DETAILED ACTION
An amendment, amending claim 1, was entered on 10/28/25.
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 argues that, while the disclosures of Mahalingam and Seth teach that a graded coating could be formed, there is not disclosure that would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to product the claimed coating gradient. This is not persuasive. 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 the one claimed in the absence of unexpected results associated with the claimed gradient.
Applicant argues that there are unexpected results associated with the claimed gradient by describing several advantages. First, applicant argues that the use of a high concentration of cobalt-based superalloy at an outermost layer may result in increased hardness. This is not persuasive evidence because it is not unexpected that cobalt, which has nearly double the hardness of nickel, would yield a surface with an increased hardness.
Second, applicant argues that the use of a lower concentration of cobalt-based superalloy (and, therefore, a higher concentration of nickel-based superalloy) next to the component minimizes CTE mismatch. This is not persuasive because it is not unexpected that higher concentrations of nickel adjacent the nickel based component would minimize CTE mismatches.
Applicant further argues that nowhere in Mahalingam or Seth are such advantages recognized. This is not persuasive. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
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).
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.
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 and Seth 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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