DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submissions filed on August 29, 2025 and September 30, 2025 have been entered.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “comprises” should be “further comprises”, as parent claim 1 previously establishes an element that is part of at least one of the two or more component powders. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections of the claims under 35 USC § 112(a) and 35 USC § 112(b) in the previous Office Action are withdrawn due to Applicant amendment.
Claims 7 is 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.
Regarding claim 7:
Claim 7 recites “ceramic composite comprises”. However, parent claim 6 establishes “at least one ceramic composite”. There then is a lack of clarity whether there can only be one ceramic composite as part of at least one of the two or more component powders or at least one ceramic composite thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejections of the claims under 35 USC § 102 in the previous Office Action are withdrawn due to Applicant amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejections of the claims under 35 USC § 103 in the previous Office Action are withdrawn due to Applicant amendment.
Claim(s) 1 – 2, 6 – 9, 16, 18 – 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorfman et al. US 2012/0295825 A1 (hereinafter “Dorfman”) and optionally in view of Schlichting et al. US 2010/0028549 A1 (hereinafter “Schlichting”).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 8, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25:
Dorfman is directed to a thermal spray powder and method of making the thermal spray powder (Abstract). Dorfman discloses that their method of making the thermal spray powder comprises:
providing a first component powder ([0012]);
providing a second component powder, wherein the second component powder has a substantially different morphology than the first component powder ([0012]); and
mechanically blending [combining] the first component powder and the second component to form a mixture of powder for forming an abradable coating by thermal spraying ([0011], [0016], [0030], [0036]).
The first component may be a metal [at least one principal component], and agglomerated composite or mechanically/chemically clad composite; and the second component is a mechanically clad solid lubricant with or without an organic binder or inorganic binder [different compositional ratios; combination of one or more secondary components] ([0010], [0037], [0052]). Additionally, Dorfman discloses that one of the components (first or second) that are blended is a ceramic composite ([0037],[0056] – [0057]; Claim 1). The ceramic composite can be a metal oxide ceramic such as yttria stabilized zirconia [zirconium oxide and yttrium (Y) oxide] ([0037],[0051]; Claim 1); and thus necessarily has an amount of yttria stabilized zirconia greater than 0 weight percent.
Furthermore, Dorfman does discloses that composite particles can be agglomerated, clad mechanically or clad chemically as known in the art and that each of the components can be either mechanically clad or chemically clad ([0010], [0014]). The composite powder is capable of being sprayed using the techniques of plasma spraying or combustion spraying ([0016]).
In an embodiment, Dorfman discloses that their method of making a thermal spray powder comprises: providing a component A that is agglomerated hexagonal boron nitride [principal component] that is clad with NiCrAl alongside a component B which is nickel clad [chemical or mechanically] polyester particles ([0053]). The component A may have a d50 particle size of 68 micrometers while the d50 particle size of component B may be 72 micrometers [different particle sizes relative to one another, different compositional ratios, within the claimed particle size ranges]. The powders are combined in a mechanical blend ([0053]; Fig. 1).
Dorfman does not expressly teach an embodiment wherein each of the two or more component powders comprise a rare earth stabilized zirconia; and does not expressly teach that such rare earth zirconia is present in an amount of greater than 0 weight percent to 90 weight percent.
With regards to an embodiment wherein each of the two or more component powders comprise a rare earth stabilized zirconia:
Dorfman generally discloses that the first component of their powder may be clad with at least one of a metal alloy, and that the second component may comprise specific metal alloys ([0055] – [0058], Claim 1). Dorfman also discloses that metal alloys can be replaced by metal oxide ceramics, such as yttria stabilized zirconia ([0051]). Thus Dorfman suggests an embodiment wherein the disclosed metal alloys are replaced by e.g. yttria stabilized zirconia.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosed embodied methods of Dorfman by combining first and second component powders both having e.g. yttria stabilized zirconia substituting metal alloys because as taught by Dorfman, the use of yttria is known to be suitable for the purpose of cladding particles. The courts have held that the selection of a known material/device/product based for its intended use supports a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Furthermore, the substitution of one known cladding material for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Optionally and additionally, Schlichting is directed to a process of forming a coating on a substrate (Abstract). Schlichting discloses that their method comprises a step of blending at least two powders, wherein a first powder contains at least one rare earth oxide of e.g. 4 – 25 weight percent yttria and balance zirconia ([0009]), and a second powder comprising yttria, titania and zirconia in amounts of e.g. 1 weight percent of yttria, 41 weight percent of titania and the balance of zirconia ([0012]). Schlichting discloses that the inclusion of stabilizing elements and combinations helps reduce phase transformation during spraying operations and thus reduced residual stress build-up in coatings; as well as potentially improved performance to molten sand attack ([0020] – [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been optionally and additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included yttria stabilized zirconia or other rare earth-stabilized zirconia oxides to each of the powders, regardless of manufacturing procedure, in order to help reduce phase transformations during spraying operations and thus reduced residual stress build-up in coatings; as well as potentially improved performance to molten sand attack
By having as a first component powder.
With regards to rare earth zirconia is present in an amount of greater than 0 weight percent to 90 weight percent (or within the ranges recited in dependent claims 22 – 25):
Dorfman discloses that at least some yttrium-stabilized zirconia may be present in powders, as discussed above ([0037],[0051]; Claim 1). While Dorfman does not expressly teach an upper amount of incorporated yttrium-stabilized zirconia, Dorfman does disclose that yttrium-stabilized zirconia is present alongside other components of the powder, and thus implies an upper limit of less than 100 weight percent. Dorfman therefore suggests a range of 0 to 100 weight percent exclusive, which is an overlapping range.
Optionally and additionally, Schlichting discloses weight percentages of yttrium stabilized zirconia in each powder that falls within the claimed ranges as discussed above.
Outside a showing of unexpected results, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66(Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 6, 8, 9, 20, 21:
Dorfman discloses that one of the components that are blended is a ceramic composite ([0056] – [0057]). The ceramic composite can be a metal oxide ceramic such as yttria stabilized zirconia [zirconium oxide and yttrium (Y) oxide] ([0051]).
Dorfman does not expressly teach an embodiment where each of the ceramic composite first component powder and/or the second component powder [within the scope of two or more component powders] are produced via different manufacturing processes selected among the recited processes; and that said ceramic composite first component powder would have a particle range size within the claimed range.
However, Dorfman does disclose generally that composite particles can be clad mechanically or clad chemically as known in the art and that each of the components can be either mechanically clad or chemically clad ([0010], [0014]). Dorfman then effectively includes an embodiment where component A particles are mechanically clad while component B particles are chemically clad and vice-versa. Furthermore, Dorfman discloses that generally between 12 micrometers and about 45 micrometers ([0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized an embodiment of Dorfman where each of the ceramic composite first component powder and/or the second component powder are produced via different manufacturing processes of mechanical cladding, chemical cladding and agglomeration; and that said ceramic composite first component powder would have a particle range size within the claimed range because Dorfman teaches that such thermal spray compositions are useful for forming abradable compositions with predictable results ([0009]), and that different methods of forming powders are known to be suitable and equivalent for producing individual powders that are subsequently blended.
Claims 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorfman and optionally in view of Schlichting as applied to claims 1 – 2, 6 – 9, 16, 18 – 25 above, and further in view of He et al. WO2020/142125 A2 (hereafter “He”, of record).
Regarding claim 7:
Dorfman optionally in view of Schlichting does not expressly teach that at least one ceramic composite selected is high entropy oxide and that the high entropy oxide comprises a matrix having at least three principal elements each constituting between 5% weight and 35 weight% of the matrix.
He is directed to a thermal barrier coating top coat that is a high entropy oxide (HEO) having a high configurational entropy (Abstract). The high entropy oxide may be incorporated in the form of a powder and employed in a thermal spray powder process ([0002], [0026], [0055]; claim 24, 30). He discloses compositions of four HEO having metal oxide matrices of e.g. zirconium oxide, yttrium oxide gadolinium oxide ytterbium oxide and calcium oxide (Table 1; [0058]). HEOs exhibit a single phase or single crystalline structure over a prolonged temperature range from room temperature to the operating temperature of top coats for turbine blades in jet engines; thus no phase transformations occur from heat cycling between e.g. room temperature and operating temperature and thus reduces/eliminates delamination of layers formed from HEO from substrate layers as well as create coatings having low densities that further reduce the thermal conductivity of the created coating ([0022], [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Dorfman optionally in view of Schlichting by providing HEO as part of the ceramic composite because He teaches that coatings formed from an HEO powder enhance microstructure stability and allows further tailoring of the porosity of coatings produced from the powder.
Claim 12 – 15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorfman optionally in view of Schlichting and in view of Ma et al. US 2011/0086163 (hereafter “Ma”).
Regarding claims 12, 13, 14:
As discussed above, Dorfman discloses a method of forming an abradable coating by spraying a mechanically a blended mixture a first powder component and second powder component [mixture of a plurality of powders] to form an abradable coating ([0038]; [0011] – [0012], [0016], [0030], [0036], [0037]). The second component powder has a substantially different morphology than the first component powder ([0012]).
Dorfman optionally in view of Schlichting does not expressly teach that the thermal spraying or co-spraying occurs at a temperature sufficient to partially melt powders of the powder feedstock during thermal spraying; cooling the abradable coating layer to room temperature wherein the abradable layer is substantially free of any cracks.
Ma is directed to methods of producing crack-free abradable coatings with enhanced adhesion (Abstract). Ma discloses a method comprising: feeding coating material, in powdered form, axially through a spray gun in a high-velocity oxygen-fuel (HVOC) spray system ([0051]); ejecting the mixture of coating material, fuel, and oxygen out of a nozzle and igniting the mixture outside the gun ([0051]); at least partially melting the coating material from the heat of the ignited fuel and oxygen and impacting the at last partially molten coating material onto a substrate; and allowing the deposited coating material passively cool to room temperature ([0055]). The coating material is ejected from the nozzle below a predetermined critical coating temperature that substantially prevents the formation of cracks, thus forming crack-free abradable coatings ([0053] – [0055]; [0042]). The process helps prepare abradable coatings with enhanced durability and longevity during operation due to the avoidance or mitigation of crack formation in the abradable material ([0014], [0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Dorfman optionally in view of Schlichting by co-spraying the plurality powders at a temperature sufficient to partially melt powders of the powder feedstock during thermal spraying and cooling the abradable coating layer to room temperature wherein the abradable layer is substantially free of any cracks because Ma teaches that such steps helps prepare abradable coatings with enhanced durability and longevity during operation due to the avoidance or mitigation of crack formation in the abradable material.
Regarding claims 15, 17:
Dorfman discloses that the powders are used for general spraying onto surfaces ([0005], [0016]).
Dorfman optionally in view of Schlichting does not expressly teach that the thermal-sprayed coating has the recited thickness.
Ma discloses that the abradable coating may be deposited at thicknesses between 0.5 to 5 millimeters [500 to 5000 micrometers] ([0024]). Ma further discloses that the final abradable coating should be a durable coating crack free and capable of resisting high temperature and pressure operation in gas turbine engines ([0004], [0006], [0042]); while also providing sufficient sealing and mating between parts ([0009] – [0011]). Ma therefore suggests that the thickness of the final coating must be sufficient to enable various end uses of such a thermally sprayed coating.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of making the resultant powder mixture of Dorfman optionally in view of Schlichting to thermally spray the powder mixture onto substrates to a thickness within the claimed range – and that the thermal spray powder is suitable for such application – because Ma teaches that there is a recognition in the art that thermally sprayed coatings must have coating thicknesses within at least the claimed region in order to enable end use functionality of such abradable coatings in gas turbine seals.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorfman in view of Ma as applied to claims 12 – 15, 17 above, and optionally further in view of Ndamka et al. US 2019/0093497 (hereafter “Ndamka”).
Regarding claim 10:
Dorfman optionally in view of Schlichting does not disclose that the thermal-sprayed coating comprises a porosity from 1% to about 90%.
However, Dorfman discloses that porosity can be controlled ([0039], [0067]; Claim 8). Ma discloses that porosity is a critical parameter in forming functional abradable air seal coatings and includes embodiments with graded porosities ([0011], [0023], [0051], [0061] ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the thermal spraying of the powder-based coating/abradable coating within the claimed range as a matter of routine experimentation in order to form functional abradable air seal coatings. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
With regards to the testing methods used for determination of the porosity, the Examiner takes official notice that the recited measurement techniques are well known standardized tests in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have used them to determine porosity with predictable accuracy and success.
Optionally and additionally, Ndamka is directed to articles for use in high-temperature environments comprising an abradable coating and methods of coating the abradable coating (Abstract; [0008]; Claim 13). Ndamka discloses that their method comprises: providing a substrate optionally with intermediate layers ([0008], [0013]; [0037]); and thermal spraying the abradable coating onto the substrate or onto intermediate layers bonded to the substrate by mixing together and spraying particles of the constituents of the abradable coating ([0037]; Claims 13, 16). The particles deposited may comprise a rare earth silicate have a rare earth such as e.g. lutetium or ytterbium ([0031]) alongside particles of a dislocator phase ([0037]).
Ndamka discloses that the porosity of the abradable coating produced from the powders may have an overall porosity of less than about 30 vol.% e.g. between about 1 vol. % and about 10 vol. % ([0022]). The amount of porosity in the abradable coating is partially determined by the amount of coating material additive included, e.g. graphite , hexagonal boron nitride (which Dorfman discloses is present as part of a composite particle). After forming the abradable coating, the coating material additive may be melted or burned off in a post-deposition heat treatment to form the pores within the abradable coating ([0036]). The porosity of the abradable coating is adjusted as needed to increase or decrease the bonding strength and associated abrasion properties within the abraded coating ([0036]), which in turns permits close sealing between abradable coatings and a rotatable component interacting with the abradable coating ([0022]).
Therefore, it would have been additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Dorfman in view of Ma by providing a “thermal spray” (as best understood) having a powder porosity in the recited range as a matter of routine experimentation in order to create a powder feedstock to form abradable coatings with a controlled amount of porosity to enable close sealing between the abradable coatings and a rotating component. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on August 29, 2025 and September 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
a.) Nothing in Dorfman suggest that rare earth stabilized zirconia can or should be added to both component A and component B.
b.) Dorfman is silent as to controlling the hardness and erosion resistance of coatings made from two or more component powders.
In response to the applicant's arguments, please consider the following comments.
a.) Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, Dorfman does provide suggestion that any reference of metal alloy within each component can also be instead substituted with yttria-stabilized zirconia ([0051]). Accordingly, the claims are rendered obvious for the reasons as discussed above in the rejection of the claims over Dorfman and optionally in view of Schlichting.
b.) Applicant’s reply appears to be an argument that the claimed invention – particularly the use of particles made by different production methods and having each 01 to 90 weight percent rare earth stabilized zirconia – demonstrates unexpected results. Applicant’s reply references paragraph [0051], [0052] and [0054] of the instant specification as evidence of unexpected results. However, the statement is a conclusory statement that does not provide or point to data and other evidence to support the professed advantage. Instead, there is a discussion of a testing protocol of coupons coated with powders having multiple components and how such coupons were evaluated. The results of such testing and how the results compare to the “benchmarked legacy products” are not disclosed. Furthermore, there is no discussion, definition or suggestion of what are the “benchmarked legacy products”. The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). Furthermore, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:30.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on (571) 272-1295. 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.
/JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
1 The Examiner notes that the recited claim does not include a value of 0 weight percent rare earth stabilized zirconia.