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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 16. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 10 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 10, line 4, “said 2.0% to 40.0%” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 18, line 2, “the dislocator phase” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 refers to “Hf1-xZrxSiO4” but does not define x. One of ordinary skill in the art may presume that x may be anywhere from 0 (i.e., HfSiO4) to 1 (i.e., ZrSiO4). However, claim 1 expressly refers to the compound as a solid solution. For a solid solution between HfSiO4 and ZrSiO4 to exist, both HfSiO4 and ZrSiO4 must be present. In other words, the phase, Hf1-xZrxSiO4, must contain both Hf and Zr, and therefore, x must be greater than 0 and less than 1.
Likewise, claim 1 refers to a solid solution of Hf1-yZryO2. In this case, the phrase, “solid solution,” indicates the second phase must contain a solid solution of HfO2 and ZrO2, and therefore, y must be greater than 0 and less than 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9, 11-16 and 19 are allowed. Claims 10 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 17 would be allowable if amended to overcome the objection above.
The closest prior art is deemed to be Bhatia et al. (US 2007/0065672 A1) and Lane et al. (US 2011/0151239 A1).
As it relates to claim 1, Bhatia et al. (US 2007/0065672 A1) discloses a coated substrate in which a barrier layer includes hafnium silicate and zirconium silicate. See paragraph [0014]. Bhatia et al. discloses the barrier layer may contain a mixture of HfO2 and ZrO2 in a list of thirteen different CTE tailoring additives. See paragraph [0015]. Bhatia et al. does not disclose a preference or motivation for employing a mixture of HfO2 and ZrO2 among the thirteen CTE additives, or that the resultant barrier layer contains HfO2 and ZrO2 in the form of a solid solution (the oxides may be separate oxides). Furthermore, Bhatia et al. does not disclose the hafnium silicate and zirconium silicate are in the form of a solid solution (the silicates may be in the form of separate phases which are not in solid solution).
Lane et al. (US 2011/0151239 A1) teaches an insulated article that contains HfO2-ZrO2 solid solution in mixture with mullite or alumina filler. See Figure 1, and paragraphs [0021] and [0027]. Lane et al. teaches the layer may contain at least one of HfSiO4 and ZrSiO4 in a list. See paragraph [0028]. Lane et al. does not specifically suggest a mixture of HfSiO4 and ZrSiO4 such that the silicate forms a solid solution.
Thus, the prior art fails to disclose or suggest a coated substrate in which the coating layer contains “at least 25.0 volume %, exclusive of porosity, a first phase being a solid solution of Hf1-xZrxSiO4; and at least 25.0 volume %, exclusive of porosity, a second phase being a solid solution of Hf1-yZryO2.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Sample whose telephone number is (571)272-1376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7AM to 3:30 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/David Sample/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784