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 § 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 1-20 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.
Regarding Claim 1, it is unclear how to distinguish SiO2 that may be matrix, that can be in what is ii), that can be in what is iii), and that can be in what is iv). To the extent that the SiO2 based phase could be other than SiO2 itself, it is unclear what is encompassed; it is unclear what defines “based”. Analogous rejection applies to Claims 17 and 20.
Regarding Claim 1, it is unclear under what conditions the claimed “oxidant gettering phase” is supposed to be assessed. This rejection does not apply to Claims 6-14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jackson USPN 11,505,506. Jackson teaches turbine engine component (col. 2, lines 20-30) that may be silicon containing CMC (col. 2, lines 33-34) having EBC bondcoat formed of oxide matrix having dispersed therein an oxidant gettering phase (col. 3, line 5) that forms SiO2 made of SixOyCz (col. 3, lines 43-45), wherein the matrix includes a multiphase mixture including SiO2 rich phase and self-healing glass phase (col. 3, line 8). Jackson teaches that the self-healing glass is CAS (col. 4, line 7) which can be considered SiO2 based and includes anorthite crystalline (CaAl2Si2O8) (Figures 3 and 4; col. 3, lines 33-56; and col. 4, lines 7 and 8). Thus, all components i)-iv) in an oxide matrix are disclosed in Jackson. Regarding Claim 2, the glass shows incipient melting in claimed range (Figures 3b and 4b) and shows viscosity in claimed range (Figure 3c and 4c). Regarding Claim 3, Jackson teaches BMAS (Figures 5b and 5c; col. 4, lines 13-22) which includes crystalline BaAl2Si2O8. Regarding Claim 5, the predominance of SiO2 implies SiO2 matrix. Regarding Claim 15, the gettering phase is disclosed as discrete particles (Figure 2, element 26; col. 3, line 5: “interspersed”; col. 4, lines 43-54).
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson USPN 11,505,506. Jackson is relied upon as set forth above in the section 102 rejection over Jackson. Jackson does not expressly teach SiC. However, Jackson’s suggested component includes SiC when y=0 and x and z are equal (col. 3, lines 43-45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to prepare gettering ingredient with any of suggested and effective ingredients including those identified above as being among those suggested. Regarding Claims 17-20, Jackson may not exemplify claimed substrate, but teaches these are effectively protected such as silicon containing CMC (col. 2, lines 33-34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to prepare EBC bondcoat on these substrates since Jackson teaches they would benefit from this type of bondcoat. Regarding Claim 19, Jackson teaches top coat of oxides and/or silicate as claimed (col. 2, line 62 through col. 3, line 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to prepare topcoat with any of suggested and effective ingredients including those identified above as being among those suggested. Regarding Claim 20, Jackson teaches “applying” since the bondcoat is meant to be provided on substrate in need of protection (col. 4, lines 43-54).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 8-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claims 4 and 8-14, the reviewed prior art does not teach or suggest the subject matter of these claims. Particularly, the reviewed prior art does not expressly teach or suggest the claimed relative volumetric amounts in the general context of Claim 4 and in the specific context of the specific ingredients of Claims 8-14. As well, there is no reasonable basis for presuming their inherent presence. For example, Jackson USPN 11,505,506 teaches and suggests many claimed features for the reasons set forth above in the section 102 rejection based on Jackson but Jackson does not expressly teach or suggest these volumetric relationships or provide basis for establishing their inherency. See Jackson (entire document).
EXAMINER’S COMMENT
Cited Ding USPA 2021/0188720 teaches EBC formed of oxide matrix of SiO2, SiOC particles, and BMAS particles (paragraph 39).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL E. LA VILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-1539. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. from 9:00 a.m. ET to 5:30 p.m. ET.
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, Humera N. Sheikh, can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/MICHAEL E. LA VILLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
24 July 2026
Prosecution Insights