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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/17/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Seth teaches the opposite of the claimed concentration gradient at ¶ 0022. This is not persuasive. Seth broadly teaches that the feedstock composition can be adjusted to achieve the desired properties in layers of the formed coating and only teaches a greater concentration of cobalt in layer 26 than layer 28 as an example (see the use of “such as” in ¶ 0022). One of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood this language to discredit or teach away from other concentration gradients.
Applicant also argues that the cited art fails to teach the newly added limitation concerning an untreated surface. This is persuasive and a new rejection is presented below.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites that the surface of the Ni-based alloy component is untreated when the plurality of particles are sprayed thereon. The term “untreated” is interpreted in light of [0031] of the specification to mean that no pretreatment has been performed on the damaged surface (e.g., cleaning, machining, degreasing, etc.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-8, 10-12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahalingam et al. (US 2019/0009300) in light of Seth et al. (US 2004/0110021) and Panda et al. (US 2023/0203895).
Claims 1, 5-8, 14, 16 and 18: Mahalingam teaches altering a surface of a Ni-based alloy component, such as a turbine part (Abst.), comprising the steps of: cold spraying (i.e. claimed spray temperature less than the melting point and claimed high pressure gas stream) a plurality of Ni-based superalloy particles at a temperature of 500-1100˚C within a defect on the surface of a Ni-based alloy component to form a coating thereon (¶¶ 0027-0029); and heat treating the coating at a temperature of 1000-1200˚C for at least 30 minutes (¶ 0037) to form a coating having a thickness of 1.5-6mm (¶ 0035).
Mahalingam further teaches that the cold spray particle feedstock can include a combination of materials (¶ 0034), but fails to expressly teach including Co-based superalloy particles. Seth teaches a process of repairing a turbine component by cold spraying a particle feedstock and explains that the particles feedstock can include either Ni-based superalloy particles, Co-based superalloy particles or a combination of the two (¶ 0024). Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have included Co-based superalloy particles in the feedstock of Mahalingam with the predictable expectation of success as Mahalingam teaches that additional components can be included and Seth teaches the utility of including Co-based superalloy particles.
Mahalingam also fails to teach that the damaged surface is untreated. Panda teaches a process of repairing a damaged alloy surface by cold spraying (Abst.) and explains that the cold spraying can be performed on the alloy surface without pretreatment in order to use less material to perform the repair (¶ 0022). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have performed the repair spraying process in Mahalingam without a pretreatment step in order to have used less material for the repair.
While neither Mahalingam nor Seth sets a specific weight percentage for the particles by depth of the coating, Mahalingam teaches that the particle feedstock composition can be adjusted during coating to achieve a desired coating composition gradient (¶ 0034) and Seth teaches that the feedstock composition can be adjusted to achieve the desired properties in layers of the formed coating (¶ 0022). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have adjusted the composition throughout the gradient based on the desired composition, such as one wherein there are at least twice as many Ni-based superalloy particle by weight near the component as there are near the surface or one where the Co-based superalloy particles have a greater weight concentration near the surface than they do near the component with the predictable expectation of success.
Claims 2-4: While neither Mahalingam nor Seth sets a specific weight percentage for the particles, Mahalingam teaches that the particle feedstock composition can be adjusted to achieve a desired coating composition (¶ 0034) and Seth teaches that the feedstock composition can be adjusted to achieve the desired properties in the formed coating (¶ 0022). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a desired composition mix depending on the desired coating, such as 10-40 wt% Ni-based superalloy and 60-90 wt% Co-based superalloy with the predictable expectation of success.
Claims 10 and 11: Mahalingam teaches that the Ni-based superalloy particles have the claimed composition (¶¶ 0019, 0033) and that the particles have the same composition as the component.
Claim 12: Mahalingam teaches that the particles have a size of 5-50 µm (¶ 0046) and Seth teaches that the particles have a size of 1-50µm (¶ 0019). 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 particles size of 10-40µm for each of the particles.
Claim 15: Mahalingam teaches a coating thickness of 1.5-6mm (¶ 0035).
Claim 17: Mahalingam does not teach treating the component before coating (see, e.g., ¶ 0026).
Claim 19: Mahalingam teaches a porosity after heating of less than 5% (¶ 0038). 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 porosity of less than 2% with the predictable expectation of success.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahalingam, Seth and Panda in light of Ikeda et al. (JPH07278780).
Claim 13: Seth is silent regarding the composition of the Co-based superalloy. Ikeda teaches a process of spraying a Co-based superalloy onto a turbine component (Abst.) and explains that a suitable composition for the superalloy is 0.05-1% C, 8-18% Cr, 2.5-3.5% Si, 25-35% Mo, 0.0001-0.01% B, and the remainer Co (Abst.). 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 Co-based superalloy with the claimed composition with the predictable expectation of success.
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