Gd2O3 powder as established in Bahamirian et al., while utilizing Schlichting’s structural framework. Torigoe would guide one having ordinary skill in the art to employ ZrO2-Yb2O3 for thermal battier coatings to achieve superior thermal cycle durability (i.e., erosion resistance, paras. [0002 and 0027]). Bahamirian et al. would guide one having ordinary skill in the art to employ ZGYbY for thermal barrier coatings to optimize phase stability at elevated operating temperatures (i.e., thermal conductivity, Conclusion, page 6 col 2, bullet point 3). It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose, see In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846,850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Furthermore, Schlichting would guide one having ordinary skill in the art to employ two distinct powders to optimize the overall coating’s erosion resistance, spallation lifetime, and thermal conductivity (paras. [0019, 0023, and 0025]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Torigoe and Bahamirian et al. within the configuration of Schlichting to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of successfully optimizing these thermal and mechanical properties. As such, the teachings of Torigoe, Bahamirian et al., and Schlichting, when combined with general knowledge in the art, render the claimed powder material obvious.
Thereby the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 10, 12-16, and 18-23 are withdrawn from consideration from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being withdrawn to a non-elected invention, and non-elected species of the invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claims.
Therefore, claims under consideration in the current office actions are claims 1-3 and 6.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Torigoe (JP-2003160852-A) in view of Bahamirian et al. “Phase stability of ZrO2 9.5Y2O3 5.6Yb2O3 5.2Gd2O3 compound at 1100 °C and 1300 °C for advanced TBC applications”, and further in evidence of Schlichting (US-20060024527-A1, which corresponds to US-7927722-B2 located in Information Disclosure Statement).
With regard to claim 1, Torigoe teaches a thermal insulating coating/thermal barrier coating material comprising ZrO2 doped with Yb2O3, which is often used due to its relatively low thermal conductivity and relatively high thermal expansion coefficient (para [0002-0005]). Specifically, Torigoe teaches adding Yb2O3 in a proportion optimized for effective thermal cycle durability, namely 8 wt.% to 27 wt.% (2.65 mol% to 10.37 mol%) with the remainder ZrO2. This disclosure reads on the claimed chemical composition of component (A) as the ranges overlap of 93-96 mol.% ZrO2 and 4-7mol.% Yb2O3. Torigoe further teaches by controlling the additive amounts within the ranges, one achieves superior thermal cycle durability (para [0027]).
Because thermal stress generates cracks and structural weaknesses that directly cause coating degradation, thermal cycle durability is intrinsically linked to erosion resistance. Consequently, the powder disclosed by Torigoe would perform the function required for the present invention.
Torigoe does not teach a component (B), the chemical composition of component (B), the concentration, or the unalloyed properties.
In the same field of endeavor, Bahamirian et al. “Phase stability of ZrO2 9.5Y2O3 5.6Yb2O3 5.2Gd2O3 compound at 1100 °C and 1300 °C for advanced TBC applications” teaches a novel material for thermal barrier coatings, specifically a ZGYbY powder composition comprising ZrO2 9.5Y2O3 5.6Yb2O3 5.2Gd2O3 (Abstract). This disclosure reads on the claimed chemical composition as the composition falls within the specified ranges and yields the mole composition of 90.16 mol% ZrO2, 1.99 mol% Yb2O3, 5.86 mol% Y2O3, and 1.98 mol% Gd2O3.
Furthermore, Bahamirian et al. teaches that ZGYbY can be synthesized via chemical co-precipitation followed by calcination This method is technologically straightforward, cost-effective, and capable of producing homogeneously dispersed powders with complex compositions (Introduction, page 2, col. 1, paras. 6-7). Bahamirian et al. notes that increasing the concentration of zirconia stabilizers elevated the density of oxygen vacancies, thereby decreasing tetragonality to yield ZGYbY with enhanced phase stability at elevated operating temperatures (Conclusion, page 6 col 2). Because phase stability in coating often helps maintain a lower or more predictable thermal conductivity over time. Consequently, the powder disclosed by Bahamirian et al. would perform the function required for the present invention of component (B).
Torigoe and Bahamirian et al. do not explicitly teach motivation to combine the powders.
In the same field of endeavor, Schlichting teaches a process for thermal barrier coating comprising a first rare earth oxide stabilized zirconia composition and a second composition, (e.g. yttria stabilized zirconia composition or a gadolinia stabilized zirconia composition, and mixtures thereof); blending the first and second composition to form a blended powder; and depositing the blended powder onto the substrate (Abstract). Schlichting further specifies that the first composition is present in the range of 50 wt.% to 90wt.% and the second composition is present in the range of 10 wt.% to 50 wt.% (para [0022]). These disclosures read on the material comprising two components within the concentration range.
Furthermore, Schlichting teaches that blending any of the second composition with the first powder increases coating toughness. This translates to enhanced spallation life (see FIG. 1) and superior erosion resistance (see FIG. 2) compared to coatings composed solely of the first powder (para [0019]). Schlichting teaches the combination from this powder mixture, exhibits a two-phase microstructure characterized by low thermal conductivity and a spallation resistance equal to or better than coatings made exclusively with the second powder composition (para [0023]). These disclosures collectively establish a clear motivation to optimize both erosion resistance and thermal conductivity.
While Schlichting does not explicitly state that the first and second compositions are unalloyed. Schlichting teaches that the coating includes at least two powders blended mechanically, alloyed, or otherwise combined prior to deposition onto a substrate (para [0014]). Schlichting further teaches when the blending operation is completed, the two powders are deposited using any suitable technique known in the art (para [0025]). This disclosure can be interpreted to read on the claim limitation, as the teaching of depositing two distinct powders implies they remain separate and are not entirely alloyed together, despite being comprised within a single material.
With regard to the unalloyed property, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to formulate the powder material of Torigoe and Bahamirian et al. into the configuration of Schlichting. A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date would have recognized the utility of this configuration, as Schlichting can be provided with two distinct powder composition, non-alloyed within a single material. Therefore, given the overlapping components disclosed in a single composition, a person of ordinary skill in the art would make the modification with a reasonable level of success.
With regard to configuration, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the powder materials of Torigoe and Bahamirian et al. to the structural configuration demonstrated by Schlichting. Specifically, one would be motivated to modify Torigoe’s material of ZrO2 doped with Yb2O3 to further comprise ZrO2 9.5Y2O3 5.6Yb2O3 5.2Gd2O3 powder as established in Bahamirian et al., while utilizing Schlichting’s structural framework. Torigoe would guide one having ordinary skill in the art to employ ZrO2-Yb2O3 as a thermal barrier coating to achieve superior thermal cycle durability (paras. [0002 and 0027]). Bahamirian et al. would guide one having ordinary skill in the art to employ ZGYbY as a thermal barrier coating to optimize phase stability at elevated operating temperatures (Conclusion, page 6 col 2, bullet point 3). It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose, see In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846,850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Schlichting would guide one having ordinary skill in the art to employ two distinct powders to optimize the overall coating’s erosion resistance, spallation lifetime, and thermal conductivity (paras. [0019, 0023, and 0025]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Torigoe and Bahamirian et al. within the configuration of Schlichting to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of successfully optimizing these thermal and mechanical properties.
With regard to claims 2-3, Torigoe teaches adding Yb2O3 in a proportion optimized for effective thermal cycle durability, namely 8 wt.% to 27 wt.% (2.65 mol% to 10.37 mol%) (para [0027]). This disclosure reads on the component (A) comprising a partially stabilized zirconium oxide comprising a primary stabilizer as ytterbium oxide with an overlapping range.
With regard to the range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05(I). Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claim 6, Torigoe does not teach a component (B).
In the same field of endeavor, Bahamirian et al. teaches a new material for thermal barrier coatings such as ZGYbY: ZrO2 9.5Y2O3 5.6Yb2O3 5.2Gd2O3 powder (Abstract). This disclosure reads on the claimed chemical composition as it falls in the range, yields the mole percentage of 90.16 mol% ZrO2, 1.99 mol% Yb2O3, 5.86 mol% Y2O3, and 1.98 mol% Gd2O3 and a fully stabilized zirconia.
As stated above, the combination of Torigoe, Bahamirian et al., and evidence of Schlichting teach the incorporation of claimed chemical composition of component (B) in the powder material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aja A Walker whose telephone number is (571)272-0037. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-5.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/A.A.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/TANISHA DIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
August 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights