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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 06/16/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that ALD is a technique which allows the application of ultra-thin films. This is not found persuasive because the product would still contain the sealing layer regardless of whether it is applied by sputtering or ALD. However, if the thickness appears to be critical, the examiner would consider rejoining the product claims.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
It is noted that the claimed invention is directed to a method. The examiner suggests amending the abstract to reflect same.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
It is noted that the claimed invention is directed solely to a method. The examiner suggests amending the title to reflect same.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-18 are objected to because of the following informalities listed below. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 1 lines 1-2, the phrase “an environmental barrier coating … coating” appears to be redundant. The examiner suggests deleting the word “coating” (second occurrence) if appropriate.
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.
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 1-8, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenzweig et al. (EP 3037394) in view of Tanaka et al. (WO 2016/151817) (see English Translation).
Rosenzweig teaches an environmental barrier coating with abradable coating for ceramic matrix composite (title) in which said abradable coating is applied to a top coat, a sealing layer, an intermediate layer, and a bond coat on top of a substrate (0010-0014). Sequentially, a bond coat is disposed on the substrate followed by an intermediate layer, a sealing layer, two top coats, and an abradable coating (see Figures 2, 7). The sealing layer can be aluminum oxide (0019) and the substrate can be a ceramic matrix composite (0009). However, the reference fails to teach applying the sealing layer by ALD.
Tanaka teaches a conductor forming method (title) in which a sealing member such as an aluminum oxide film can be formed by atomic layer deposition (p.6 6th paragraph). It would have been obvious to form the sealing layer of Rosenzweig by atomic layer deposition with the expectation of success because Tanaka teaches of forming a sealing film by atomic layer deposition.
Regarding claim 2, the applicant requires a sealing layer between the bond coat and the substrate. It is noted that Rosenzweig teaches that the purpose of the sealing layer is to protect the substrate from exposure to water vapor at high temperatures (0013). The reference also teaches that other arrangements are contemplated (0007). One skilled in the art would realize that the sealing layer need not be adjacent to the substrate to protect the substrate (Figure 2). It would have been obvious to place the sealing layer between the bond coat and the substrate with the expectation of success in protecting the substrate given the teachings of Rosenzweig.
Regarding claim 3, Rosenzweig teaches applying the sealing layer between the bond coat and the top coat (Figure 7).
Regarding claim 4, Rosenzweig teaches a plurality of bond coats (claim 14) and the issue of the sealing layer placement has been addressed above in claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, Rosenzweig teaches a plurality of top coats (Figure 2) and the issue of the sealing layer placement has been addressed above in claim 2.
Regarding claim 6, the applicant requires a sealing layer on the top coat. The issue of the sealing layer placement has been addressed above in claim 2.
Regarding claims 7-8, the applicant requires a specific thickness. Tanaka teaches a thickness of 10-1000 nm (p.6 6th paragraph).
Regarding claim 15, Rosenzweig teaches a silicon carbide CMC (0009), the bond coat can be a silicon based (0011), and the top coat can be a rare earth monosilicate (0022).
Regarding claim 16, Rosenzweig teaches plasma spray (0024) and CVD (0032).
In independent claim 17, the applicant requires sealing pores of a CMC by applying a sealing layer by ALD wherein the sealing layer is a specific oxide. Rosenzwieg teaches of applying a sealing layer of aluminum oxide on a ceramic matrix composite (title, 0009, 0019) and Tanaka teaches of applying an aluminum oxide sealing layer by atomic layer deposition (p.6 6th paragraph).
Regarding claim 18, Tanaka teaches a thickness of 10-1000 nm (p.6 6th paragraph).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenzweig et al. (EP 3037394) in view of Tanaka et al. (WO 2016/151817) (see English Translation) and further in view of Lee et al. (2013/0130464). The combination of Rosenzweig/Tanaka fails to teach the appropriate precursors.
Lee teaches of forming a metal oxide film (title) such as yttrium oxide by atomic layer deposition using tris(methylcyclopentadienyl)-yttrium and water (0078, 0080). It would have been obvious to utilize the precursors in the combination with the expectation of success because Lee teaches of forming yttrium oxide by ALD using the appropriate precursors.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenzweig et al. (EP 3037394) in view of Tanaka et al. (WO 2016/151817) (see English Translation) and further in view of Ma et al. (2009/0117274). The combination of Rosenzweig/Tanaka fails to teach the appropriate precursors.
Ma teaches of forming a lanthanum oxide film by atomic layer deposition using water (0026) and tris(cyclopentadienyl) lanthanum (0016-0020). It would have been obvious to utilize the precursors in the combination with the expectation of success because Ma teaches the appropriate precursors.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenzweig et al. (EP 3037394) in view of Tanaka et al. (WO 2016/151817) (see English Translation) and further in view of Tendulkar et al. (2014/0264223). The combination of Rosenzweig/Tanaka fails to teach the appropriate precursors.
Tendulkar teaches of forming a hafnium oxide layer by ALD using tetrakis(dimethylamido) as a hafnium precursor and water (0062). It would have been obvious to utilize the precursors in the combination with the expectation of success because Tendulkar teaches the appropriate precursors.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenzweig et al. (EP 3037394) in view of Tanaka et al. (WO 2016/151817) (see English Translation) and further in view of Wang et al. (2013/0071984). The combination of Rosenzweig/Tanaka fails to teach the appropriate precursors.
Wang teaches of forming a zirconium oxide by ALD (title) using ZrCl4 (0068) and water (0089). It would have been obvious to utilize the precursors in the combination with the expectation of success because Wang teaches the appropriate precursors.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenzweig et al. (EP 3037394) in view of Tanaka et al. (WO 2016/151817) (see English Translation) and further in view of Chen et al. (Journal of Rare Earths article). The combination of Rosenzweig/Tanaka fails to teach the appropriate precursors.
Chen teaches of forming a ytterbium doped hafnium oxide layer using Yb3+ ions (abstract, title). It would have been obvious to utilize the precursors in the combination with the expectation of success because Chen teaches the appropriate precursors.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenzweig et al. (EP 3037394) in view of Tanaka et al. (WO 2016/151817) (see English Translation) and further in view of Norman et al. (2004/0087143). The combination of Rosenzweig/Tanaka fails to teach the appropriate precursors.
Norman teaches of forming an aluminum oxide layer by ALD using trimethyl aluminum and water as precursors (0007). It would have been obvious to utilize the precursors in the combination with the expectation of success because Norman teaches the appropriate precursors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRET CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-8:30 MT.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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.
/BRET P CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718 08/06/2026
Prosecution Insights