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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument – specifically, the materials listed in claim 1 have a combination that has not yet been considered by The Office.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], 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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, 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 1 requires “the ceramic matrix layer comprises titanium oxide, lanthanum zirconate, gadolinium zirconate, or a combination thereof”; claim 20 then recites the same listing, but adds that the ceramic matrix layer also can comprise “yttria-stabilized zirconia” in the combination thereof. However, because claim 20 must incorporate all limitations of claim 1 by dependency, the addition of yttria-stabilized zirconia as a further alternative does not narrow the scope of claim 1. Every embodiment within claim 1 already satisfies the ceramic matrix requirement of claim 20, and therefore the claim is not further limiting. 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 § 103
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.
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.
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 1-2, 6-7, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinatra et al. (US 2013/0108421 A1; hereinafter Sinatra) in view of Huddleston et al. (US 2007/0098987 A1; hereinafter Huddleston), and further in view of He (US 2022/0290579 A1; hereinafter He).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Sinatra discloses an abradable coating [18] comprising a ceramic matrix layer [36] disposed on a bond coat layer [32 and/or 34], wherein the abradable coating [18] has a micro-hardness of 35 to 60 (paragraph 0045: “approximately 35 to approximately 45”) as measured on the Rockwell HRC hardness scale in accordance with ASTM E18 (paragraphs 0024-0025, 0034-0036, 0041, 0043-0046, 0053, and Figures 1A-1B). Sinatra discloses the bond coat layer [32 and/or 34] comprises a nickel alloy or an aluminum alloy (paragraph 0034). Sinatra discloses the ceramic matrix layer comprising one or more of aluminum oxide, zirconium oxide, and magnesium oxide (paragraph 0035) and the bond coat comprising a nickel alloy (paragraph 0034: “β-NiAl nickel aluminide alloy, a γ-Ni+γ’-Ni3Al nickel aluminide alloy”), and thus does not disclose the ceramic matrix layer comprising titanium oxide, lanthanum zirconate, gadolinium zirconate, or a combination thereof, and the nickel alloy comprising boron, carbon, copper, molybdenum, titanium, zirconium, or a combination thereof, with the remainder being nickel, and the aluminum alloy comprising copper, manganese, silicon, magnesium, zinc, molybdenum, or a combination thereof, with the remainder being aluminum. Huddleston, however, teaches a similar abradable coating (paragraph 0019: “abradable ceramic”) comprising a ceramic matrix layer disposed on a bond coat layer (paragraph 0030: “bond coat”), wherein the ceramic matrix layer comprises titanium oxide (paragraph 0019: “strontium titanium oxide” and/or paragraph 0021: “titania”) having a micro-hardness (see Table 2; between 25 and 45) which overlaps the claimed range (paragraphs 0001, 0007, 0019, 0021, 0023, 0030, 0038, 0050, 0053). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Sinatra’s ceramic matrix layer to comprise titanium oxide because Huddleston teaches that this material is preferable over hard ceramics such as zirconium oxide and magnesium oxide (paragraph 0007) because it can survive in very high temperature environments while providing erosion resistance and low thermal conductivity (paragraph 0038). He, however, teaches an advanced nickel-base bond coat material for multi-layer coatings comprising molybdenum and carbon with the balance being nickel (paragraphs 0011, 0041, 0045). Both Sinatra and He relate to multi-layer coatings for gas turbine engine components with ceramic layer disposed on a nickel base bond coating; the nickel-base bond coat formulation of He with molybdenum and carbon provides unexpectedly high thermal cyclic fatigue resistance and sulfidation resistance (He, abstract, paragraph 68); because the bond coat of Sinatra and He are designed for the same structural role of providing adhesion and oxidation resistance, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bond coat layer of Sinatra such that the bond coating layer comprises a nickel alloy comprising molybdenum and carbon with the balance being nickel, as taught by He, for the purposes of providing improved thermal cyclic fatigue resistance and sulfidation resistance.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Sinatra discloses the abradable coating of claim 1, wherein the abradable coating [18] has a porosity of 1% to 80% as measured in accordance with ASTM E1920 (paragraphs 0041, 0043, and 0045, wherein first bond layer [32] may have a porosity ranging from approximately 1-10%, second bond layer [34] may have a porosity ranging from approximately 10-30%, and ceramic outer layer [36] may have a porosity ranging from approximately 25-50%; also see paragraph 0029 of Huddleston wherein the coating has a porosity of 3-10%).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Sinatra discloses the abradable coating of claim 1, wherein the bond coat layer [32 and/or 34] has a thickness of 0.003 inches to 0.008 inches (paragraph 0043: “approximately 3 mils to approximately 6 miles;” i.e., 0.003 inches to 0.006 inches) and/or the ceramic matrix layer [36] has a thickness of 0.020 inches to 0.150 inches (paragraph 0046: “greater than approximately 30 mils;” i.e., greater than 0.030 inches) (paragraphs 0043 and 0046-0047; also see paragraph 0028 of Huddleston wherein the ceramic matrix layer has a thickness of 10 to 50 mils (i.e., 0.01 to 0.05 inches)).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Sinatra discloses a gas turbine engine component [16] coated with the abradable coating [18] of claim 1, wherein the bond coat layer [32 and/or 34] is disposed on the gas turbine engine component [16] and the ceramic matrix layer [36] is disposed on the bond coat layer [32 and/or 34], wherein the abradable coating covers 25% to 100% of a surface (see [16]) of the gas turbine engine component [16] (paragraphs 0024, 0033-0034, and Figures 1A-1B).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Sinatra discloses a method of operating a gas turbine engine [10], wherein the gas turbine engine component [16] of claim 7 is a seal [12] and the seal [12] is used in the gas turbine engine [10], wherein the abradable coating [18] on the seal [12] is placed facing a rotor (see blade [14] which is integral with a rotor) and the abradable coating [18] on the seal [12] is abraded by the rotor (see blade [14] which is integral with a rotor) during operation of the gas turbine engine [10] (paragraphs 0024-0026, 0053, and Figures 1A-1C).
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinatra in view of Huddleston and He as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Morliere et al. (US 2022/0290579 A1; hereinafter Morliere).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Sinatra discloses the gas turbine engine component of claim 7, wherein the gas turbine engine component [16] has a first side (see outer surface of substrate [16] in Figure 1A) and a second side (see inner surface of substrate [16] having first coating [18] in Figure 1A) (paragraph 0024 and Figures 1A-1B). The modified Sinatra discloses the substrate [16] being part of a gas turbine blade track/shroud [12] but is silent as to the first side forming a seal with a stationary surface. Morliere, however, teaches a similar abradable gas turbine blade track/shroud [17] having a first side (see outer surface of fixed ring [17] in Figure 2) and a second side (see inner surface of fixed ring [17] in Figure 2), wherein the first side (see outer surface of fixed ring [17] in Figure 2) forms a seal with a stationary surface [18] (paragraphs 0003, 0008, and Figures 1-2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the first side of the modified Sinatra gas turbine engine component to form a seal with a stationary surface because Morliere teaches that this configuration is known in the art to secure abradable gas turbine blade tracks/shrouds/rings to the turbine casing (paragraph 0008 and Figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Sinatra discloses the gas turbine engine component of claim 8, wherein the abradable coating [18] is at least on the second side (see inner surface of substrate [16] having first coating [18] in Figure 1A) of the gas turbine engine component [16] (paragraph 0024 and Figures 1A-1B).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Sinatra discloses the gas turbine engine component of claim 9, wherein the second side (see inner surface of substrate [16] having first coating [18] in Figure 1A) of the gas turbine engine component [16] is placed facing a rotor (see blade [14] which is integral with a rotor) (paragraphs 0024-0026 and Figure 1A).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Sinatra discloses the gas turbine engine component of claim 10, wherein the abradable coating [18] on the gas turbine engine component [16] has a micro-hardness that is less than the micro-hardness of the rotor (see blade [14] which is integral with a rotor) as measured in accordance with ASTM E18 (paragraphs 0044-0045, 0053, and claim 12; wherein “second ceramic outer layer 36” in paragraph 0053 should read: “second ceramic outer layer 40”). The modified Sinatra is silent as to the specific micro-hardness of the rotor. However, Sinatra discloses the relative hardness between the abradable coating [18] on the gas turbine engine component [16] to the coating [24] on the rotor (see [22]) achieving the result of allowing the rotor to abrade the abradable coating of the gas turbine engine component for an intimate fit while maintaining the mechanical integrity and adequate thermal protection of the engine (paragraphs 0005, 0036, 0044, 0053, 0057); thus a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the relative hardness between the abradable coating on the gas turbine engine component and the rotor is a result-effective variable. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the modified Sinatra abradable coating to have a micro-hardness that is 15% to 60% of the micro-hardness of the rotor to achieve desired abrasion and fit, 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. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
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 NATHANIEL EDWARD WIEHE whose telephone number is (571)272-8648. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approx. 7-4:30 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, Alford Kindred can be reached at (571) 272-4037. 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.
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights