DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 03/19/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no rationale or how CMC can be formed by applying an EBC to a CMC using CVD or plasma spray. In regards to applicant’s arguments that the inventions do not have a burden of being distinct, this is not found persuasive because the product, or CMC, can be in fact, be formed by another materially different process, for example, the CMC product could have laminated a previously expanded EBC onto the CMC substrate in lieu of claim 1 teaching depositing the EBC onto the substrate and then heat expanding the coating.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iurlaro [US 20230121607] in view of Zhang [EP 2698446].
Claim 1: Iurlaro teaches a method for forming a protective coating for aircraft engine components [title] from heat, corrosion and etc. [0003], wherein the protective coating (environmental barrier coating or EBC) comprises intumescent material [0014] and the protective coating may be heated which in turn expand the intumescent material [0015]. However, Iurlaro does not appear to teach the aircraft component is a ceramic matrix composite (CMC) substrate. Zhang is provided.
Zhang teaches crack resistance environmental barrier coatings [abstract] wherein ceramic matrix composites (CMCs) are a class of materials that are used for many gas turbine components used in higher temperature of gas turbine engines [0003]. Zhang also teaches EBCs can provide a seal against corrosive conditions [0004]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the aircraft engine component of Iurlaro can include gas turbine engine components made of CMCs since Zhang teaches this class material is well known in the art to be paired with protective coatings such as EBCs.
Claim 2: Iurlaro teaches the intumescent may be of polymer or of minerals [0035].
Claim 3: Iurlaro teaches the intumescent materials may be of polymer [0035].
Claim 4: Iurlaro teaches the intumescent materials may be of polymer [0035].
Claim 6: Iurlaro teaches the intumescent materials may be of polymer [0035].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iurlaro in view of Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sandhar [US 20220305765].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the limitations of claim 5. Sandhar is provided.
Claim 5: Sandhar teaches intumescent materials may include expandable graphite and polyamide [0023]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide polyamide as another intumescent material since Ssandhar teaches it is another operable and known intumescent material.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iurlaro in view of Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu [US 20220297345].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the limitations of claim 7. Liu is provided.
Claim 7: Liu teaches CMC includes ceramic fibers such as bundles of filaments disposed in a ceramic matrix; one example includes SiC fibers in a SIC matrix [0026]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide SiC fibers as bundles of filament in a tow since the prior art does not provide further details of the CMC and Liu teaches these types of CMC materials are well known in the art.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iurlaro in view of Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Weidinger [US 20120135202] and Turpin [US 6238594].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the limitations of claims 8-9. Weidinger and Turpin are provided.
Claims 8-9: Weidinger teaches intumescent compounds can be located on the top coating or on an intermediate layer [0027; Fig. 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide these intumescent compounds either in the top coating or in the bond coating since Weidinger teaches the intumescent material can be included in variety of the coatings which can contribute to the mechanical strength as well as fire retarding properties [0027]. However, Weidinger does not appear to teach the volume % range. Turpin teaches intumescent material can have about 4-60 weight percent [col 4, ln 37-55]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the intumescent material amount through routine experimentation as result effective variable so as to reduce cost [col 4, ln 30-33] while also provide sufficient fire retarding properties.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iurlaro in view of Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Langille [US 20030151034].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the limitations of claims 10-11. Langille is provided.
Claim 10-11: Langille teaches intumescent material can have an average size of 50-500 microns [abstract]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the claimed powder range since Langille teaches an overlapping range is a known average size for intumescent powder and the prior art does not provide further details.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iurlaro in view of Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Acharya [US 20190144625].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the limitations of claim 12. Acharya is provided.
Claim 12: Acharya teaches depending on the intumescent material used, temperatures for expansion can vary [0033], where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the temperature of the heat treatment for expansion for the intumescent material through routine experimentation since Acharya teaches this parameter is result effective on rates of expansion [0036-0037].
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-12 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 18/678693 in view of Iurlaro.
The copending application teaches applying a coating comprising intumescent onto a coated ceramic matrix and then heating the coating to expand the intumescent material [cl 1]; however, does not explicitly teach the coating is a EBC coating. Iurlaro is provided, where Iurlaro teaches the protective coating (EBC) comprising intumescent material may be coated onto an aircraft component [title]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the coating as an EBC since Iurlaro teaches such coatings can be used as EBC on an aircraft substrate.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDY C LOUIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 1:00PM to 4:00PM PT.
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, Timothy Meeks can be reached at (571)272-1423. 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.
/MANDY C LOUIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights