DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 22 May 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3 and 5-18 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of O'hara et al (US 20110076179 A1). Furthermore, newly presented claim rejections under 35 USC 112 are included herein required by the claim amendments.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “The superalloy according to claim 1, comprising,” and depends from claim 1 which recites “A nickel-based superalloy consisting of”; it is not clear if claim 2 by reciting comprising is attempting to reopen/broaden the scope of claim 1, rendering the claim indefinite.
Furthermore, claim 1 recites “superalloy consisting of … aluminum … tantalum … titanium … cobalt … chromium … molybdenum … tungsten … rhenium … hafnium … silicon … nickel … unavoidable impurities”, however, claim 2 in addition to reciting comprising, does not include chromium, molybdenum and rhenium rendering claim 2 indefinite since it is not clear if opening claim 2 could result in previously required elements not being required in claim 2 and additional elements not included in claim 1 could now be part of the superalloy in claim 2.
Claim 3 recites “The superalloy according to claim 1, comprising,” and depends from claim 1 which recites “A nickel-based superalloy consisting of”; it is not clear if claim 3 by reciting comprising is attempting to reopen/broaden the scope of claim 1, rendering the claim indefinite.
Furthermore, claim 1 recites “superalloy consisting of … aluminum … tantalum … titanium … cobalt … chromium … molybdenum … tungsten … rhenium … hafnium … silicon … nickel … unavoidable impurities”, however, claim 3 in addition to reciting comprising, does not include chromium, molybdenum and rhenium rendering claim 3 indefinite since it is not clear if opening claim 3 could result in previously required elements not being required in claim 3 and additional elements not included in claim 1 could now be part of the superalloy in claim 3.
Claim 5 recites “The superalloy according to claim 1, comprising,” and depends from claim 1 which recites “A nickel-based superalloy consisting of”; it is not clear if claim 5 by reciting comprising is attempting to reopen/broaden the scope of claim 1, rendering the claim indefinite.
Furthermore, claim 1 recites “superalloy consisting of … aluminum … tantalum … titanium … cobalt … chromium … molybdenum … tungsten … rhenium … hafnium … silicon … nickel … unavoidable impurities”, however, claim 5 in addition to reciting comprising, does not include chromium, molybdenum and rhenium rendering claim 5 indefinite since it is not clear if opening claim 5 could result in previously required elements not being required in claim 5 and additional elements not included in claim 1 could now be part of the superalloy in claim 5.
Claim 6 recites “The superalloy according to claim 1, comprising,” and depends from claim 1 which recites “A nickel-based superalloy consisting of”; it is not clear if claim 6 by reciting comprising is attempting to reopen/broaden the scope of claim 1, rendering the claim indefinite.
Furthermore, claim 1 recites “superalloy consisting of … aluminum … tantalum … titanium … cobalt … chromium … molybdenum … tungsten … rhenium … hafnium … silicon … nickel … unavoidable impurities”, however, claim 6 in addition to reciting comprising, does not include chromium, molybdenum and rhenium rendering claim 6 indefinite since it is not clear if opening claim 6 could result in previously required elements not being required in claim 6 and additional elements not included in claim 1 could now be part of the superalloy in claim 6.
Claim 7 recites “The superalloy according to claim 1, comprising,” and depends from claim 1 which recites “A nickel-based superalloy consisting of”; it is not clear if claim 7 by reciting comprising is attempting to reopen/broaden the scope of claim 1, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 8 recites “The superalloy according to claim 1, comprising,” and depends from claim 1 which recites “A nickel-based superalloy consisting of”; it is not clear if claim 8 by reciting comprising is attempting to reopen/broaden the scope of claim 1, rendering the claim indefinite.
Furthermore, claim 1 recites “superalloy consisting of … aluminum … tantalum … titanium … cobalt … chromium … molybdenum … tungsten … rhenium … hafnium … silicon … nickel … unavoidable impurities”, however, claim 8 in addition to reciting comprising, does not include tungsten rendering claim 8 indefinite since it is not clear if opening claim 8 could result in previously required elements not being required in claim 8 and additional elements not included in claim 1 could now be part of the superalloy in claim 8.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 12 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O'hara et al – hereafter O’hara – (US 20110076179 A1).
Regarding claim 1, O’hara teaches a nickel-based superalloy (¶2, note “nickel-base single crystal superalloys”) consisting of, in weight percentages, 6.0 to 7.0% of aluminum (¶9, note “from about 6.8 to about 7.5% aluminum”), 1.0 to 4.0% of tantalum (¶9, note “from about 4 to about 8% tantalum”), 0.50 to 2.5% of titanium (¶9, note “optionally, up to about 0.5% titanium”), 3.0 to 7.0% of cobalt (¶9, note “up to about 5% cobalt”), 8.0 to 10.0% of chromium (¶9, note “from about 4 to about 10% chromium”), 1.5 to 2.5% of molybdenum (¶9, note “optionally, up to about 4% molybdenum”), 0 to 2.5% of tungsten (¶9, note “from about 2 to about 7% tungsten”), up to 1% of rhenium (¶9, note “up to about 6% rhenium”), 0.05 to 0.25% of hafnium (¶9, note “from about 0.15 to about 0.7% hafnium”), 0 to 0.15% of silicon (¶9, note “up to about 0.2% silicon”), a remainder consisting of nickel (¶9, note “balance nickel”) and unavoidable impurities (¶9, note “incidental impurities”).
O’hara further discloses “optionally, up to about 0.005% boron, optionally, up to about 0.06% carbon, optionally, up to about 0.03% of a rare earth addition selected from the group consisting of yttrium, lanthanum, cesium, and combinations thereof” (¶9) as part of the nickel-based superalloy. However, all of these elements are disclosed as optional, therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the nickel-based superalloy of O’hara by leaving out the optional elements of boron, carbon and rare earths because these elements are not required by the disclosed nickel-based superalloy which would still be expected to provide an oxidation resistant, lower density superalloy composition with greater cyclic damage resistance and improved microstructure stability (¶7).
Furthermore, the disclosed nickel-based superalloy of O’hara comprises, in percentage, a [secondary reaction zone (ZRS)]1/2 of -67.0 to -50.0. Note below selected examples of the disclosed element compositions of the nickel-based superalloy by O’hara in weight percentages, also included for purposes of the calculation of the atomic percentages, is the atomic weight (accessed on 21 April 2025 via https://www.britannica.com/science/atomic-weight) of each element in the compositions. Note the formula at the bottom (accessed on 21 April 2025 via https://plasmaterials.com/converting-atomic-percent-to-weight-percent-and-vice-versa/) was used as a guideline to calculate the atomic percentages of each element and the right most column includes values of the secondary reaction zone based on the formula disclosed by Walston et al (US 5,270,123 A) which fall within the claimed range.
PNG
media_image1.png
418
796
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, O’hara further teaches in weight percentages, 6.8 to 7.5% of aluminum (¶9, note “from about 6.8 to about 7.5% aluminum”), 4.0 to 8.0% of tantalum (¶9, note “from about 4 to about 8% tantalum”), 0.50 to 1.5% of titanium (¶9, note “optionally, up to about 0.5% titanium”), 3.0 to 7.0% of cobalt (¶9, note “up to about 5% cobalt”), 2 to 7% of tungsten (¶9, note “from about 2 to about 7% tungsten”), 0.05 to 0.25% of hafnium (¶9, note “from about 0.15 to about 0.7% hafnium”), 0 to 0.15% of silicon (¶9, note “up to about 0.2% silicon”), the remainder consisting of nickel (¶9, note “balance nickel”) and unavoidable impurities (¶9, note “incidental impurities”).
However, does not explicitly disclose 5.5 to 6.5% of aluminum, 1.0 to 3.0% of tantalum, 0.5 to 1.5% of tungsten.
Note that “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists and “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close” (MPEP 2144.05 I). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the nickel-based superalloy of O’hara to include the claimed ranges because O’hara clearly discloses ranges that overlap or lie inside the claimed ranges and with respect to silicon, the claimed amount is merely close to the disclosed amount by O’hara.
Regarding claim 3, O’hara further teaches in weight percentages, 6.5 to 7.0% of aluminum (¶9, note “from about 6.8 to about 7.5% aluminum”), 4.0 to 8.0% of tantalum (¶9, note “from about 4 to about 8% tantalum”), 0.50 to 1.5% of titanium (¶9, note “optionally, up to about 0.5% titanium”), 3.0 to 7.0% of cobalt (¶9, note “up to about 5% cobalt”), 2 to 7% of tungsten (¶9, note “from about 2 to about 7% tungsten”), 0.05 to 0.25% of hafnium (¶9, note “from about 0.15 to about 0.7% hafnium”), 0 to 0.15% of silicon (¶9, note “up to about 0.2% silicon”), the remainder consisting of nickel (¶9, note “balance nickel”) and unavoidable impurities (¶9, note “incidental impurities”).
However, does not explicitly disclose 1.0 to 3.0% of tantalum, 0.5 to 1.5% of tungsten.
Note that “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists and “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close” (MPEP 2144.05 I). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the nickel-based superalloy of O’hara to include the claimed ranges because O’hara clearly discloses ranges that overlap or lie inside the claimed ranges and with respect to silicon, the claimed amount is merely close to the disclosed amount by O’hara.
Note that “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). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the nickel-based superalloy of O’hara to include the claimed ranges because O’hara clearly discloses ranges that overlap or lie inside the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 5, O’hara further teaches in weight percentages, 6.8 to 7.5% of aluminum (¶9, note “from about 6.8 to about 7.5% aluminum”), 4.0 to 8.0% of tantalum (¶9, note “from about 4 to about 8% tantalum”), up to 0.50% of titanium (¶9, note “optionally, up to about 0.5% titanium”), 5.0% of cobalt (¶9, note “up to about 5% cobalt”), 2 to 7% of tungsten (¶9, note “from about 2 to about 7% tungsten”), 0.15 to 0.7% of hafnium (¶9, note “from about 0.15 to about 0.7% hafnium”), 0.10% of silicon (¶9, note “up to about 0.2% silicon”), the remainder consisting of nickel (¶9, note “balance nickel”) and unavoidable impurities (¶9, note “incidental impurities”).
However, does not explicitly disclose 6.0% of aluminum, 2.0% of tantalum, 1.0% of titanium, 1.0% of tungsten, 0.10% hafnium.
Note that “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists and “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close” (MPEP 2144.05 I). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the nickel-based superalloy of O’hara to include the claimed ranges because O’hara clearly discloses ranges that overlap or lie inside the claimed ranges and with respect to silicon, the claimed amount is merely close to the disclosed amount by O’hara.
Note that “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). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the nickel-based superalloy of O’hara to include the claimed ranges because O’hara clearly discloses ranges that overlap or lie inside the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 6, O’hara further teaches in weight percentages, 7.0% of aluminum (¶9, note “from about 6.8 to about 7.5% aluminum”), 4.0 to 8.0% of tantalum (¶9, note “from about 4 to about 8% tantalum”), up to 0.50% of titanium (¶9, note “optionally, up to about 0.5% titanium”), 5.0% of cobalt (¶9, note “up to about 5% cobalt”), 2 to 7% of tungsten (¶9, note “from about 2 to about 7% tungsten”), 0.15 to 0.7% of hafnium (¶9, note “from about 0.15 to about 0.7% hafnium”), 0.10% of silicon (¶9, note “up to about 0.2% silicon”), the remainder consisting of nickel (¶9, note “balance nickel”) and unavoidable impurities (¶9, note “incidental impurities”).
However, does not explicitly disclose 2.0% of tantalum, 1.0% of titanium, 1.0% of tungsten, 0.10% hafnium.
Note that “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists and “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close” (MPEP 2144.05 I). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the nickel-based superalloy of O’hara to include the claimed ranges because O’hara clearly discloses ranges that overlap or lie inside the claimed ranges and with respect to silicon, the claimed amount is merely close to the disclosed amount by O’hara.
Note that “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). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the nickel-based superalloy of O’hara to include the claimed ranges because O’hara clearly discloses ranges that overlap or lie inside the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 7, O’hara further teaches in weight percentages, 6.8 to 7.5% of aluminum (¶9, note “from about 6.8 to about 7.5% aluminum”), 4.0 to 8.0% of tantalum (¶9, note “from about 4 to about 8% tantalum”), up to 0.5% of titanium (¶9, note “optionally, up to about 0.5% titanium”), 5.0% of cobalt (¶9, note “up to about 5% cobalt”), 9.0% of chromium (¶9, note “from about 4 to about 10% chromium”), 1.5% of molybdenum (¶9, note “optionally, up to about 4% molybdenum”), 2.0% of tungsten (¶9, note “from about 2 to about 7% tungsten”), 2.0% of rhenium (¶9, note “up to about 6% rhenium”), 0.15 to about 0.7% of hafnium (¶9, note “from about 0.15 to about 0.7% hafnium”), 0.10% of silicon (¶9, note “up to about 0.2% silicon”), a remainder consisting of nickel (¶9, note “balance nickel”) and unavoidable impurities (¶9, note “incidental impurities”).
However, does not explicitly disclose 6.5% of aluminum, 3% tantalum, 1.0% of titanium, 0.10% of hafnium.
Note that “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists and “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close” (MPEP 2144.05 I). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the nickel-based superalloy of O’hara to include the claimed ranges because O’hara clearly discloses ranges that overlap or lie inside the claimed ranges and with respect to silicon, the claimed amount is merely close to the disclosed amount by O’hara.
Note that “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). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the nickel-based superalloy of O’hara to include the claimed ranges because O’hara clearly discloses ranges that overlap or lie inside the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 8, O’hara further teaches in weight percentages, 6.8 to 7.5% of aluminum (¶9, note “from about 6.8 to about 7.5% aluminum”), 4.0 to 8.0% of tantalum (¶9, note “from about 4 to about 8% tantalum”), up to 0.5% of titanium (¶9, note “optionally, up to about 0.5% titanium”), 5.0% of cobalt (¶9, note “up to about 5% cobalt”), 9.0% of chromium (¶9, note “from about 4 to about 10% chromium”), 2.0% of molybdenum (¶9, note “optionally, up to about 4% molybdenum”), 2.0% of rhenium (¶9, note “up to about 6% rhenium”), 0.15 to about 0.7% of hafnium (¶9, note “from about 0.15 to about 0.7% hafnium”), 0.10% of silicon (¶9, note “up to about 0.2% silicon”), a remainder consisting of nickel (¶9, note “balance nickel”) and unavoidable impurities (¶9, note “incidental impurities”).
However, does not explicitly disclose 6.5% of aluminum, 2% tantalum, 2.0% of titanium, 0.10% of hafnium.
Note that “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists and “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close” (MPEP 2144.05 I). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the nickel-based superalloy of O’hara to include the claimed ranges because O’hara clearly discloses ranges that overlap or lie inside the claimed ranges and with respect to silicon, the claimed amount is merely close to the disclosed amount by O’hara.
Note that “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). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the nickel-based superalloy of O’hara to include the claimed ranges because O’hara clearly discloses ranges that overlap or lie inside the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 9, O’hara further teaches a single-crystal blade for a turbomachine (¶2) comprising a superalloy according to claim 1 (see above).
Regarding claim 12, O’hara further teaches a turbomachine comprising a blade (¶2) according to claim 9 (see above).
Regarding claims 14-15, O’hara further teaches the superalloy according to claim 1, having a volumetric mass less than or equal to 8.50 g/cm3 and less than or equal to 8.20 g/cm3. Note screenshots below from the alloy density calculator from handymath.com. Since the calculator does not accept 0 values, for the calculation, molybdenum was assigned a weight percent value of 0.000000001, which is a negligible amount for this calculation. Furthermore, the weight percent values used for the calculation came from the instant application ¶65, Table 1, Ex 1, said weight percent values are covered by the obvious disclosed ranges of O’hara. In the calculated example, the volumetric mass (density) of the superalloy resulted in 8.04 g/cm3
PNG
media_image2.png
844
786
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to screenshots above, weights entered have weight percent values and densities (volumetric masses) entered have g/cm3 units. Similarly, the resultant weight and density (volumetric mass) calculate in the screenshot below have weight percent values and g/cm3 units, respectively. Finally, note that 8.04 g/cm3 is less than or equal to 8.50 g/cm3 and less than or equal to 8.20 g/cm3.
PNG
media_image3.png
568
787
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, O’hara further teaches the superalloy has a y' solvus temperature of at least 1200°C. Note that “where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103.” In the current instance, the prior art composition and the claimed composition of the nickel-based superalloy is the same. Furthermore, applicant’s disclosure states that the y' solvus temperature is obtained via a calculation using software based on the composition of the superalloy (see applicant’s specification ¶83-85. Therefore, a person of ordinary skills in the art would be expected to obtain the calculated y' solvus temperature being at least 1200°C for the prior art disclosed superalloy composition and the obvious claimed superalloy composition; compositions of the superalloy as discussed in the claim rejections above.
Regarding claim 17, O’hara further teaches the superalloy has a heat treatment interval of at least 50°C. Note that “where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103.” In the current instance, the prior art composition and the claimed composition of the nickel-based superalloy is the same. Furthermore, applicant’s disclosure states that the heat treatment interval is obtained via a calculation using software based on the composition of the superalloy (see applicant’s specification ¶86-88. Therefore, a person of ordinary skills in the art would be expected to obtain the calculated heat treatment interval being at least 50°C for the prior art disclosed superalloy composition and the obvious claimed superalloy composition; compositions of the superalloy as discussed in the claim rejections above.
Regarding claim 18, O’hara further teaches the superalloy has a volume fraction of y' phase of at least 40% at 1100°C. Note that “where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103.” In the current instance, the prior art composition and the claimed composition of the nickel-based superalloy is the same. Furthermore, applicant’s disclosure states that the volume fraction of y' phase is obtained via a calculation using software based on the composition of the superalloy (see applicant’s specification ¶89-92. Therefore, a person of ordinary skills in the art would be expected to obtain the calculated volume fraction of y' phase being at least 40% at 1100°C for the prior art disclosed superalloy composition and the obvious claimed superalloy composition; compositions of the superalloy as discussed in the claim rejections above.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’hara as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Skoog et al – hereafter Skoog – (US 6,210,791 B1).
Regarding claim 10, O’hara teaches all the limitations of claim 9, see above, and further teaches scenarios where a thermal barrier coating is used (¶28), however, does not explicitly teach a protective coating comprising a metal sub-layer deposited on the superalloy and a ceramic thermal barrier deposited on the metal sub-layer.
Skoog teaches a nickel-based superalloy (column 5 line 33-45, note “nickel-base superalloys”) comprising aluminum (column 5 line 33-45), tantalum (column 5 line 33-45), titanium (column 5 line 33-45), cobalt (column 5 line 33-45), chromium (column 5 line 33-45), molybdenum (column 5 line 33-45), tungsten (column 5 line 33-45), rhenium (column 5 line 33-45), hafnium (column 5 line 33-45), silicon (column 5 line 33-45), nickel (column 5 line 33-45) and unavoidable impurities (column 5 line 33-45). Skoog further teaches a protective coating comprising a metal sub-layer (Skoog Fig.2, 24; column 6 line 20-27, note “bond coat 24 may optionally be applied overlying and contacting a surface of the substrate 22”) deposited on the superalloy and a ceramic thermal barrier (Skoog Fig.2, 26; column 6 line 50-54, note “thermal barrier coating 26 may optionally be applied overlying the bond coat 24 … thermal barrier coating 26 is preferably yttria-(partially) stabilized zirconia, which is a zirconium oxide-base ceramic material”) deposited on the metal sub-layer (Skoog Fig.2). Thermal barrier coatings are known to increase temperatures at which turbine blades/components can operate at.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the blade of O’hara by having a protective coating comprising a metal sub-layer deposited on the superalloy and a ceramic thermal barrier deposited on the metal sub-layer based on the teachings of Skoog because this would allow increasing temperatures at which turbine blades/components can operate at.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’hara as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Hazel et al – hereafter Hazel – (US 20100254822 A1).
Regarding claim 11, O’hara teaches all the limitations of claim 9, see above, and further teaches the blade including a single grain with a single crystallographic orientation (¶16), however, does not explicitly teach the blade having a structure oriented in a <001> crystallographic direction.
Hazel teaches the nickel-based superalloy being directionally solidified with the intent of being used high pressure turbine blade applications for a gas turbine engine (Hazel abstract), therefore, the crystallographic direction (i.e., directional solidification) is recognized as a result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the nickel-based superalloy of O’hara by having a structure oriented in a <001> crystallographic direction via routine optimization because "It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." (MPEP 2144.05 II A). In the current instance, Hazel has recognized directional solidification which results in crystallographic direction as a result effective variable, and claiming a specific form or degree of the crystallographic direction is not an invention that will sustain a patent.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JUAN G FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-3486. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:30pm Pacific Time.
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, Nathan E Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JUAN G FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights