DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III (claims 13-24) in the reply filed on 07/24/2026 is acknowledged.
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 17 and 20-23 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.
The term “about” in claims 17 and 20-23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the ceramic abrasive powder" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the ceramic abrasive powder" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 13-16, 18-20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shuck et al. (US 20210179906 A1), hereinafter referred to as SHUCK, in view of Alman et al. (The abrasive wear of sintered titanium matrix-ceramic particle reinforced composites. Wear, 225-229, 1999, 629-639), hereinafter referred to as ALMAN, with evidence from Liang et al. (US 20240181559 A1), hereinafter referred to as LIANG, as to the rejection of claim 13.
Regarding claim 13, SHUCK teaches an article, comprising:
a substrate; and
an abrasive coating overlying the substrate (see SHUCK at paragraphs [0018]: the abrasive coating is formed on a substrate), wherein the abrasive coating comprises a metal matrix composite (see SHUCK at paragraph [0027]: powder delivery device may be configured to deliver material to the location of abrasive coating; the material may be supplied by powder delivery device in powder form, e.g., as a mixture of metal powder and abrasive powder).
While SHUCK teaches a use of a mixture of metal powder and abrasive powder, SHUCK is silent with respect to the metal matrix composite comprising one or more ceramic phases dispersed in a metal matrix.
However, the benefits of using a metal matrix composites are known in the art, as evidenced from the disclosure of LIANG describing that metal matrix composite (MMC) materials have found increasing application in a variety of fields; as well as having desirably high stiffness, strength and temperature resistance, MMCs are known for having superior dimensional stability and greater temperature and abrasion resistance as compared to metal/metal MMC materials (see LIANG at paragraph [0004]). LIAND also discloses that typical MMC metal-phase materials include alloys of aluminium, titanium or magnesium; the matrix phase may be reinforced with a different metallic material such as tungsten or steel fibres but the reinforcement phase most commonly comprises ceramic materials such as boron carbide, silicon carbide, titanium carbide, aluminium oxide or the like; and that metal/ceramic MMCs are particularly desired for use in high-temperature or high-strength components such as engine components and aircraft componentry (see LIANG at paragraph [0005]).
Furthermore, ALMAN discloses the processing, microstructure and abrasive wear behavior of TiC, TiB2 or Si3N4 particulate reinforced Ti-matrix composites produced through conventional press and sinter powder metallurgy (see ALMAN at 1. Introduction, right column, paragraph 2, p. 630). ALMAN also discloses that the addition of reinforcing phase (TiC, TiB2, and Si3N4) was effective in improving the wear resistance of titanium (see ALMAN at 4. Summary and Conclusions, left column, p. 638). ALMAN teaches that the 40 vol% TiB composite consisted of a continuous boride phase with Ti particles, the TiB2 particles reacted with the Ti matrix during sintering to form TiB; X-ray diffraction revealed that the composites contained Ti, TiB2 and TiB (see ALMAN at Fig. 4 and 3.1 Microstructures, left column, paragraph 3, p. 633). ALMAN also teaches that the formation TiB results in the consumption of a portion of the Ti matrix; hence, the composites contain more than the intended volume fraction of high melting boride reinforcement (e.g., the sintered Ti+40 vol% TiB2 composite contains more than 40 vol% borides) (see ALMAN and 3.1 Microstructures, right column, p. 633). Additionally, ALMAN teaches that in the Ti-MMC, the Si3N4 was entirely consumed and converted to Ti5Si3 and Ti3Si during sintering (see ALMAN at 3.1 Microstructures, right column, p. 364).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the abrasive coating of SHUCK by adding up to 40% of reinforcing ceramic phase such as TiC, TiB2, and Si3N4 as disclosed by ALMAN since ALMAN explicitly teaches that the addition of reinforcing phases improves the wear resistance of titanium (see ALMAN at 4. Summary and Conclusions, left column, p. 638). Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have anticipated the abrasive coating of SHUCK modified by ALMAN to comprise one or more ceramic phases dispersed in a metal matrix based on the teachings of SHUCK describing the use of a mixture of metal powder and abrasive powder to form an abrasive coating (see SHUCK at paragraph [0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the abrasive coating of SHUCK by adding up to 40 vol% of reinforcing ceramic phase disclosed by ALMAN in order to improve the wear resistance of the metal matrix composite.
Regrading claim 14, SHUCK as modified by ALMAN teaches the article of claim 13, wherein the metal matrix composite further comprises a ceramic abrasive powder in the metal matrix (see SHUCK at paragraphs [0027]: a mixture of metal powder and abrasive powder; and [0034]: the abrasive powder may include ceramic particles, such as a metal nitride, a metal carbide, a metal oxide, or the like).
Regarding claim 15, SHUCK as modified by ALMAN teaches the article of claim 14, wherein the ceramic phase is formed at an interface between the ceramic abrasive powder and the metal matrix (see rejection of claim 13 above and ALMAN at Fig. 4 and 3.1 Microstructures, left column, paragraph 3, p. 633: the TiB2 particles reacted with the Ti matrix during sintering to form TiB; X-ray diffraction revealed that the composites contained Ti, TiB2 and TiB; and 3.1 Microstructures, right column, p. 364: the Si3N4 was entirely consumed and converted to Ti5Si3 and Ti3Si during sintering).
Regarding claim 16, SHUCK as modified by ALMAN teaches the article of claim 14, wherein a composition of the ceramic abrasive powder is different from a composition of the one or more ceramic phases (see rejection of claim 13 above and ALMAN at Fig. 4 and 3.1 Microstructures, left column, paragraph 3, p. 633: the TiB2 particles reacted with the Ti matrix during sintering to form TiB; X-ray diffraction revealed that the composites contained Ti, TiB2/ceramic abrasive powder and TiB/ceramic phase).
Regarding claim 18, SHUCK as modified by ALMAN teaches the article of claim 13, wherein the metal matrix comprises at least one of titanium, a titanium alloy, nickel, a nickel alloy, cobalt, a cobalt alloy, or a ferrous alloy (see SHUCK at paragraph [0023]: the metal matrix may include a high-performance metal or alloy, such as a steel (e.g., stainless steel), a nickel-based alloy, a cobalt-based alloy, a titanium-based alloy, or the like).
Regarding claim 19, SHUCK as modified by ALMAN teaches the article of claim 13, wherein the metal matrix composite comprises a reinforcement phase comprising carbon, a nitride, alumina, zirconia, or hafnia (see rejection of claim 13 above, SHUCK at paragraph [0034]: the abrasive powder may include ceramic particles, such as a metal nitride, a metal carbide, a metal oxide, or the like. For example, the abrasive powder may include boron nitride, aluminum oxide, zirconium oxide, silicon carbide, silicon nitride, titanium nitride, zirconium nitride, tantalum nitride, hafnium nitride, or the like; and ALMAN at 1. Introduction, right column, paragraph 2, p. 630: TiC, TiB2 or Si3N4 particulate reinforced Ti-matrix composites produced through conventional press and sinter powder metallurgy).
Regarding claim 20, SHUCK as modified by ALMAN teaches the article of claim 13, wherein the metal matrix composite comprises between about 20 volume percent and about 65 volume percent of the one or more ceramic phases (see rejection of claim 13 above and ALMAN at 4. Summary and Conclusions: relatively high volume fractions of the ceramic phase (e.g., 40 vol%)). ALMAN teaches volume percent which is within and anticipates the claimed range.
Regarding claim 22, SHUCK as modified by ALMAN teaches the article of claim 13,
wherein the ceramic phase is configured to function as a passivation layer that seals the ceramic abrasive powder and reduces dissolution of the ceramic abrasive powder into the metal matrix (see rejection of claim 13 above and ALMAN at 3.2 Wear behavior, p. 637: due to the significant chemical reactions that occurred between the Ti and TiB2 or Si3N4 during processing, a strong interface developed between the reinforcement phases and the matrix in these two composite systems; strong interfacial bonding between the constituent phases will prevent preferential pullout of one of the phases), and
wherein an average thickness of the ceramic phase is less than about 100 microns (see ALMAN at Fig. 4(a) and 3.1 Microstructures, left column, paragraph 3, p. 633: the microstructure of the Ti + 20 vol% TiB2 composites was comprised of boride needles or platelets in the Ti matrix). The thickness of boride needles in Fig. 4(a) disclosed by ALMAN is less than 50 µm, which is within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 23, SHUCK as modified by ALMAN teaches the article of claim 13, wherein the metal matrix composite comprises:
between about 50 volume percent and about 80 volume percent of the ceramic abrasive powder; and
between about 20 volume percent and about 50 volume percent of the metal matrix (see rejection of claim 13 and ALMAN at 3.1 Microstructures, left column, paragraph 3, p. 633: Ti + 40 vol% TiB2). ALMAN teaches composite comprising 60 vol% of the metal matrix and 40 vol% of the ceramic abrasive powder, which is within the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 24, SHUCK as modified by ALMAN teaches the article of claim 13, wherein the one or more ceramic phases comprise a reaction product selected from the group consisting of titanium carbide, titanium boride, silicon carbide, tungsten carbide, boron carbide, nickel titanium, molybdenum silicide, molybdenum selenide, and calcium phosphate (see ALMAN at Fig. 4 and 3.1 Microstructures, left column, paragraph 3, p. 633: the TiB2 particles reacted with the Ti matrix during sintering to form TiB; X-ray diffraction revealed that the composites contained Ti, TiB2 and TiB; and 3.1 Microstructures, right column, p. 364: the Si3N4 was entirely consumed and converted to Ti5Si3 and Ti3Si during sintering).
Claims 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherman et al. (US 20100297432 A1), hereinafter referred to as SHERMAN.
Regarding claim 1, SHERMAN teaches an article, comprising:
a substrate; and
a coating overlying the substrate (paragraph [0010]: forming fused composite layer from composite powdered material compositions on heat sensitive substrates), wherein the coating comprises a metal matrix composite, and wherein the metal matrix composite comprises one or more ceramic phases dispersed in a metal matrix (paragraph [0011]: composite layer containing a nanoscale ceramic phase substantially uniformly dispersed in a metal matrix phase).
While SHERMAN is silent with respect to the coating being abrasive coating, SHERMAN teaches forming fused composite layer from composite powdered material compositions on heat sensitive substrates (paragraph [0010]). Furthermore, according to MPEP §2141.03(I) “the level of disclosure in the specification of the application under examination or in relevant references may also be informative of the knowledge and skills of a person of ordinary skill in the art”, therefore, the Examiner asserts what an ordinary artisan would know in light of the disclosure in the specification provided by the Applicant. Since, similarly to the Applicant, SHERMAN discloses forming coating from the composite mixtures including metallic elements such as alloys of nickel, cobalt, copper or titanium; and ceramics such as silicon carbide, silicon nitride, titanium nitride, zirconium carbide, niobium carbide, niobium nitride, cubic boron carbide, chromium carbide, titanium boride, and the like (see SHERMAN at paragraphs [0060-61]), one of ordinary skill in the art would have anticipated success when utilizing a composite layer of SHERMAN as an abrasive coating.
Regarding claim 17, SHERMAN teaches the article of claim 13,
wherein the one or more ceramic phases form a plurality of precipitates in the metal matrix (paragraph [0014]: adding a nanoscale powdered ceramic phase to the matrix phase precursor; allowing the nanoscale ceramic phase to precipitate in the fusion layer; the ceramic phase is formed as a precipitate during the application of heat flux to the composite mixture on the substrate), and
wherein a volume-weighted average size of the plurality of precipitates is greater than about 100 microns (paragraph [0016]: the composite layer includes a micron-scale ceramic phase in an amount of from approximately 1 to 75 volume percent with an average particle size of from 1 to 1,000 microns). SHERMAN teaches a range which overlaps and renders obvious 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. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHUCK in view of ALMAN as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Shuck et al. (US 10954803 B2), hereinafter referred to as SHUCK’803.
Regarding claim 21, SHUCK as modified by ALMAN teaches the article of claim 13. While SHUCK teaches depositing layers until a desired thickness of material (metal power and abrasive particles) has been deposited on component to form abrasive coating (see SHUCK at paragraph [0060]), SHUCK is silent with respect to the abrasive coating having a thickness of about 100 micrometers to about 500 micrometers.
However, similarly to SHUCK describing depositing material (metal power and abrasive particles) on component to form abrasive coating; wherein the component may be a knife seal, a blade (such as a gas turbine engine blade) (see SHUCK at paragraphs [0021] and [0060]), SHUCK’803 discloses a method for forming an abrasive coating on a component (e.g., a turbine blade, vane, or knife ring) of a gas turbine engine; the method may include forming an abrasive coating system on a substrate, the abrasive coating system including an abrasive coating including a plurality of abrasive particles in a metal matrix; machining the abrasive coating on the substrate to define a machined abrasive coating having an abrasive coating thickness profile (see SHUCK’803 at Abstract). SHUCK’803 teaches that as deposited, abrasive coating may have any suitable thickness, which may be substantially uniform or non-uniform on blade tip; in some examples, thickness may be greater than approximately 44 microns, less than 1000 microns (see SHUCK’803 at Col. 8, lines 4-8).
Both SHUCK and SHUCK’803 describe abrasive coating formed on a component of a gas turbine engine, e.g., a turbine blade, vane, or knife ring. One of ordinary skill in the art would have anticipated success adjusting the thickness of the abrasive coating to be within the claimed range, as disclosed by SHUCK’803, based on the teachings of SHUCK describing depositing layers until a desired thickness of material (metal power and abrasive particles) has been deposited on component to form abrasive coating (see SHUCK at paragraph [0060]). Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the thickness of abrasive coating of SHUCK to be within a range of 44-1000 µm as disclosed by SHUCK’803, since similarly to SHUCK, SHUCK’803 explicitly teaches forming an abrasive coating on a component (e.g., a turbine blade, vane, or knife ring) of a gas turbine engine (see SHUCK’803 at Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that adjusting the thickness of abrasive coating of SHUCK to be within a range of 44-1000 µm as disclosed by SHUCK’803 would be predictably suitable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANASTASIA KUVAYSKAYA whose telephone number is (703)756-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00am-5:00pm.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.
/ANASTASIA A. KUVAYSKAYA/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights