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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 11 May 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 Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 21 September 2023, 09 November 2023, 18 March 2025, 24 October 2025, 21 May 2026 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
1. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0291805 to Nicolaus et al. (“Nicolaus”) in view of US 2010/0304038 to La Forest et al. (“La Forest”).
With regard to Claims 1-5, Nicolaus teaches a method of forming a high temperature oxidation-resistant barrier coating on carbon composite substrate comprising applying a barrier coat formulation comprising monoaluminum phosphate, boron carbide, titanium, water, an ethoxylated acetylenic diol surfactant (Surfynol 440), and subsequently heat treating the applied formulation (see Abstract; ¶¶ [0008]-[0012], [0026], [0028], [0095]; Example 5). Nicolaus notably also teaches inclusion of refractory material in the coating (see ¶ [0027]).
Nicolaus does not expressly teach inclusion of tungsten as claimed. La Forest is similarly directed to protective coatings on carbon composite substrates, and teaches tungsten as an alternative to titanium in order to confer an oxidation-resistant barrier (see Abstract). It would have thus been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated tungsten into the barrier coating of Nicolaus, as taught by La Forest with a reasonable expectation of success.
Nicolaus in view of La Forest thus teaches the claimed process using the same constituents. The claimed properties of the coating are understood to necessarily derive therefrom.
With regard to Claims 6-7, Nicolaus does not expressly teach the claimed weight percentages. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have employed the claimed weight percentages throughout the course of routine experimentation and optimization in obtaining an oxidation-resistant barrier coating with desired properties on carbon-containing composite substrates.
With regard to Claims 8-9, Nicolaus teaches initially applying and heat treating a phosphate-based penetrant antioxidant underlayer (see ¶ [0088]; Example 5).
With regard to Claim 10, Nicolaus does not expressly teach addition of composition constituents in a non-reactive vessel while undergoing continuous mixing; however such a technique would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed in order to ensure a uniform mixture without contamination suitable for brush and/or spray application.
With regard to Claims 11-12, Nicolaus teaches heat treatment within the claimed temperature range and duration (see Example 5).
With regard to Claim 13, Nicolaus teaches brush and spray application (see ¶ [0097]).
With regard to Claim 14, Nicolaus teaches applying the coating formulation at thicknesses within the claimed range (see ¶ [0098]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael P Rodriguez whose telephone number is (571)270-3736. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 Eastern M-F.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/Michael P. Rodriguez/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights