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
Claims 15-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/20/25.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 10/20/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would be no burden associated with examining both inventions together. This is not found persuasive because the product of Group II could be formed by a materially different process than the process of Group I (e.g., a process where the nickel-based alloy is heated in air to form the chromia layer rather than through the use of a chromia promoter which is applied to the surface). Accordingly, the invention of Group II has a different classifications and a search for one invention would not necessarily encompass both inventions. For example, a search for the method of claim 1 would be far narrower than a search for the product of claim 15 and would not encompass the full scope of that claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-5 and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohajeri et al. (US 2022/0178263) in light of Suzuki et al. (US 2018/0298470),
Claims 1 and 2: Mohajeri teaches a method of forming a glass layer on a nickel-based superalloy substrate (Abst.; ¶ 0001), comprising the steps of: forming a slurry (i.e. claimed mixture) comprising cobalt oxide (i.e. claimed chromia promoter) (¶¶ 0017-0018); applying the mixture to the surface of a surface of a nickel-based superalloy substrate (¶¶ 0006; 0019; and heating the surface with the mixture to 760-850˚C for about 10-15 minutes (¶ 0021).
Mohajeri fails to discuss the concentration of chromium in the nickel-based superalloy. Like Mohajeri, Suzuki teaches a nickel-based superalloy used as a turbine component (Abst.) and explains that a suitable alloy composition is one wherein the nickel-based superalloy has a chromium content of about 10-20 wt% (¶ 0036). The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a nickel-based superalloy having a chromium concentration of 10-20 wt% with the predictable expectation of success.
Mohajeri does not expressly teach that a chromia layer is formed. However, modified Mohajeri teaches the same compositions and the same processing conditions which applicant discloses will form a chromia layer. Specifically, Mohajeri teaches a slurry (¶ 0018) comprising cobalt oxide and additional metal oxides (¶ 0017) on a nickel-based superalloy substrate used as a turbine component (¶ 0001) which has a chromium content of 10-20 wt% which is heated at 760-850˚C for 10-15 minutes in an inert atmosphere (¶ 0021). Each of these materials and conditions is either identical to those discloses at ¶¶ 0019-0036 or falls entirely within the range discloses in these paragraphs. Thus, it is considered inherent that a layer of chromia is formed on the substrate of Mohajeri.
Claims 3-5: Mohajeri teaches the inclusion of a first powder which comprises two or more metal oxides, such as zirconium oxide and zinc oxide (¶ 0017) and that the heat treatment forms a glass coating as the outermost layer on the nickel-based alloy (¶ 0022) (i.e. claimed on the layer of chromia).
Claim 7: Mohajeri teaches the same process steps using the same materials as those which applicant discloses to yield the claimed property. Therefore, the features of claim 7 are considered inherent in the disclosure of Mohajeri.
Claims 8-9: Mohajeri teaches a temperature of 760-850˚C (i.e. claimed less than the age-hardening of the nickel-based alloy) (¶ 0021).
Claims 10-11: Suzuki a chromium content of about 10 to about 20 wt%, as discussed above. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have less than 15% or values slightly below 10% with the predictable expectation of success.
Claims 12-13: Mohajeri teaches the same process steps using the same materials as those which applicant discloses to yield the claimed property. Therefore, the features of claims 12 and 13 are considered inherent in the disclosure of Mohajeri.
Claim 14: Mohajeri teaches that the alloy is a component of a gas turbine engine (¶ 0001).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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. None of the prior art on record, taken individually or in combination, fairly teaches or suggests the use of a metallic particle in a ceramic shell as a chromia promoter to form the claimed chromia scale layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert A Vetere whose telephone number is (571)270-1864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571) 270-1034. 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.
/ROBERT A VETERE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights