DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on June 23, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 23, 2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
suspension plasma spray device in claim 1;
fluid flow system in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1-line 5 recites “plurality of apertures”, however this recitation is previously recited. For purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as the plurality of apertures.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5, 10-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellino (US 2013/0171353) in view of von Niessen (US 2012/0087802).
In regards to claims 1 and 14, Bellino teaches a system (100) comprising:
a part coater (20, suspension plasma spray device) such as a thermal spray gun, which applies a coating onto an article (10, component) which has a plurality of passageways (12, apertures) (fig. 1-2; para. 18-20);
a pressure masker (30, fluid flow system) flows fluid through the plurality of passageways, where the flow of fluid reduces the coating within the plurality of passageways (fig; 1-3; para. 25-30).
Bellino does not explicitly teach the fluid flow through at least one aperture of the plurality of apertures in the surface of the component is from about 0.095 cubic feet per minute (cfm) to about 0.350 cfm.
However, von Niessen teaches a turbine vane (1) comprising a plurality of cooling air bores (5). von Niessen teaches a flow of air or an inert gas flows through plurality of cooling air bores to prevent a coating material from penetrating into the bore. von Niessen the flow ranges up to 1- standard liters per minute (SLPM) (0.0353CFM) or up to 5-SLPM (0.1766) (para. 11-14, 30-33, 37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the flow rate of air up to 1 or 5-SLPM of von Niessen onto the pressure masker of Bellino because von Niessen teaches it will provide a flow which does not degrade the coating process and also prevent coating within the bore (para. 36).
In regards to claim 2, Bellino and von Niessen as discussed, where Bellino teaches each respective aperture of the plurality of passageways defines a perimeter, the fluid flow through each respective passageway of the plurality of passageways allows for deposition of the coating on the surface outside of the perimeter, and prevent deposition of the coating material inside the perimeter (fig. 2-3; para. 30, 33).
In regards to claim 3, Bellino and von Niessen as discussed, where Bellino teaches the plurality of passageways are provide a circular perimeter which provides a radius (fig. 1);
the surface defines an aperture region surrounding the aperture around the passageway, the part coater deposits a constant thickness of coating material on the surface outside the aperture region (fig. 1-2; para. 24, 31-32).
Bellino and von Niessen does not explicitly teach the aperture region includes the area of the surface within two times the aperture radius.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have sized the the aperture region includes the area of the surface within two times the aperture radius, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP-2144.05-II-A).
In regards to claim 5, Bellino and von Niessen as discussed, where Bellino teaches the coating applied is a thermal barrier coating ("TBC") (para. 20).
In regards to claim 10, Bellino and von Niessen as discussed, where Bellino teaches
the surface of the article is a first surface, the article defines a second surface opposite the first surface (fig. 2-3), and at least one aperture of the plurality of passageways defines an outlet of a cooling channel fluidically connecting the first surface and the second surface through the article (fig. 1-2).
In regards to claim 11, Bellino and von Niessen as discussed, where Bellino teaches the article is a combustor liner or other component of a gas turbine engine (para. 18).
In regards to claim 12, Bellino and von Niessen as discussed, where Bellino teaches the use of nitrogen (para. 29) and von Niessen teaches the use of air flows through the cooling air bores (para. 30). With regards to specific regarding the gases used during processing, the courts have held that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim (MPEP 2115).
Claims 4 and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellino and von Niessen as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 10-12 and 14 above, and further in view of Burd (US 2014/0255158).
In regards to claim 4, Bellino and von Niessen as discussed, but do not explicitly teach the aperture radius of each respective aperture of the plurality of apertures is between about 0.001 inches and about 0.020 inches.
However, Burd teaches a turbine stator (20) comprising a plurality of cooling holes (22) which have a diameter of 0.020-0.125 inches (0.5-3.2 mm) (para. 35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the cooling hole diameter of 0.020-0.125 inches (0.5-3.2 mm) of Burd onto the passageways of Bellino and von Niessen because Burd teaches it will prevents or minimizes the adhesion of the coating in the air path from the cooling holes (para. 42).
It is noted this parameter is directed to the component which is coated. The courts have held that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim (MPEP 2115).
In regards to claim 13, Bellino and von Niessen as discussed, but do not explicitly teach the air is compressed at between about 50 pounds per square inch (psi) and about 150 psi.
However, Burd teaches the flow of air, nitrogen or other inert gas, through plurality of cooling holes at a pressure in the range of 10-200 psi (para. 11-12, 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the pressure supplied to the cooling holes of Burd onto the passageways of Bellino and von Niessen because Burd teaches it will prevents or minimizes the adhesion of the coating in the air path from the cooling holes (para. 42).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellino and von Niessen as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 10-12 and 14 above, and further in view of Hazel (US 2019/0106780).
In regards to claim 6-9, Bellino and von Niessen as discussed, but do not explicitly teach coating material is configured to form a coating which defines a columnar microstructure, coating material defines a median particle size that is less than about 1 micrometer (μm), the suspension plasma spray device is configured to suspend the coating material in a liquid carrier of ethyl alcohol.
However, Hazel teaches multi-layer ceramic barrier coat (106) on a metallic substrate (100) which is a vane (20) of a gas turbine engine. Hazel teaches multi-layer ceramic barrier coat provides a columnar microstructure, a particle size of 0.5-microns that is suspended in a carrier liquid of ethanol liquid (fig. 2; para. 7, 38, 44, 51-53, 62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the ceramic coating material of Hazel onto the coating material of Bellino and von Niessen because Hazel teaches it will provide a coating with improved toughness (para. 9-10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Binu Thomas whose telephone number is (571)270-7684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:00AM-5:00PM PT.
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 at 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.
/Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights