DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Applicant's amendment filed on June 29, 2026 was received. Claims 1, 5, 7, 10, 14 were amended. Claims 2, 4, 6, 11, 13 and 17-20 were canceled. No claim was added.
The text of those sections of Title 35. U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action Issued April 7, 2026.
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.
The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jackson (US20230044705) on claims 1-3 and 10-12 are withdrawn, because the claims have either been amended or canceled.
The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (US20220049340) on claims 1-4, 6 and 10-12 are withdrawn, because the claims have either been amended or canceled.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-10, 12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US20220049340) in view of Joost (WO2022026115).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a method of plasma spraying powders to form environmental barrier coating (EBC) on turbine engine components (paragraphs 0003-0005). Li teaches an abradable coating is formed by RE silicate (similar to the EBC) and to provide excellent CMA and water vapor resistance while providing good CTE match with the CMC substate substrate, which can lower thermal stress in the coatings and in the CMC seal segment and allow the CMC components to more safety operate in relatively higher temperature , steamy or dusty environment, provide better coating strength, better resistance to oxidation, water vapor and CMS attack (paragraph 0008), which reads on the definition of the EBC (paragraphs 0002-0003 and 0006). Li teaches to generate plasma stream using a plasma gun having a nozzle 40 through which the plasma jet is discharged (paragraphs 0043-0046 and 0071, figure 1). Li teaches to feed feedstock 21 (first powder) and 19/61 (second powder) into the plasma jet though the injector ports 20 (first distance from the nozzle) and injection port 18/62 (second distance from the nozzle) respectively, wherein the second distance is greater than said first distance so that the second power is introduced into the plasma jet a different point than which the first powder is introduced into the plasma jet (figure 1, paragraphs 0043, 0050, claims 8, 10-12).
Li does not explicitly teach the first and second powder are matrix material and a dislocated material, respectively. However, Joost teaches a method of forming a EBC coating on turbine component with plasma spraying (paragraphs 0003-0004 and 0028), similar to Li, Joost teaches an abradable coating is formed with material (matrix and disclocator materials) same as the EBC (pargraph 0057). Joost teaches the matrix forming powder and a filler powder (dislocator material) can be co-sprayed during the plasma coating (paragraph 0030), wherein the matrix forming material is the same as Li’s EBC/abradable coating material, rare-earth silicates (paragraphs 0006, 0008 and 0045). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a dislocator material into either the first or second powder to form as the filler in the EBC/abradable coating as suggested by Joost in the method of Li because Joost teaches such fillers produces a coating reduced open porosity relative to an abradable consisting of matrix and open porosity, this reduce opportunity for gas or other penetration toward the substrate (paragraph 0048).
It is noted that limitation regarding third powder is optional, thus, would not be required by claim 1. Such limitations will be addressed below when the limitations are required.
Regarding claim 3, Li teaches the matrix material is rare earth silicate. Joost teaches the matrix materials is Hf silicate, zirconium silicate, rare earth silicate, etc (paragraph 0045), while the dislocator is MWO4 or MMoO4, with M being alkaline earth such as Ca, Ba or Sr (paragraph 0050), thus, the first powder has a different morphology than the second powder.
Regarding claim 5, Li teaches a method of plasma spraying powders to form environmental barrier coating (EBC) on turbine engine components (paragraphs 0003-0005). Li teaches an abradable coating is formed by RE silicate (similar to the EBC) and to provide excellent CMA and water vapor resistance while providing good CE match with the CMC substate substrate, which can lower thermal stress in the coatings and in the CMC seal segment and allow the CMC components to more safety operate in relatively higher temperature , steamy or dusty environment, provide better coating strength, better resistance to oxidation, water vapor and CMS attack (paragraph 0008), which reads on the definition of the EBC (paragraphs 0002-0003 and 0006). Li teaches to generate plasma stream using a plasma gun having a nozzle 40 through which the plasma jet is discharged (paragraphs 0043-0046 and 0071, figure 1). Li teaches to feed feedstock 21 (first powder) and 19/61 (second powder) into the plasma jet though the injector ports 20 (first distance from the nozzle) and injection port 18/62 (second distance from the nozzle) respectively, wherein the second distance is greater than said first distance so that the second power is introduced into the plasma jet a different point than which the first powder is introduced into the plasma jet (figure 1, paragraphs 0043, 0050, claims 8, 10-12).
Li teaches the first and second powders have different compositions (claims 8, 10-12, paragraphs 0067-0071). Thus, Li teaches all the limitations of the claim, except the first powder and second powder (the rare earth silicate) are Hf or Zr silicate powder. However, Joost teaches a method of forming a EBC coating on turbine component with plasma spraying (paragraphs 0003-0004 and 0028), similar to Li, Joost teaches an abradable coating is formed with material (matrix and disclocator materials) same as the EBC (pargraph 0057). Joost discloses Hf, Zr and rare earth silicate are functionally equivalent silicate for the EBC/abradable matrix coating material on the turbine component (paragraphs 0045). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute Hf/Zr silicate for rare earth silicate as first and second powder in the method as disclosed by Li.
Regarding claim 7, Joost further teaches EBC can be applied with the same matrix material as abradable coating (RE silicate) with no fugitive (polymer pore forming powder) and less dislocator (paragraphs 0029 and 0057). Thus, Joost teaches a third powder is not introduced into the plasma jet, and wherein one of said first powder and second powder is a matric material and the other of said first powder and said second powder is dislocator material.
Regarding claim 8, Li teaches the matrix material is rare earth silicate. Joost teaches the matrix materials is Hf silicate, zirconium silicate, rare earth silicate, etc (paragraph 0045), while the dislocator is MWO4 or MMoO4, with M being alkaline earth such as Ca, Ba or Sr (paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 9, Joost teaches the dislocator is MWO4 or MMoO4, with M being alkaline earth such as Ca, Ba or Sr (paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 10, Li teaches to introduce a third powder into the plasma jet at a third distance from the nozzle of the plasma spray touch (powder 61 at nozzle 62), wherein the third distance is greater than said second distance so that the third powder is introduced into the plasma jet at a different point than which the first powder or the second powder is introduced into the plasma jet (figure 1, paragraphs 0050 and 0068, claims 8, 10-12).
Li teaches the first, second and third powder, with two of them being silicate (matrix material) and one being a polymer pore forming material (paragraphs 0067-0071, claims 8, 10-12). Thus, Li teaches all limitations of this claim, except one of the first powder and said second powder is dislocated material. However, Joost teaches a method of forming a EBC coating on turbine component with plasma spraying (paragraphs 0003-0004 and 0028), similar to Li, Joost teaches an abradable coating is formed with material (matrix and disclocator materials) same as the EBC (pargraph 0057). Joost discloses the matrix forming powder and a filler powder (dislocator material) can be co-sprayed during the plasma coating (paragraph 0030), wherein the matrix forming material is the same as Li’s EBC/abradable coating material, rare-earth silicates (paragraphs 0006 and 0045). Joost also teaches a polymer fugitive is included to form pore (paragraphs 0029, 0032 and 0004). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a dislocator material into either the first or second powder to form as the filler in the EBC coating as suggested by Joost in the method of Li because Joost teaches such fillers produces a coating reduced open porosity relative to an abradable consisting of matrix and open porosity, this recedes opportunity for gas or other penetration toward the substrate (paragraph 0048).
Regarding claim 12, Li teaches the first, second and third powders have different morphology/microstructure (paragraphs 0005 and 0045) and are different materials (first powder and second are silicates with different morphology and second powders can be polymer), thus, they are considered to have different morphology (claims 8, 10-12, paragraphs 0067-0071). Joost discloses the matrix forming powder, a filler powder (dislocator material) and fugitive pore forming material (polymer) (first, second and third powder) can be co-sprayed during the plasma coating (paragraph 0030), which have different morphologies.
Regarding claim 14, Li teachs the matrix material is rare earth silicates and the pore forming material is polymer (claims 8, 10-12). Joost teaches the matrix materials is Hf silicate, zirconium silicate, rare earth silicate, etc (paragraph 0045), while the dislocator is MWO4 or MMoO4, with M being alkaline earth such as Ca, Ba or Sr (paragraph 0050) and fugitive pore forming material is polymer (paragraph 0030).
Regarding claim 15, Joost teaches the dislocator is MWO4 or MMoO4, with M being alkaline earth such as Ca, Ba or Sr (paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 16, Li teaches the pore forming material is polyester (paragraph 0079). Joost teaches the fugitive pore forming material is polymer (paragraph 0030).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on June 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
Joost’s paragraphs 45 clearly states that the disclosure relates to abradable layer, not EBC; and HF, Zr and rare earth silicate have different reactive than rare earth which more influence the selection of hafnium or zirconium for a particular application, thus Hf, Zr and rare earth silicates are not functionally equivalent silicates.
Joost teaches using filler powder (dislocator material) in the abradable layer, not the EBC.
Inclusion of a dislocator material in the EBC layer of Li would be detrimental to the operation and function of Li’s EBC layer, as it would render the layer susceptible to damage and deterioration.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
Li teaches a method of plasma spraying powders to form environmental barrier coating (EBC) on turbine engine components (paragraphs 0003-0005). Li further teaches an abradable coating is formed by RE silicate, which is similar to the EBC (paragraph 0006), to provide excellent CMA and water vapor resistance while providing good CTE match with the CMC substate substrate, which can lower thermal stress in the coatings and in the CMC seal segment and allow the CMC components to more safety operate in relatively higher temperature , steamy or dusty environment, provide better coating strength, better resistance to oxidation, water vapor and CMS attack (paragraph 0008), which reads on the definition of the EBC (paragraphs 0002-0003 and 0006). Thus, Li teaches the RE silicate abradable coating is very similar to a EBC coating (formed by the similar material and same method). Joost teaches a method of forming a EBC coating on turbine component with plasma spraying (paragraphs 0003-0004 and 0028), similar to Li, Joost teaches an abradable coating is formed with material (matrix and disclocator materials) same as the EBC (pargraph 0057). Thus, Joost directly teaches the rare earth, hafnium or zirconium silicate are functionally equivalent matrix material for EBC/abradable coating (paragraph 0045). Joost teaching of Hf, Zr have different reactivities than rare earth which may influence the selection of Hf and Zr for a particular application does not render these rare earth, hafnium or zirconium silicate are not functionally equivalent in forming the abradable/EBC as they are both positively being recognized as the matrix materials.
Joost teaches dislocator/filler can be incorporated in both EBC and abradable coating (paragraph 0057).
As discussed above, Li’s abradable coating is also an EBC coating. Since Li actually teaches to form the REsilicate abradable coating (paragraph 0008), the combination with Joost, which also teaches to incorporate filler/dislocator in the silicate abradable/EBC would be reasonable.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGA LEUNG V LAW whose telephone number is (571)270-1115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 5712721295. 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.
/NGA LEUNG V LAW/ Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights