DETAILED ACTION The claims 1-20 are pending and presented for the examination. 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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/21/2023, 06/04/2024, 02/26/2025, and 06/18/2025 are being considered by the examiner. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Clai ms 1-20 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. Claim 1 contains the term “the coating powder” but this is the first instance of this term, and as such there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term. Claim 1 is further indefinite because it is unclear what limitations “configured to survive in operating environment […]” is meant to impart, in as much as “to survive” does not clearly define what would need to occur or not occur to the layer in order to meet the limitation. The claim is also indefinite because “a long term” is an ambiguous description that does not impart a definite quantitative length of time that could be used to define patented subject matter. Claims 2-13 are indefinite under USC 112 as depending from claim 1 and thus containing the indefinite limitations thereof. Claim 3 is further indefinite because the term “negatively affected” does not clearly what would need to occur or not occur to the magnetic properties in order to meet the limitation. Claim 14 is indefinite because it is unclear what limitations “configured to survive in operating environment […]” is meant to impart, in as much as “to survive” does not clearly define what would need to occur or not occur to the layer in order to meet the limitation. The claim is also indefinite because “a long term” is an ambiguous description that does not impart a definite quantitative length of time that could be used to define patented subject matter. Claims 15-20 are indefinite under USC 112 as depending from claim 1 and thus containing the indefinite limitations thereof. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – Claim s 14 -15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Andrus et al (US 5153070) . Regarding claim 14 , Andrus et al teaches a coated refractory article and method for producing the same. The coated article comprises components for use in such applications as aerospace and engine components. These uses necessitate exposure to temperatures of greater than 180 °C, and any component can be considered to be “susceptible” because this term does not specify and degree of degradation, or any exposure timeframe. The use of the coated components in aerospace indicates that they survive at their operating temperatures, and the limitation “for a long term” does not constitute any particular quantitative time. As such, the limitation is necessarily met by the Andrus components and device. Each limitation of instant claim 14 is thus met by the teachings of Andrus, and the claim is therefore anticipated by the prior art of record. Regarding claim 15 , the ferrous components taught by Andrus necessarily have magnetic properties. The product-by-process limitations of the instant claim do not patentably distinguish the claimed product over an equivalent product produced by a differing process. In any case, as shown below, Andrus teaches a process of coating equivalent to that of the instant claim, and this process would therefore affect the magnetic properties equivalently and be below the Curie point. The further limitations of claim 15 are thus met by the prior art of record. Claim s 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Piascik et al (US 2020/0098516 A1). Regarding claim 14 , Piascik et al teaches an electromagnetic device and method of applying a protective coating thereto. The device is intended for use at temperatures of 300 °C and above (see paragraph 0026) and comprises components coated with an electrically insulative glass coating. The coated components are metallic and can be considered to be “susceptible” because this term does not specify and degree of degradation, or any exposure timeframe. The limitation “for a long term” does not constitute any particular quantitative time. As such, the limitation is necessarily met by the Piascik components and device. Each limitation of instant claim 14 is thus met by the teachings of Piascik , and the claim is therefore anticipated by the prior art of record. Regarding claim 15 , the Piascik device comprises electromagnetic coils. Piascik teaches coating by firing the applied precursor at a temperature of 500-800 °C (see paragraph 0056). This temperature is equivalent to that of the instant claims, and as such is necessarily below a Curie temperature of the equivalent metallic magnetic components. 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 . 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. Claim s 1- 5 , 7 , and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrus et al (US 5153070) . Regarding claim 1 , Andrus et al teaches a coated refractory article and method for producing the same. The coated article comprises components for use in such applications as aerospace and engine components. Andrus et al teaches coating by forming glass ceramic powder and applying the powder to the surfaces to be coated, followed by heat treatment. The method can comprise forming a slurry by combining the precursor glass ceramic powder with water or another solvent (see column 6, lines 5-10). After coating, heating treatment is carried out at a temperature that can be 800 °C (see column 6, lines 10-15), thereby causing the glass particles to flow and produce a dense coating. This constitutes a melting step carried out at the temperature range of the instant claim. The aforementioned powder and water/vehicle mixture constitutes an intermediate coating product. The refractory products include those used as super alloys and in aviation engines; these would necessarily be configured to operate at temperatures greater than 180 °C. As such, a method meeting each limitation of instant claim 1 would be arrived at by one of ordinary skill in the art through routine optimization in choosing from the overlapping temperature range for the post-application heat treatment. Claim 1 is thus obvious and not patentably distinct over the prior art of record. Regarding claim 2 , the method taught by Andrus is necessarily one for providing protection at temperature at which the aforementioned engine components operate, and as such the method would necessarily involve applying the protective coating all of those surfaces exposed to the operating temperature. Regarding claim 3 , Andrus teaches a heating temperature equivalent to that of the instant claims, and as such the temperature necessarily also has an equivalent effect on the component magnetic properties. The further limitation of instant claim 3 is thus met by the Andrus teachings. Regarding claim 4 , the Andrus components are metallic in embodiments, including ferrous metals. These components thus necessarily have surfaces with magnetic properties. Andrus teaches a heating temperature equivalent to that of the instant claims, and as such the temperature necessarily also has an equivalent relationship to the Curie temperature. The further limitation of instant claim 3 is thus met by the Andrus teachings. Regarding claim 5 , Andrus teaches that the glass ceramic powder can be applied after mixing with water or a vehicle, and thus teaches a paste or slurry. Regarding claim 7 , Andrus teaches that the coating glass/glass ceramic can be of the BaO-Al 2 O 3 -SiO 2 -B 2 O 3 system (see Table 1). Regarding claim 16 , as discussed above, Andrus et al teaches a device meeting each limitation of instant claim 14. Andrus further teaches that the coating glass/glass ceramic can be of the BaO-Al 2 O 3 -SiO 2 -B 2 O 3 system (see Table 1). Claim 16 is thus obvious and not patentably distinct over the prior art of record. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrus et al (US 5153070) in view of Xiao et al (US 2008/0260952 A1). Regarding claim 6 , the claim differs from Andrus et al as applied above because Andrus does not specify the solids loading content of the coating composition used to apply the glass ceramic coating to the substrate. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Andrus in view of Xiao et al in order to use the solids loading percentage taught therein. Xiao et al teaches a ceramic coating for application to a refractory metal component substrate via a precursor slurry. Xiao et al specifies a solids loading content for the slurry of 20-60 wt % (see claim 14). This range overlaps and thus renders obvious the solids range of the instant claim. Per MPEP 2144.05, overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. One of ordinary skill would have had motivation to use the Xiao et al solids content with the Andrus et al slurry because Andrus does not specify the concentration of solids that should be in the coating composition. This would motivate a skilled artisan to look to other teachings for an appropriate value, and Xiao et al provides such a teaching. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification because Andrus and Xiao are each drawn to methods of providing protective coatings on metallic refractory components. Each limitation of claim 6 is thus met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct. Claim s 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrus et al (US 5153070) in view of Lamberson et al ( US 20100086825 A1 ) . Regarding claim 8 , the claim differs from Andrus et al as applied above because Andrus et al does not teach a powder for coating that meets each compositional limitation of the claim. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Andrus in view of Lamberson et al in order to use the glass compositions taught therein. Lamberson et al teaches a coating composition for substrate protection, comprised of the same BaO-Al 2 O 3 -SiO 2 -B 2 O 3 system as taught by Andrus. Lamberson provides a detailed teaching as to broad usable ranges for each of the aforementioned glass components. Each range for BaO , Al 2 O 3 , SiO 2 , and B 2 O 3 overlaps the corresponding range of the instant claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. One of ordinary skill would have had motivation to use the Lamberson et al glass coating compositions with the Andrus method because both methods are for providing resistant substrate protection, and Lamberson teaches further compositions that would allow for variances in properties of resultant coatings, and for differing materials needing to be obtained. This increased flexibility would be understood to be advantageous to a skilled artisan, and as such motivation for the modification would be present. The further limitations of claim 8 are therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct. Regarding claim 17 , as discussed above, Andrus et al teaches a device meeting each limitation of instant claim 14. As also discussed above, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Andrus et al in view of Lamberson et al in order to use a composition that meets each further limitation of claim 17, and claim 8. Claim 17 is thus not patentably distinct over the prior art of record. Claim s 10 -11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrus et al (US 5153070) in view of Hayakawa et al ( US 20030228471 A1). Regarding claim 10 , the claim differs from Andrus et al as applied above because Andrus et al does not teach a powder for coating that meets each compositional limitation of the claim. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Andrus in view of Hayakawa et al order to use the glass compositions taught therein. Hayakawa et al teaches a coating composition for substrate protection. Hayakawa provides a detailed teaching as to broad usable ranges for each of the glass components of the inventive coating glass . Each range for B 2 O 3 , SiO 2 , ZnO , BaO , and Bi 2 O 3 overlaps the corresponding range of the instant claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. One of ordinary skill would have had motivation to use the Hayakawa et al glass coating compositions with the Andrus method because both methods are for providing resistant substrate protection, and Hayakawa teaches further compositions that would allow for variances in properties of resultant coatings, and for differing materials needing to be obtained. This increased flexibility would be understood to be advantageous to a skilled artisan, and as such motivation for the modification would be present. The further limitations of claim 10 are therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct. Regarding claim 11 , Hayakawa et al teaches that the coating material comprises further components that can be present in amounts of less than 1 wt % (see Table 1 and claim 3). Regarding claim 18 , as discussed above, Andrus et al teaches a device meeting each limitation of instant claim 14. As also discussed above, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Andrus et al in view of Hayakawa et al in order to use a composition that meets each further limitation of claim 18, and claim 10. Claim 18 is thus not patentably distinct over the prior art of record. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrus et al (US 5153070) in view of Piascik et al (US 2020/0098516 A1). Regarding claim 20 , the claim differs from Andrus et al as applied above because Andrus does not teach that the coated component meets each structural limitation of the claim. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Andrus in view of Piascik et al in order to use the coating method taught by Andrus applied to the structure of Piascik . Piascik et al teaches an electromagnetic device and method of applying a protective coating thereto. Piascik teaches that that the device comprises components that include a first conductive surface coupled to the conductive surface of a second component. The connecting portion constitutes a joint. The conductive components that are joined are magnetic wire portions (64) electrically connected by portions 68 and 70. Piascik teaches a protective coating on the wire of the inventive device. One of ordinary skill would have had motivation to use the Andrus coating method to apply the inventive coating to the Piascik device components because Andrus teaches a coating for application in situations that call for protection, of the type called for by the Piascik teaching. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification because both Andrus and Piascik teach devices having glass coatings applied to surfaces thereof. Each limitation of claim 20 is thus met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 9, 12-13, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art, either alone or in combination, does not teach or suggest a method meeting each limitation of instant claims 1, 6, and 8, and wherein the ceramic coating powder comprises the compositional limitations of instant claim 9. The prior art also does not teach or suggest a method meeting each limitation of instant claims 1 and 6 and wherein the coating ceramic powder comprises the compositional features of instant claim 12. Finally, the prior art does not teach or suggest a device meeting each limitation of instant claims 14 and 16 and wherein the coating layer has the additional compositional features of instant claim 19. Conclusion 1 9 . No claim is allowed. 20 . The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 21 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3596 . The exam iner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair- direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /NOAH S WIESE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731 NSW 8 December 2025