DETAILED ACTION
The claims 1-20 are pending and presented for the examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/22/2024 and 10/27/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
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:
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.
Claims 1 and 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joost et al (WO 2022026115 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Joost et al teaches a coated substrate wherein the coating comprises a matrix component along with a filler component. The matrix component can be Y2Si2O7 or Yb2Si2O7 (see Tables II and III). Joost et al teaches that the filler component acts as a dislocator in the matrix (see paragraph 0047). Joost et al teaches that the dislocator filler component has a Mohs hardness of 3.8-5.2 (see paragraph 0050) and can be present in an amount of up to 40 vol% (see Abstract). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare an embodiment from the Joost et al teachings wherein the matrix is chosen as one of the aforementioned disilicates from the small and finite list of options present and wherein the filler/dislocator is present in an amount of 40 vol%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that;
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003).
Also, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, when general conditions are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by changing the size, the proportion, the shape, and/or the sequence of added ingredients through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A) - In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 and MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A) - In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976).
Joost et al teaches that the porosity of the inventive coating is 5.0-20% (see claim 3). Similarly to above, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill to select from this overlapping range and produce a coating having a porosity of 10.0% or less.
Each limitation of instant claim 1 is thus met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 4, Joost et al teaches that the matrix component can be Y2Si2O7 or Yb2Si2O7.
Regarding claim 5, Joost et al teaches that the dislocator filler component has a Mohs hardness of 3.8-5.2.
Regarding claim 6, because, as discussed above, Joost et al teaches a range for Mohs hardness of the filler component that significantly overlaps the range of the instant claim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at a coating that comprises a filler having a Mohs hardness of 5.0 of less through routine optimization and experimentation with said range.
Regarding claim 7, Joost et al teaches that the filler (dislocator) component in the inventive coating can be a rare earth phosphate. This is an equivalent filler to those instantly claimed, and as such this equivalent material would necessarily have an equivalent CTE. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding claim 8, Joost et al teaches that the filler component can comprise a rare earth phosphate (see Abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Joost et al teaches a matrix amount of 40-70 vol% (see paragraph 0058). As discussed above, Joost et al teaches a filler content of up to 40%.
Regarding claim 10, Joost et al teaches that the matrix material may be a hafnium silicate such as HfSiO4 (see paragraph 0045). Thus, a hafnon matrix is taught. Joost et al teaches that the dislocator filler component has a Mohs hardness of 3.8-5.2. This range overlaps and thus renders obvious the range of instant claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Joost et al teaches that the porosity of the inventive coating is 5.0-20% (see claim 3). This range overlaps and thus renders obvious the range of instant claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Joost et al teaches a coated substrate wherein the coating comprises a matrix component along with a filler component. The matrix component can be Y2Si2O7 or Yb2Si2O7 (see Tables II and III). Joost et al teaches that the filler component acts as a dislocator in the matrix (see paragraph 0047). Joost et al teaches that the dislocator filler component has a Mohs hardness of 3.8-5.2 (see paragraph 0050) and can be present in an amount of up to 40 vol% (see Abstract). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare an embodiment from the Joost et al teachings wherein the matrix is chosen as one of the aforementioned disilicates from the small and finite list of options present and wherein the filler/dislocator is present in an amount of 40 vol%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that;
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003).
Also, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, when general conditions are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by changing the size, the proportion, the shape, and/or the sequence of added ingredients through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A) - In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 and MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A) - In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976).
Joost et al teaches that the porosity of the inventive coating is 5.0-20% (see claim 3). Similarly to above, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill to select from this overlapping range and produce a coating having a porosity of 10.0% or less.
Each limitation of instant claim 12 is thus met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 13, Joost et al teaches that the inventive coated article can be a blade outer airseal (see paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 14, Joost et al teaches that the blade outer airseal article interfaces with a second article that is a blade (see paragraphs 0043 and 0044). In these embodiments, the coating on said blade outer airseal would be in an area of rub interaction with said blade.
Regarding claim 15, Joost et al teaches an EBC positioned between the substrate and the abradable coating (see paragraph 0055).
Regarding claim 16-17, Joost et la teaches that the substrate can comprises a bond coat in conjunction with an EBC layer. These two coating layers together can be considered to function in an environmental barrier capacity, and thus the EBC of Joost et al meets the further limitations of claims 16 and 17.
Regarding claim 18, as discussed above, Joost et al teaches a substrate coating meeting each limitation of the instant claim. Joost et al further teaches a method wherein said coating is applied to a ceramic matrix composite (see claim 10). Each limitation of claim 18 is therefore met by the prior art teachings, and the claim is not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 19, Joost et al teaches that the matrix and filler components are coated simultaneously (see claim 24).
Regarding claim 20, Joost et al teaches an EBC positioned between the substrate and the abradable coating (see paragraph 0055).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 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, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest an abradable coating meeting each limitation of instant claim 1, and wherein the matrix component of the coating is a mixture of hafnon and zircon with a molar ration of hafnon to zircon of 2:1 to 4:1, or of 7:3 to 3:1.
Conclusion
8. Claims 1 and 4-20 are rejected. Claims 2-3 are objected to.
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NOAH S WIESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
NSW23 July 2026
Prosecution Insights