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 Group I, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 06/08/2026 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Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 06/08/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy (WO 2006129097A1).
Regarding claim 1, Murphy teaches method for forming a material for a brake disc, the method comprising the steps of : (i) providing at least one porous body; (ii) introducing into pores of the porous body one or more precursor materials for forming or depositing a ceramic material; and (iii) forming the brake disc material by forming or depositing the ceramic material from the precursor material within the pores of the body, wherein the precursor material is a liquid containing a suspension of ceramic particles and/or acid phosphate which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of a method for forming a high temperature coating, the method comprising: applying a barrier coat formulation on a substrate (abstract). Murphy teaches a ceramic material formable by depositing within the pores particles of an initial ceramic material from a liquid suspension and then reacting these particles with monoaluminium phosphate which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of wherein the barrier coat formulation comprises mono-aluminum phosphate (page 5). Murphy teaches ceramic particles comprise a material selected from one or more of alumina, zirconia, magnesia, yttria, silicon carbide, silica, boron carbide, boron nitride, titanium boride, iron oxides and chromium oxides which meets abroad and reasonable interpretation of boron carbide and chromium or a chromium compound (page 11). Murphy teaches the body is heated to react, cure or vitrify the deposited ceramic particles and the acid phosphate. Typical curing conditions can vary dependent on the acid phosphate used, but preferably the body is heated for a first period of 1 to 2 hours at a low temperature (e.g. 100 to 130 ̊C) and then for a second period at a higher temperature (e.g. 350 to 370 ̊C) which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of heat treating the barrier coat formulation to form an oxidation-resistant coating layer (page 14). It is clear that coating layer taught by Murphy would necessarily produce a coating wherein a melting point of the oxidation-resistant coating layer is greater than about 800 degrees Celsius (℃) because the coating layer taught by Murphy is the same or substantially the same to the claimed coating layer. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I). Furthermore, Murphy teaches disc brakes can reach temperatures in excess of 1000 ̊C such high temperatures lead to oxidation of the disc (the threshold for oxidation of carbon is approximately 1010 ̊C and many users set an upper operation limit of 800 ̊C) and results in high wear rates of both the friction and non-friction areas. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would obviously form a protective coating that is able to withstand temperatures greater than about 800 degrees Celsius (℃) (page 2).
Regarding claim 2, Murphy teaches wherein the substrate comprises a carbon, carbon/carbon (C/C) composite, or ceramic (page 2).
Regarding claim 3, Murphy teaches a liquid suspension which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of wherein the barrier coat solution further comprises water (page 26).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Murphy teaches the material may also contain deflocullants, dispersing agents and other additives designed to optimize fluidity and stability as is well known to those skilled in the art of controlling aqueous suspensions of fine powders which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of wherein the barrier coat solution further comprises a surfactant (page 22).
Regarding claims 6-14, Murphy teaches ceramic particles comprise a material selected from one or more of alumina, zirconia, magnesia, yttria, silicon carbide, silica, boron carbide, boron nitride, titanium boride, iron oxides and chromium oxides wherein precursor material may comprise from 10 to 30 % by weight of the ceramic particles and therefore meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of wherein the chromium or chromium compound comprises from about 5 weight percent to about 30 weight percent of the barrier coat solution, wherein the boron carbide comprises about 5 weight percent to about 30 weight percent of the barrier coat solution (page 11-12). Murphy teaches wherein the mono-aluminum phosphate comprises from about 50 weight percent to about 90 weight percent of the barrier coat solution, wherein water comprises about 1 weight percent to about 10 weight percent of the barrier coat solution, and wherein a surfactant comprises between about 0.5 weight percent and about 3 weight percent of the barrier coat solution(Examples 1-3).
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poteet et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0148340).
Regarding claim 1, Poteet et al. teaches method for forming an oxidation protection system on a composite structure is provided which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of a method for forming a high temperature coating (paragraph 3). Poteet et al. teaches apply a boron slurry to composite structure, silicon slurry to boron layer and seal to silicon layer which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of applying a barrier coat formulation on a substrate (Fig. 2C). Poteet et al. teaches heat treating composite to form boron layer, silicon layer which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of heat treating the barrier coat formulation to form an oxidation-resistant coating layer (Fig. 2C). Poteet et al. teaches the boron compound may comprise titanium diboride, boron nitride, boron carbide, and/or zirconium boride which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of the barrier coat formulation comprises boron carbide (paragraph 25). Poteet et al. teaches sealing slurry may comprise a monoaluminum phosphate solution and a carrier fluid (e.g., water) which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of the barrier coat formulation comprises mono-aluminum phosphate (paragraph 43). Poteet et al. teaches chromium (paragraph 49). Poteet et al. teaches the oxidation protection system represented by data set 310 is more effective at preventing material loss at elevated temperatures (e.g., 1700° F (927° C) or above which meets the limitation of wherein a melting point of the oxidation-resistant coating layer is greater than about 800 degrees Celsius (℃) (paragraph 65).
Regarding claim 2, Poteet et al. teaches ceramics or carbon/carbon composite which meets the limitation of wherein the substrate comprises a carbon, carbon/carbon (C/C) composite, or ceramic (paragraph 17).
Regarding claim 3, Poteet et al. teaches sealing slurry may comprise a monoaluminum phosphate solution and a carrier fluid (e.g., water) which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of wherein the barrier coat solution further comprises water (paragraph 43).
Regarding claim 4, Poteet et al. teaches surfactant (paragraphs 33 and 35).
Regarding claim 5, Poteet et al. teaches Surfynol 465 surfactant which is a an ethoxylated acetylenic diol surfactant (Table 1).
Regarding claims 6-7, Poteet et al. teaches solution used was 50% by weight monoaluminum phosphate which meets the limitation of wherein the mono-aluminum phosphate comprises from about 50 weight percent to about 90 weight percent of the barrier coat solution (paragraph 63). Poteet et al. teaches the phosphate glass composition may comprise, or be combined with, from about 15 to about 30 mol % of the alkali metal oxide or one or more precursors thereof wherein the phosphate glass comprises chromium and therefore meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of wherein the chromium or chromium compound comprises from about 5 weight percent to about 30 weight percent of the barrier coat solution (paragraphs 47-49). Poteet et al. teaches he boron slurry may comprise from 10% to 80% by weight boron compound which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of wherein the boron carbide comprises about 5 weight percent to about 30 weight percent of the barrier coat solution (paragraphs 25-26). Poteet et al. teaches he sealing slurry may comprise about 10% to 20% by weight water, about 15% to 20% by weight water, or about 19% by weight water (“about” used in this context means plus or minus 3% weight), and about 1% by weight surfactant (“about” used in this context means plus or minus 0.5% weight) which meets the limitation of wherein water comprises about 1 weight percent to about 10 weight percent of the barrier coat solution, and wherein a surfactant comprises between about 0.5 weight percent and about 3 weight percent of the barrier coat solution (paragraph 43).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Poteet et al. teaches the first sealing slurry may comprise monoaluminum phosphate solution, phosphoric acid, a carrier fluid, and a silicon-based surfactant which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of applying a phosphate-based penetrant antioxidant underlayer.
Regarding claim 10, Poteet et al. teaches he first sealing slurry may comprise monoaluminum phosphate solution, phosphoric acid, a carrier fluid, and a silicon-based surfactant which meets the limitation of further comprising preparing the barrier coat formulation wherein preparing the barrier coat formulation comprises: adding the water, mono-aluminum phosphate, and surfactant to an acid-resistant vessel and mixing; under continuous mixing, adding the chromium or chromium compound; and under continuous mixing, adding the boron carbide (paragraph 4).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Poteet et al. teaches wherein the heat treatment is at a temperature of at least about 500 degrees Celsius and wherein the heat treatment extends for a duration of from about 2 minutes to about 24 hours (paragraph 29).
Regarding claim 13, Poteet et al. teaches wherein applying the barrier coat formulation comprises brushing or spraying (paragraph 38).
Regarding claim 14, Poteet et al. teaches he silicon layer may comprise a thickness (i.e., the height of the silicon layer extending from the composite structure) of between 20 μm and 200 μm which overlaps with wherein applying the barrier coat formulation comprises applying a thickness of from about 0.01 millimeters (mm) to about 2 mm (paragraph 41).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUINEVER S GREGORIO whose telephone number is (571)270-5827. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 11 am - 9 pm.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/GUINEVER S GREGORIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 06/21/2026
Prosecution Insights