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 § 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) 1-6 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (CN 109487196).
As best depicted in Figure 1, Feng is directed to a coating comprising bonding layer 21, a metal layer 22, ceramic layer 31, ceramic layer 32, reflective layer 4, reverse refraction layer 5, insulating layer 6, and foam layer 7. In terms of the claimed invention, bonding layer 21 corresponds with the claimed bonding layer, metal layer 22 corresponds with the claimed antioxidant layer (claims as currently drafted fail to exclude viewing such a layer as an antioxidant layer- lack of limitations that structurally distinguish the claimed layer from the metal layer of Feng), ceramic layer 31 corresponds with the claimed oxygen blocking propagation layer, and layer 6 corresponds with the claimed heat-insulation cooling layer.
As to the thickness of respective layers, Feng teaches the following:
Layers 21 (bonding layer) and 22 (antioxidant layer) have a combined thickness of 80-100 microns,
Ceramic layers 31 (oxygen propagation layer) and 32 have a combined thickness of 150-500 microns, and
Insulating layer 6 has a thickness of 10-200 microns
Given the ranges disclosed above, it reasons that one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a combination of layers having the claimed thickness values and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results. It is emphasized that there is a significant overlap between the disclosed thickness values in Feng and those required by the claimed invention.
Lastly, regarding claim 1, it is noted that the claims as currently drafted are directed to a surface coating comprising a bonding layer, an antioxidant layer, an oxygen propagation layer, and a heat-insulation cooling layer. The additional language in the claims referring to the UAV machine body (and associated makeup) corresponds to the intended use of the claimed surface coating and as such, fails to further define the structure of the claimed surface coating (there is a distinction between a claim requiring a coating and a claimed requiring a coated UAV machine body).
Regarding claims 2-4, the claim limitations fail to further define the structure of the claimed surface coating.
With respect to claim 5, bonding layer 21 includes aluminum.
As to claim 6, any one of ceramic layer 32, reflective layer 4, and reverse reflection layer 5 can be viewed as the claimed thermal expansion coefficient buffer layer (claims as currently drafted fail to structurally distinguish the claimed buffer layer from the above noted layers).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, reflective layer 4 having a thickness between 10 and 30 microns can be viewed as the claimed oxygen propagation layer and such a layer includes RETaO4.
With respect to claim 12, ceramic layer 31 can be viewed as the claimed oxygen propagation layer and ceramic layer 32 can be viewed as the claimed heat-insulation cooling layer, wherein a combined thickness of these layers is between 150 and 500 microns. More particularly, ceramic layer 32 includes a rare earth tantalate ceramic material. In such an instance, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form ceramic layer 32 with a thickness between 80 microns and 1,000 microns (given a combined thickness of 150-500 microns).
Claim(s) 1-5, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nayak (US 9,790,587).
As best depicted in Figure 3, Nayak is directed to a coating comprising bonding layer 130, thermal barrier coating layer 122, protective coating 124, and top-coat layer 140. In terms of the claimed invention, bonding layer 130 corresponds with the claimed bonding layer, thermal barrier coating layer 122 corresponds with the claimed oxygen blocking propagation layer, protective coating 124 corresponds with the claimed heat-insulation cooling layer, and top coat layer 140 corresponds with the claimed antioxidant layer (claims as currently drafted fail to exclude viewing such a layer as an antioxidant layer- lack of limitations that structurally distinguish the claimed layer from the top coat layer of Nayak)
As to the thickness of respective layers, Nayak teaches the following:
Bonding layer 130 has a thickness between 25 microns and 500 microns (Column 8, Lines 65+,
Thermal barrier coating layer 122 has a thickness between 25 microns and 2,000 microns (Column 8, Lines 12+), and
Protective coating layer 124 has a thickness between 10 microns and 1,000 microns
Given the ranges disclosed above, it reasons that one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a combination of layers having the claimed thickness values and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results. It is emphasized that there is a significant overlap between the disclosed thickness values in Nayak and those required by the claimed invention.
Lastly, regarding claim 1, it is noted that the claims as currently drafted are directed to a surface coating comprising a bonding layer, an antioxidant layer, an oxygen propagation layer, and a heat-insulation cooling layer. The additional language in the claims referring to the UAV machine body (and associated makeup) corresponds to the intended use of the claimed surface coating and as such, fails to further define the structure of the claimed surface coating (there is a distinction between a claim requiring a coating and a claimed requiring a coated UAV machine body).
Regarding claims 2-4, the claim limitations fail to further define the structure of the claimed surface coating.
With respect to claim 5, bond layer 130 includes aluminum (Column 8, Lines 65+).
With respect to claims 12 and 13, protective coating 124 (claimed heat-insulation cooling layer) can include Gd3TaO7 (rare earth tantalate ceramic) or Gd3NbO7 (rare earth niobate ceramic) (Column 9, Lines 50-67).
Claim(s) 1-5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duderstadt (US 5,498,484).
As best depicted in Figure 4, Duderstadt is directed to a coating comprising a bond layer 30, an antioxidant layer 32, an oxygen propagation layer 24, and a heat-insulation cooling layer 26, wherein (a) said oxygen propagation layer has a thickness between approximately 25.4 microns and 127 microns (0.001-0.005 inches) (Column 6, Lines 60-67) and (b) said cooling layer has a thickness between approximately 127 microns and 508 microns (0.005-0.02 inches) (Column 7, Lines 10+). In such an instance, though, Duderstadt fails to teach a bond layer thickness.
It is noted, though, that antioxidant layer 32 is formed by oxidizing a surface of bond layer 30 in an analogous manner to the claimed invention. More particularly, an oxidized thickness (corresponds with thickness of layer 32) is preferably as high as 0.254 microns (0.00001 inches). This disclosure, along with the general dimensions depicted in Figure 4, suggests that bond layer 30 would have a thickness between 20 microns and 200 microns (oxidized layer 32 is clearly depicted as having an extremely small thickness and bond layer 30 appears to have a thickness on the same general order of propagation layer 24).
Lastly, regarding claim 1, it is noted that the claims as currently drafted are directed to a surface coating comprising a bonding layer, an antioxidant layer, an oxygen propagation layer, and a heat-insulation cooling layer. The additional language in the claims referring to the UAV machine body (and associated makeup) corresponds to the intended use of the claimed surface coating and as such, fails to further define the structure of the claimed surface coating (there is a distinction between a claim requiring a coating and a claimed requiring a coated UAV machine body).
Regarding claims 2-4, the claim limitations fail to further define the structure of the claimed surface coating.
With respect to claim 5, bond layer 30 includes aluminum (Column 8, Lines 1+).
As to claim 9, antioxidant layer 32 includes aluminum oxide (Column 7, Lines 60-67).
Claim(s) 9, 14, 15, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nayak as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Duderstadt.
Regarding claim 9, as detailed above, Nayak teaches a coating comprising a bond coat layer 130 formed with nickel aluminide (Column 8, Lines 65+). In such an instance, though, Nayak fails to disclose the presence of an antioxidant layer including aluminum oxide.
Duderstadt is similarly directed to a coating comprising a bond coat layer formed with nickel aluminide (Column 8, Lines 1+). Duderstadt further teaches an oxidizing step to form an antioxidant layer in order to provide a barrier against oxygen penetration (Column 8, Lines 56+). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to create an antioxidant layer on the bond layer of Nayak for the benefits detailed above.
Regarding claim 14, Duderstadt teaches an oxidizing step to form an antioxidant layer in order to provide a barrier against oxygen penetration (Column 8, Lines 56+). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to create an antioxidant layer on the bond layer of Nayak for the benefits detailed above. Additionally, Nayak suggests the use of any number of conventional techniques to apply the thermal barrier coating and the protective coating, including those required by the claimed invention (plasma spraying and electron beam physical vapor deposition) (Column 10, Lines 17-65). Although not expressly disclosed, it reasons that the bond layer of Nayak would similarly be coated or applied using any one of the disclosed conventional techniques. Also, any of the components disclosed in Column 9, Lines 30+ can be viewed as a UAV machine body.
With respect to claim 15, when including an antioxidant layer on bond layer 30, the modified coating of Nayak includes an oxygen propagation layer 122, a thermal expansion coefficient buffer layer 124 , and a heat-insulation cooling layer 140. Also, all of the above noted, conventional deposition techniques would be applicable to all of the layers in Nayak.
As to claim 17, the claims define broad ranges for parameters associated with electron beam physical vapor deposition and such ranges are consistent with those that are commonly used in vapor deposition processes. Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use conventional parameters in the electron beam vapor deposition process taught by Nayak.
Regarding claim 18, the antioxidant layer taught by Duderstadt has a thickness less than 0.3 microns as detailed above. Additionally, while Duderstadt teaches a temperature greater than that required by the invention (Column 8, Lines 56+), a fair reading of Duderstadt suggests the use of any number of process parameters to achieve an antioxidant layer including aluminum oxide. It is well known, for example, to vary additional parameters, such as duration and pressure, and such would affect the processing temperature. Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a temperature between 30°C and 300°C.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nayak and Duderstadt as applied in claim 14 above and further in view of Sato (US 2013/0095250) and Ge (CN 1361307).
As detailed above, any number of conventional deposition techniques would have been well within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art, including those required by the claimed invention. In terms of the process parameters, Sato evidences the conventional parameters associated with cold spraying (Paragraph 16) and Ge evidences the conventional parameters associated with atmospheric plasma spraying (claim 2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of known parameters for the respective deposition techniques absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 8 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art references of record fail to suggest, disclose, or teach the claimed combination of thermal expansion coefficients or the inclusion of RETa3O9 in the thermal expansion coefficient buffer layer.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 January 23, 2026