DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to communication received on 3/2/26.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The text of those sections of AIA 35 U.S.C. code not present in this action can be found in previous office actions dated 2/20/25, 7/14/25, and 12/9/35.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejection(s) under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Metscher et al. US PGPub 2019/0017174 hereinafter METSCHER in view of Schmidt US PG Pub 2019/0047173 hereinafter SCHMIDT and Hong et al. US PGPub 2012/0156049 hereinafter HONG on claims 1-2 and 7-10 are maintained. The rejection is amended below to meet the added claim limitation.
As for claim 1, METSCHER teaches "The invention relates to a method for coating a component, which is provided for the hot gas duct of a turbomachine" ( abstract, lines 1-2) and "The coating can be used, for exam pie, to protect a region of the component that, on account of a high flow velocity or temperature of the hot gas, for example, is particularly at risk of oxidation or hot-gas corrosion" (paragraph 7, lines 1-4), i.e. a method for producing an oxidation protection coating at least in regions on a component of a thermal gas turbine.
METSCHER teaches "The coating material is applied to the "uncoated" component surface; that is, the component has not already been coated at least in the region in question and preferably has not already been coated in its entirety" (paragraph 11, lines 1-4), "applying a coat of the particle-treated binding agent onto a region of an uncoated surface of the component" (claim 1, lines 9-10), and "The suspension can be sprayed on" (paragraph 41, lines 12-13), i.e. wherein ‘a coating’ can include both one layer and a plurality of layers. Thereby METSCHER teaches the method consisting of the steps of coating of the component at least in regions with only one layer of lacquer by spraying or brushing ... the only one layer of lacquer consisting of a single coat of lacquer.
METSCHER teaches "The particles and the binding agent together preferably farm a suspension and can be mixed together, for exam pie, directly prior to application" (paragraph 12, lines 3-4), and "In a preferred embodiment, the particles comprise aluminum, which diffuses proportionately into the surface of the component during the thermal treatment" (paragraph 14, lines 1-3). i.e. which comprises at least one ... binder ... and aluminum metal particles.
METSCHER is silent on UV-curable binder and after the step of coating the component at least in regions with only one layer of lacquer, curing of the lacquer by exposure to UV light having a wavelength of between 200 nm and 400 nm.
SCHMIDT teaches "A method for additively manufacturing a ceramic containing article includes selecting a ceramic precursor and a curable resin" ( abstract, lines 1-3) and "In another example of any of the above described exemplary methods for additively manufacturing a ceramic containing article curing the layer comprises applying at least one of a light, ultra-violet (UV) radiation, infra-red (IR) radiation, thermal radiation, microwave radiation and plasma radiation to a material bed including at least one layer of the mixed ceramic precursor and curable resin" (paragraph 12).
SCHMIDT teaches "The curable resin 120 is typically an organic resin selected based on the curing process of the additive manufacturing machine to be used, the desired com position and microstructure of the resultant ceramic containing article, and any number of other factors" (paragraph 34, lines 1-5).
SCHMIDT is silent on the wavelengths of light that make up a UV range.
However, as shown above, SCHMIDT does teach curing with ultraviolet light.
NASA teaches that the range of ultraviolet light is from 100 nm to 400 nm (page 1 ), which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir.1997). See MPEP2144.05.
As such SCHMIDT inherently teaches a wavelength range that overlaps with the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include UV-curable binder and after the step of coating the component at least in regions with only one layer of lacquer, curing of the lacquer by exposure to UV light in a range that overlaps with 200 nm and 400 nm in the process of METSCHER because SCHMIDT teaches that such a binder was known in the manufacture of components and further that curing material can produce a desired microstructure of the resulting article as well as other factors.
METSCHER is silent on the particles having a mean particle size of up to 1 μm.
METSCHER is also silent on a weight proportion of the metal particles in a total weight of the single coat of lacquer being between 20 wt% and 70 wt%.
HONG teaches "Disclosed is a field repairable coated airfoil such as a wing or a rotor blade having a leading edge protected by a spray applied or prefabricated variable thickness" (abstract, lines 1-3).
HONG teaches "The useful fillers have a hardness greater than that of the material forming the continuous phase of the coating. The particle size of the fillers may be from nano-sized to 200 microns, or preferably less than 100 microns" (paragraph 191, lines 1-4) and "The filler content in the hand sandable coating, based on the total solid weight, can range from 10% by weight to 90%, depending on the interaction of the fillers and the base elastomers. Preferred is 20% to 80% by weight" (paragraph 191, lines 4-8), i.e. ranges that overlap with having a mean particle size of up to 1 μm and a weight proportion of the metal particles in a total weight of the single coat of lacquer being between 20 wt% and 70 wt%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the ranges that overlap with having a mean particle size of up to 1 μm and a weight proportion of the metal particles in a total weight of the single coat of lacquer being between 20 wt% and 70 wt% in the process of METSHCER because HONG teaches that such particle sizes and concentrations produced coatings with continuous phases and have favorable interactions with the binders.
METSCHER is silent on wherein the binder is an oligomer or at least one prepolymer.
SCHMIDT teaches "Non-limiting examples of curable resins include photopolymers or light-activated resins whose monomers/oligomers can be photoinitiated via ionic or free radical mechanisms" (paragraph 33, lines 1-4), i.e. wherein the binder is an oligomer.
SCHMIDT teaches "The curable resin 120 is typically an organic resin selected based on the curing process of the additive manufacturing machine to be used, the desired composition and microstructure of the resultant ceramic containing article, and any number of other factors" (paragraph 34, lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the binder is an oligomer in the process of METSCHER because SCHMIDT teaches that such a binder was known in the manufacture of components and further that curing material can produce a desired microstructure of the resulting article as well as other factors. METSCHER is silent on the thickness of the lacquer layer.
HONG teaches "As earlier described, the topcoat may also be formulated to provide higher erosion (sand and water) resistance and applied over a basecoat. In the preferred embodiment, the sandable erosion resistant basecoat layer constitutes at least 50%, of the total coating thickness. The total thickness of the hand sandable erosion protection system can be any thickness suitable for the protection of the substrate. In general, suitable erosion protection of a typical substrate involves a minimum thickness of 0.006", more preferably 0.008", most preferably more than 0.012"" (paragraph 192, lines 8-17).
It is expected that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention could have converted the inches of HONG to the micrometers of the claim, which overlap with the instant claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the ranges that overlap with having a mean particle size of up to 1 μm and a weight proportion of the metal particles in a total weight of the single coat of lacquer being between 20 wt% and 70 wt% in the process of METSHCER because HONG teaches that such thickness were typical and preferred for erosion protection layers.
METSCHER is silent on the temperature of the coating. However, Examiner does note that METSCHER teaches temperatures for later steps in which the temperature is increased. Thereby, it is the position of the Examiner that METSCHER's coating happens at room temperature, i.e. 25°C, as there is not indication that heating or cooling is used during that process. As such, METSCHER teaches spraying at a temperature of between 5 °C and 30 °C. METSCHER is silent on the viscosity.
HONG teaches "A repair resin must have the proper viscosity so that it does not run or drip from the sharp curve during the repair procedure. Any repair to the blade surface must minimize the distortion of the aerodynamic contour" (paragraph 149, lines 4-8) and "This dynamic change of viscosity can be used to good advantage to do the repair. When the viscosity is still low ( coating still has thin consistency for about the first 30 minutes), the repair resin can be used to deposit a thin layer onto the damaged areas. The fluid coating will spread into the micropits and craters and seal the primed surfaces. As the viscosity increases, the repair resin can be used to build up the coating thickness faster as it has less tendency to flow on its own" (paragraph 165, lines 9-15), i.e. wherein the viscosity effects the result of coverage and thickness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to design the viscosity of the coating such that the desired thickness and coverage is achieved. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
METSCHER teaches "The component, which is covered in some regions with the particle-treated binding agent, then undergoes thermal treatment, during which the binding agent is released and the coating material remains on the component ( at the surf ace or also diffused inward)" (paragraph 5, lines 5-9), i.e. wherein thermally treating the component at least in the region of the cured single coat of lacquer for production of the oxidation protection coating such that when it is combined with SCHMIDT it teaches performing the step art the step of curing the single coat of lacquer by exposure to UV light.
As for claim 2, METSCHER is silent on a wherein the lacquer comprises at least one solvent and/or one additive and/or one filler and/or one photoinitiator is used for the coating, and/or wherein the binder comprises at least one oligomer and/or at least one prepolymer is used.
HONG teaches "It may contain some or all of the following ingredients: resins, curing agents, fillers, fibers, fabrics, viscosity modifier, pigments, hydrolysis stabilizers, adhesion promoters, coupling agents, UV stabilizers, defoamers, wetting agents, etc" (paragraph 176, lines 8-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the lacquer comprises at least ... one additive in the process of METSCHER because HONG teaches additives can adjusting viscosity, i.e. viscosity modifier, and promote adhesion, i.e. adhesion promoters.
As for claim 7, METSCHER teaches "the thermal treatment can also be regarded as diffusion annealing, in which not only is the binding agent released, but also the aluminum diffuses into the surface of the component" (paragraph 17, lines 12-15), i.e. wherein the step of thermally treating comprises a diffusion annealing process for forming the oxidation protection coating.
As for claim 8, METSCHER teaches "In a preferred embodiment, the temperature during the thermal treatment is at least 800° C., further and especially preferred, at least 850° C. or 900° C. Preferred upper limits can be, for example, at most 1200° C., 1150° C., 1100° C., or 1050° C." (paragraph 17, lines 1-5), i.e. a range that overlaps with wherein the diffusion annealing process comprises an annealing of the component at a temperature of between BOO °C and 1000 °C. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
As for claim 9, METSCHER teaches "This is shown in FIG. 3b, in which the coating material 35, that is, the aluminum, is situated in part at the surf ace 30, but is also proportionately diffused inward" (paragraph 42, lines 7-10), i.e. wherein the produced oxidation protection coating comprises at least one diffusion layer and one buildup layer.
As for claim 10, METSCHER teaches "Preferred embodiments are presented in the dependent claims and in the entire description, without a distinction always being made in detail between the coating method and a manufacturing method during the course of which the coating is carried out on a corresponding component" (paragraph 6, lines 1-6), i.e. wherein the method is for the manufacture.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are summarized and addressed below:
(a) METSCHER teaches a plurality of coats, not a single coat.
Examiner respectfully points out that in Applicant's arguments, they only references METSCHER's preferred embodiment, which METSCHER is not limited to. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teachings away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971).
METSCHER has more general teachings within its claim 1 and paragraph 5, were there is reference to only a coating. Further there is nothing to suggest that METSCHER are only limited a plurality of layers applied with in its invention, and do in fact encompass embodiments wherein only one layer of coating is applied.
Applicant's argument here cannot be considered persuasive at it relies on limiting METSCHER to only its preferred embodiment, and ignoring its more general teachings.
(b) Applicant argues that the art are different as they have parameters chosen for their respective goals of each can be carried out and to suggest that any of these features can be simply swapped between each other ignores the characteristics and purpose of each respective coating.
Examiner respectfully points out that these properties weren't merely swapped. There was motivation for each combination as shown in the rejection above. Further, despite alleging that these coatings have different purposes, Applicant has not illustrated this with any example or specific consideration that would be contradictory or even different to each other. They has simply stated that this is a case.
To address any confusion:
METSHCER teaches "The coating can be used, for example, to protect a region of the component that, on account of a high flow velocity or temperature of the hot gas, for example, is particularly at risk of oxidation or hot-gas corrosion" (paragraph 7, lines 1-4) and "The turbomachine can be, for example, a jet engine, such as, for example, a turbofan engine. In functional terms, the turbomachine is subdivided into compressor, combustion chamber, and turbine" (paragraph 2), i.e. coating a gas turbine engine from corrosion.
SCHMITD teaches "such as for components to be utilized in a gas turbine engine" (paragraph 3), i.e. components for a gas turbine engine.
HONG teaches "other devices benefiting from the advancement of the embodiments such as... gas turbines" (paragraph 140, lines 13-17), i.e. wherein its methods can be applied to components for a gas turbine engine.
Applicant states that you can't merely swap these parameters between different processes, but HONG itself suggests that its methods can benefit the gas turbines of METSCHER. The art directly suggests what Applicant is alleging cannot happen. Further, Examiner notes that METSCHER does not teach any limitations on the parameters and is in fact silent on it, meaning that they anticipated one of ordinary skill in the art being able to deduce those parameters as part of their reading of the specification.
Further, art does not have to be identical in order for them to be combined. While they have different purposes, they use similar processes and materials, and final application--they are all related to coating or manufacturing a gas turbine blade. So yes, they may have different concerns with they are directed but they are relevant for all they contain.
The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
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 KRISTEN A DAGENAIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1114. The examiner can normally be reached 8-12 and 1-5.
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, Dah Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/KRISTEN A DAGENAIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights