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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment submitted 02/18/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 5-8, 11-15, and 18-20 remain pending. Claims 3-4, 9-10, and 16-17 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive. However, the amendments to the claims have changed the scope of the claims necessitating new grounds of rejection. Please see new grounds of rejection below.
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 14-15 and 18-20 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the 90⁰+/-5⁰ angle". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim which renders the claim indefinite as the angle has not been defined in the claim making the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
Claims 15 and 18-20 depend from claim 14 and inherit a deficiencies of the parent 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200025014 to Farris in view of US 20100098923 to Freling.
Regarding claim 1:
Farris discloses a process of preventing spallation (Par 0030) for a geometrically segmented (see abstract) thermally insulating top coat (top coat 52 comprising thermally insulating layers 58, Par 0022, Fig 3) on an article, the process comprising:
forming a surface feature (protrusions 60, Fig 3) with a surface feature tip (radially inner surface of protrusions 60, Fig 3) on a surface of the article (Fig 3);
the surface comprises a surface of a bond coat disposed on a substrate of the article (“bond coat”, Par 0022),
disposing the thermally insulating topcoat over the surface feature (Fig 3); and
forming segmented portions that are separated by faults (faults 62, Fig 3, Par 0025) extending through the thermally insulating topcoat from the surface feature tip (Fig 3).
Farris does not disclose during disposing the thermally insulating topcoat over the surface feature, controlling a plasma spray process to project molten droplets of the thermally insulating topcoat material at an angle of 90⁰+/-5⁰ relative to a top surface of the surface feature.
Freling is also in the field of coatings (see title) and teaches controlling a plasma spray process to project molten droplets of a thermally insulating topcoat material at an angle of 90⁰ (Par 0026).
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 process as disclosed by Farris with the above aforementioned controlling a plasma spray process step as taught by Freling for the purpose of producing vertical crack propagation (Par 0025).
Regarding claims 6-7:
Farris as modified by Freling teaches the process according to claim 1.
Farris further discloses:
wherein the article is a gas turbine engine component (Par 0003); and
wherein the gas turbine engine component is a seal (Par 0003).
Claim(s) 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200025014 to Farris in view of US 20100098923 to Freling as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 8770927 to Strock.
Regarding claim 2:
Farris as modified by Freling teaches the process according to claim 1.
Farris suggests (Par 0025) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the surface feature comprises a pyramid shape.
Strock is also in the field of coatings (see abstract) and teaches a surface feature comprising a pyramid shape (pyramids 66a/76a, Figs 3/5-7).
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 surface feature as disclosed by Farris to have a pyramid shape as taught by Strock for the purpose of reducing heat generation, thermal expansion, and rub forces (Col 1 Lns 46-48).
Regarding claim 5:
Farris as modified by Freling teaches the process according to claim 1.
Farris suggests (Par 0025) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the surface feature comprises a pyramid shape including a surface feature base width and a surface feature tip width, wherein a ratio of the surface feature base width to the surface feature tip width comprises from 0.0 to 0.22.
Strock is also in the field of coatings (see abstract) and teaches a surface feature comprising a pyramid shape (pyramids 66a/76a, Figs 3/5-7) including a surface feature base width (base width of pyramid in a longitudinal direction of the pyramid, Fig 6) and a surface feature tip width (width of pyramid tip in a direction substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the pyramid, Fig 6), wherein a ratio of the surface feature base width to the surface feature tip width comprises from 0.0 to 0.22 (Col 2 Lns 2-4; reasonably disclosed in Fig 6)
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 surface feature as disclosed by Farris to have a pyramid shape as taught by Strock for the purpose of reducing heat generation, thermal expansion, and rub forces (Col 1 Lns 46-48).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 11-13 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the closest prior art is US 20200025014 to Farris (see rejections above) however the prior art does not disclose nor teach wherein the thermally insulating topcoat without bridging between a portion of the thermally insulating topcoat that builds-up in valleys between the surface features and a portion on top of the surface features.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin A Pruitt whose telephone number is (571)272-8383. The examiner can normally be reached T-F 8:30am - 6:30pm.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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 A PRUITT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights