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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 10, 14-18, 20-21 and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (US 2008/0163786), in view of Menuey et al. (US 9,121,295).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4-5
Feng discloses a MCrAlY alloy comprising 16 to 50 wt % cobalt, 20 to 35 wt % nickel, 15 to 25 wt % chromium, 7 to 15 wt % aluminum, and 0.1 to 1wt % yttrium (claim 16). Feng also discloses that the total of cobalt and iron is 10 to 60 wt % (claim 4), which would leave ) to 44 wt % iron.
As the range of the reference amounts overlaps with the claimed amounts the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q. 549.
Although, Feng is silent as to the grain size, Feng does disclose the compositional limitations of the claim. However, Menuey discloses that in similar MCrAlY alloy (i.e., sublayer) that the grain size can be 80 to 100 nm (column 2, lines 15-19; and column 6, lines 26-29). Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add to the teachings of Feng by using an MCrAlY alloy with a grain size of 80 to 100 nm with a reasonable expectation of success, as suggested by Menuey.
With respect to the limitations on the B2 order phase and the disordered phase these are properties of the composition, and when the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § § 2112- 2112.02.
Regarding claims 8, 10, 17-18, 20-21 and 24-26
The cooling rate is a product by process limitation which does not add to the patentability of a composition claim unless it can be shown that the process used will result in a materially different product. Further, it is noted that the prior art teaches a grain size within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 14
Feng discloses that the substrate can be a nickel based superalloy such as iconel (para 0029).
Regarding claims 15-16 and 27
Feng discloses that the bond coat is covered with a thermal barrier coating (TBC) and that the TBC can be a yttria stabilized zirconia (para 0031).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 11 and 22 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art fairly teaches or suggest 5vol % or more of chromium carbide in the microstructure in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES E MCDONOUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-10.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
JAMES E. MCDONOUGH
Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/JAMES E MCDONOUGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
.