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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 24 December 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application, wherein claims 2-3 have been amended. No new matter has been introduced by the amendments.
Claim Interpretation
The following claim language is interpreted as outlined herein:
Claims 6, 12, and 16 each recite “comprising a composition of A2BO4” and “comprising a composition of ABO3” without defining what A and B represent. Applicant argues, see p. 9-10 of remarks filed 24 December 2025, that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize A and B as cations, and more specifically A-site cations occupying the corners of a cubic lattice and B-site cations located at the center with A-site cations typically being larger than B-site cations. Therefore, the disputed limitations will be considered to refer to these argued definitions for A and B.
Claims 13 and 17 both recite a first class of phase and a second class of phase, each selected from a group of compounds. Since a compound is not a phase, this limitation will be considered as reciting a first class of phase wherein a material of the phase (i.e. of the first class of phase; i.e. of the Ruddlesden-Popper phase) comprises a composition of A2BO4 and reciting a second class of phase wherein a material of the phase (i.e. of the second class of phase; i.e. of the Perovskite phase) comprises a composition of ABO3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 recites wherein the radiative barrier materials are adjacent the outer surface. The previously presented outer surface is an outer surface of the second layer which comprises radiative barrier materials. Therefore the radiative barrier materials (i.e. of the second layer having an outer surface) are already considered to be adjacent the outer surface, and the limitations of claim 2 fail to further limit the subject matter of the claim on which it depends. It is suggested that wording for what the Applicant appears to be trying to claim should recite “the outer surface of the radiative barrier materials is an outer surface of the multi-phase radiative and thermal barrier coating system” (as supported by Figs. 2-3).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-11, 14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Britz et al. (US 2021/0262099, previously cited).
Claim 1: Britz teaches a protective coating for turbine blades and other components exposed to corrosive environments (paragraph 0002). The substrate (i.e. having a substrate surface) can have a bond coat (paragraph 0022) and a first oxide layer is formed on the bond coating, a ceramic infrared (IR) reflector layer formed over the first oxide (paragraph 0023), a damage sensing layer and toughness enhancing layer are formed over the IR reflector layer (paragraph 0023), a thermal barrier coating (TBC) is formed over the toughness enhancing layer (i.e. the bond coat, first oxide layer, IR reflector layer, damage sensing layer, toughness enhancing layer, and TBC collectively is a first layer that is deposited on the substrate surface) (paragraph 0024), and a protective coating layer including a metal oxide is formed over the TBC layer (i.e. the protective coating layer is a second layer deposited on the first layer) (paragraph 0025). The infrared (IR) reflector layer is a ceramic (i.e. a metal oxide) and is considered to be a radiant barrier material having a radiant heat transfer resistant microstructure since it would be understood to reflect IR radiant heat. In view of Britz teaching that the protective coating layer, which is also a metal oxide, is formed in interior passages and external surfaces and the outside surface is where gas mixture flows that can be from 1200°C to 2000°C (paragraph 0022), then the protective coating layer is considered to also be a radiant barrier material having a radiant heat transfer resistant microstructure in order to provide protection at such temperatures and has an outer surface. The TBC layer has a columnar grain structure (paragraph 0024) and the protective coating layer is formed as one or more conformal layers (paragraph 0025). As such, the TBC layer and the protective coating layer have different microstructures (i.e. different phases), and therefore the second layer (i.e. the TBC layer and the protective coating layer) render the coating system to be a multi-phase radiative and thermal barrier coating system.
Claim 2: Britz teaches that the protective coating layer is formed in interior passages and external surfaces (paragraph 0022) (i.e. the protective coating layer, which corresponds to the instantly claimed second layer, is considered to have an outer surface). As outlined above regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(d), the material of the protective coating layer (i.e. the radiative barrier materials) are considered to be proximate the instantly claimed outer surface.
Claim 3: Britz teaches that the substrate can have a bond coat (paragraph 0022) and a first oxide layer is formed on the bond coating, a ceramic infrared (IR) reflector layer formed over the first oxide (paragraph 0023), a damage sensing layer and toughness enhancing layer are formed over the IR reflector layer (paragraph 0023), a thermal barrier coating (TBC) is formed over the toughness enhancing layer (i.e. the bond coat, first oxide layer, IR reflector layer, damage sensing layer, toughness enhancing layer, and TBC collectively is a first layer that is deposited on the substrate surface) (paragraph 0024). A bond coating (i.e. part of the first layer that, as outlined above, would be at an interface with the substrate surface) would be understood to help with bonding of the coating system with the substrate, and therefore is considered to have a strain-tolerant microstructure (i.e. bridging differences between the substrate and oxide coating). Since the coating system is for protecting turbine blades (paragraph 0002) in an environment where gas mixture flows that can be from 1200°C to 2000°C (paragraph 0022), the materials of the bond coating (i.e. part of the first layer) and other layers of the coating system are considered to have low thermal conductivity (see indefiniteness outlined above).
Claim 4: Britz teaches that the protective coating layer (i.e. the second layer comprising radiative barrier materials) includes one or more metal oxides such as Cr2O3, ZrO2, HfO2 (i.e. transition metal oxide phase materials), La2O3, or Gd2O3, etc. (i.e. rare-earth oxide phase materials), and other rare earth elements of combinations of metal oxides can be used (paragraph 0025). Britz does not explicitly teach that these materials absorb thermal radiation emitted by hot gases proximate the outer surface; however, the materials of the protective coating layer are considered to be so configured because Britz teaches the protective coating layer to be in contact with a hot gas path (paragraphs 0022 and 0025).
Claim 5: Britz teaches where the protective coating layer includes one or more metal oxides such as Cr2O3, ZrO2, HfO2 (i.e. transition metal oxide phase materials), La2O3, or Gd2O3, etc. (i.e. rare-earth oxide phase materials), and other rare earth elements of combinations of metal oxides can be used (paragraph 0025) (i.e. comprises two classes of phases due to having a combination of materials).
Claim 8: The limitations of claim 8 include the features of claims 1 and 4, outlined above, but is directed to a turbine component having a bond coat and the multi-phase radiative and thermal barrier coating system. Britz teaches a hot engine section component having the above outlined coating system (paragraph 0022), such as turbine vanes and blades (paragraphs 0002-0004), and that the substrate can have a bond coat (paragraph 0022) along with the other above outlined layers of the coating system.
Claim 9: Britz does not specifically disclose the instantly claimed absorption coefficient (i.e. a material property). However, the recited material property is considered to be present because Britz discloses substantially identical materials (i.e. rare-earth/transition metal oxide materials as recited in base claim 8; e.g. a TBC of gadolinium zirconate, Gd2Zr2O7, on a toughness enhancing layer of yttria-stabilized zirconia, YSZ, as disclosed by Britz in paragraph 0024 compared to Gd2Zr2O7 on YSZ in paragraph 0039 of the instant specification), and substantially identical materials have substantially identical properties or functions. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Claim 10: Britz teaches that the protective coating layer (i.e. corresponding to the second layer comprising the radiative barrier materials) can form an outside surface in contact with a hot gas path and can have a thickness of 1 nm to 3 microns (paragraph 0025). Britz also teaches that (addition of) the protective coating can increase a mass of a hot section engine component 1% or less than 1%. Although expressed in terms of mass instead of depth, it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the protective coating should not greatly change the dimensions of the component. Additionally, Britz teaches that the TBC includes an oxide such as zirconia doped with Gd, etc. (paragraph 0024), which are substantially identical to the one or more oxides of ZrO2 (i.e. zirconia), Gd2O3, taught by Britz for the protective coating layer (paragraph 0025), and therefore other layers of the multi-phase radiative and thermal barrier coating system includes the radiative barrier materials (i.e. at depths greater than 1% depth).
Claim 11: Britz teaches that the protective coating layer (i.e. corresponding to the second layer comprising the radiative barrier materials) can form an outside surface in contact with a hot gas path and can have a thickness of 1 nm to 3 microns (paragraph 0025). Most of this range is within the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2131.03.
Claim 14: Britz teaches a hot engine section component including turbine vanes and blades (paragraphs 0002-0004 and 0022) (i.e. load-bearing gas turbine engine component; i.e. a substrate) further defined by an outside surface where a gas mixture that can be from 1200-200 °C is flowed during engine use (paragraph 0022) (i.e. providing a component substrate having a substrate surface). The substrate (i.e. having a substrate surface) can have a bond coat (paragraph 0022) (i.e. depositing a bond coat on the substrate surface) and a first oxide layer is formed on the bond coating, a ceramic infrared (IR) reflector layer formed over the first oxide (paragraph 0023), a damage sensing layer and toughness enhancing layer are formed over the IR reflector layer (paragraph 0023), a thermal barrier coating (TBC) is formed over the toughness enhancing layer (paragraph 0024), and a protective coating layer including a metal oxide is formed over the TBC layer (i.e. the TBC and protective coating layer is a thermal barrier coating having an outer surface; i.e. depositing a thermal barrier coating on the bond coat) (paragraph 0025). In view of Britz teaching that the protective coating layer is formed in interior passages and external surfaces and the outside surface is where gas mixture flows that can be from 1200°C to 2000°C (paragraph 0022), then the protective coating layer is considered to also be a radiant barrier material having a radiant heat transfer resistant microstructure in order to provide protection at such temperatures and has an outer surface. Britz teaches that the protective coating layer (i.e. the second layer comprising radiative barrier materials) includes one or more metal oxides such as Cr2O3, ZrO2, HfO2 (i.e. transition metal oxide phase materials), La2O3, or Gd2O3, etc. (i.e. rare-earth oxide phase materials), and other rare earth elements of combinations of metal oxides can be used (paragraph 0025). Britz does not explicitly teach that these materials absorb thermal radiation emitted by hot gases proximate the outer surface; however, the materials of the protective coating layer are considered to be so configured because Britz teaches the protective coating layer to be in contact with a hot gas path (paragraphs 0022 and 0025). Britz does not particularly teach that this process of forming the (coated) component is “for reducing heat flux from a combustion gas”; however, this limitation is considered a purpose that does not result in a manipulative difference of the claimed process. Furthermore, since Britz teaches that the protective coating layer is formed in interior passages and external surfaces and the outside surface is where gas mixture flows that can be from 1200°C to 2000°C during engine use (paragraph 0022), then the coated component and process of forming the coated component is considered to perform the recited process and purpose.
Claim 18: Britz teaches that the thermal barrier coating (TBC) layer (i.e. part of the radiative barrier coating of radiative barrier materials as outlined above regarding instant claim 14) can be a porous layer (paragraph 0024), and in view of Britz teaching that the protective coating layer (i.e. part of the radiative barrier coating of radiative barrier materials as outline above regarding instant claim 14) is formed in interior passages and external surfaces and the outside surface is where gas mixture flows that can be from 1200°C to 2000°C (paragraph 0022), then the protective coating layer is considered to also be a radiant barrier material having a radiant heat transfer resistant microstructure in order to provide protection at such temperatures (i.e. the radiative barrier materials are so configured as claimed).
Claim 19: Britz teaches that the protective coating layer (i.e. one layer of the radiative barrier materials as outlined above regarding instant claim 14) can form an outside surface in contact with a hot gas path and can have a thickness of 1 nm to 3 microns (paragraph 0025). Britz also teaches that (addition of) the protective coating can increase a mass of a hot section engine component 1% or less than 1%. Although expressed in terms of mass instead of depth, it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the protective coating should not greatly change the dimensions of the component. Additionally, Britz teaches that the TBC layer (i.e. a layer of the radiative barrier materials as outlined above regarding instant claim 14) can have a thickness of 100 microns to 2 mm or of 150-500 microns (paragraph 0024). The thickness of the substrate is not disclosed, but the bond coating can have a thickness of about 10-100 microns, and the thicknesses of the first oxide layer is 1-10 microns, the IR reflector layer is about 13-1000 microns, the toughness enhancing layer is 5-50 microns, and the damage sensing layer about 1-120 microns (paragraphs 0022-0024). Therefore, for a substrate of a thickness substantive enough for the disclose purpose (e.g. as a turbine blade as disclosed by Britz in paragraph 0002), the protective coating layer and the TBC layer (i.e. the layers of the radiative barrier materials) forming the outside surface (paragraph 0025) are considered to be within the instantly claimed depth.
Claim 20: Britz does not specifically disclose the instantly claimed absorption coefficient (i.e. a material property). However, the recited material property is considered to be present because Britz discloses substantially identical materials (i.e. rare-earth/transition metal oxide materials as recited in base claim 14; e.g. a TBC of gadolinium zirconate, Gd2Zr2O7, on a toughness enhancing layer of yttria-stabilized zirconia, YSZ, as disclosed by Britz in paragraph 0024 compared to Gd2Zr2O7 on YSZ in paragraph 0039 of the instant specification), and substantially identical materials have substantially identical properties or functions. See MPEP § 2112.01.
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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britz et al. (US 2021/0262099, previously cited) as applied to claim 1 above.
Claim 7: The teachings of Britz regarding claim 1 are outlined above. Britz teaches that the protective coating layer (i.e. radiative barrier materials as outlined above regarding instant claim 1) is formed to a thickness of 1 nm to 3 microns (paragraph 0025), which overlaps the instantly claimed range and the courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap, lie inside of, or are close to ranges disclosed in the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is noted that as of the writing of this Office Action, no demonstration of a criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented. Britz does not specifically disclose the instantly claimed absorption coefficient (i.e. a material property). However, the recited material property is considered to be present because Britz discloses substantially identical materials (i.e. rare-earth/transition metal oxide materials as recited in base claim 14; e.g. a TBC of gadolinium zirconate, Gd2Zr2O7, on a toughness enhancing layer of yttria-stabilized zirconia, YSZ, as disclosed by Britz in paragraph 0024 compared to Gd2Zr2O7 on YSZ in paragraph 0039 of the instant specification), and substantially identical materials have substantially identical properties or functions. See MPEP § 2112.01.
While not reciting a singular example of the instantly claimed coating system (i.e. the thickness of the protective coating layer is not exactly identical), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date because the thickness range disclosed by Britz for the protective coating layer (i.e. the radiative barrier materials) overlaps the instantly claimed range, which the courts have held to be prima facie obvious, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 12-13, and 15-17 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record is the disclosure of Britz as outlined above. However, Britz does not teach or render the radiative barrier materials having both a Ruddlesden-Popper phase (or composition of A2BO4) and a Perovskite phase (or composition of ABO3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, see p. 9-10 of remarks filed 24 December 2025, that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the compositions of A2BO4 and ABO3 from the exemplary embodiments of the instant disclosure. It is noted that providing examples is not the same as providing a definition. However, Applicant further argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize A and B as cations, and more specifically A-site cations occupying the corners of a cubic lattice and B-site cations located at the center with A-site cations typically being larger than B-site cations. Therefore, the disputed limitations will be considered to refer to these argued definitions for A and B and the rejection under 35 U.A.C. 112(b) regarding this limitation is withdrawn.
Regarding claims 13 and 17, Applicant argues, see p. 9 of remarks filed 24 December 2024, that a first class of phase can include a Ruddlesden-Popper phase which have the nominal chemical composition A2BO4 and a second class of phase can include a Perovskite phase which have the nominal composition ABO3. However, the claim does not recite the first class of phase being a Ruddlesden-Popper phase or the second class of phase being a Perovskite phase but instead is written in terms of the compound. However, upon further consideration, the claim limitation is considered definite but broad as outlined above (regarding claim interpretation). The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) regarding this limitation is withdrawn.
Regarding claim 13, Applicant argues, see p. 11 of remarks filed 24 December 2024, that the use of the term M is clear inasmuch that M in the compound La2Ni1-xMxO4 is selected from Mn, Fe, or Co whereas M in the compound LaMn1-xMxO3 is selected from Fe, Co, and Ni. Accordingly, the claim will be interpreted as outlined above, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) regarding this limitation is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 24 December 2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant argues, see p. 11-12, that the amendment to claim 2 reciting the radiative barrier materials being adjacent the outer surface further limits claim 1. However, as outlined above, the previously presented outer surface is an outer surface of the second layer which comprises radiative barrier materials. Therefore the radiative barrier materials (i.e. of the second layer having an outer surface) are already considered to be adjacent the outer surface, and the limitations of claim 2 fail to further limit the subject matter of the claim on which it depends. It is suggested that wording for what the Applicant appears to be trying to claim should recite “the outer surface of the radiative barrier materials is an outer surface of the multi-phase radiative and thermal barrier coating system” (as supported by Figs. 2-3).
Applicant argues, see p. 12-13, regarding the disclosure of Britz, that Britz does not disclose the instantly claimed multiphase radiative and thermal barrier coating system because Britz discloses more than 2 layers and does not teach layers being considered collectively and therefore the protective layer protective layer is not a second layer deposited on a first layer. However, instant claim 1 recites “comprising” and therefore the presence of additional layers is not excluded by the claim. It is proper to call a layer “a second layer” even when there are additional layers between a first layer and the second layer because this is a matter of semantics and the structure is not limited by the naming (conventional or otherwise) of the parts. It is also proper to group or ungroup individual layers (i.e. as so-called “sublayers”) even without an explicit teaching because grouping or ungrouping them does not change the structure.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KIM S HORGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 4:00 PM 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/KIM S. HORGER/Examiner, Art Unit 1784