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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/5/26 has been entered.
Claims 1, 7-10, and 14 are currently pending examination, claims 2-6 and 11-13 have been canceled.
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 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luthra et al (US 2017/0218779; hereafter Luthra) in view of Luthra et al (US 2020/0199032; hereafter Luthra032) and Wang et al (US 2003/0003329; hereafter Wang). {Fukuzawa JPH1112050; citations directed to machine translation provided herein; hereafter Fukuzawa; relied upon as evidence only}.
Claim 1: Luthra teaches a method for depositing an environmental barrier on a part (102) made of ceramic matrix composite material comprising silicon carbide fibers (see, for example, abstract, [0025]), the method comprising:
obtaining a bonding layer (bond coat, 104) on at least one surface of the part, the bonding layer comprising a mullite precursor (such a silicon containing species and an aluminum containing dopant) (see, for example, abstract, [0007-0009], [0029] [0036-0037]);
obtaining a protective layer (such as top coat 106 or intermediate layer) on the bonding layer, the protective layer comprising a rare earth disilicate (see, for example, [0021-0022]);
Luthra further teaches wherein the bond coating comprises a variety of silicon containing species and an aluminum containing dopant, further Aluminum nitride (see, for example, abstract, [0007-0009], [0029], [0036-0037]). And teaches the silicon source is intended to react with oxygen to form protective oxides (see, for example, [0024-0026]. But it doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the silicon source comprises silicon carbide. Luthra032 teaches a method for depositing an environmental barrier on a part (102) made of ceramic matrix composite material comprising silicon carbide fibers (see, for example, abstract, [0030]). Luthra032 further teaches wherein its bond coating comprises silicon sources intended to getter oxygen and further teaches wherein silicon carbide is such a predictable silicon source to serve such a function (See, for example, [0010], [0033-0035]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated silicon carbide as the oxide forming species within the bond coating since it is known to perform predictably as other oxygen gettering silicon source materials in bond coatings between CMC / EBC and since where two known alternatives are interchangeable for a desired function, an express suggestion to substitute one for the other is not needed to render a substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297,301 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 568 (CCPA 1967).
forming an oxide layer at the interface of the bonding layer and the protective layer, the oxide layer being formed by oxidation of the mullite precursor of the bonding layer (See, for example, [0026] of Luthra); and the oxide layer comprising mullite (see, for example, [0026] and per evidence by {Fukuzawa} [0018] heating a mixture or adjacent alumina and silica sources, mullite is produced}; alternatively as the same precursors (Si and Al containing oxides / carbides / borides/ nitrides / alloys / intermetallics / SiC / AlN) has been taught by Luthra under exposure to high temperature oxidative conditions (such as those observed by the EBC coated components when in service) generating aluminum – silicon interlayer oxides, at least some degree of mullite would have been formed at the interface (Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition (such as SiC and AlN), or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Luthra in view of Luthra032 teaches the method above, but Luthra does not explicitly teach wherein the oxide layer is formed after oxidation for 500 hrs at 1300oC under humid air. Wang teaches a method for making and testing barrier coating systems comprising silicon / mullite containing bond coatings between CMC substrates and EBCS (See, for example, abstract, [0015-0017]). Wang further teaches subjecting such samples to oxidation testing for 500 hrs at 1300oC under humid air as a means to properly assess the coatings suitability for service (See, for example, [0029]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated oxidation for 500 hrs at 1300oC under humid air since such environmental testing conditions are conventional in the art to establish coating performance suitability.
Claim 10: Luthra further teaches wherein the bonding layer is obtained by chemical vapor deposition (see, for example, [0023]).
Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as Luthra032 in view of Luthra and Wang. {Fukuzawa relied upon as evidence only}.
Claim 1: Luthra032 teaches a method for depositing an environmental barrier on a part (102) made of ceramic matrix composite material comprising silicon carbide fibers (see, for example, abstract, [0030]), the method comprising:
obtaining a bonding layer (bond coat, 104) on at least one surface of the part, the bonding layer comprising a mullite precursor (mullite phase components) (such a alumina and silicon carbide) (see, for example, abstract, [0008-0010]);
obtaining a protective layer (such as EBC 108) on the bonding layer, the protective layer comprising a rare earth disilicate (see, for example, [0041]);
Luthra032 further teaches wherein the bond coating comprises a variety of silicon containing species, including SiC, and further teaches alumina as the Al source for the coating (see, for example, [0008-0010]). But it does not explicitly teach wherein the aluminum source comprises aluminum nitride Luthra teaches a method for depositing silicon containing bond coating and overlying environmental barrier on a part made of ceramic matrix composite material comprising silicon carbide fibers (see, for example, abstract, [0025]). Luthra further teaches wherein predictable alternative source materials for introducing aluminum into bond coat systems include alumina and aluminum nitride (See, for example, [0018], [0029]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated aluminum nitride as a mullite precursor / aluminum source species within the bond coating since it is known to perform predictably as an aluminum source alternative to alumina in bond coatings for EBC systems and since where two known alternatives are interchangeable for a desired function, an express suggestion to substitute one for the other is not needed to render a substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297,301 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 568 (CCPA 1967).
forming an oxide layer at the interface of the bonding layer and the protective layer, the oxide layer being formed by oxidation of the mullite precursor of the bonding layer (See, for example, Figure 6A-B- [0055-58] layer following thermal treatment is taught to be mullite); and per evidence by {Fukuzawa} [0018] heating a mixture or adjacent alumina and silica sources, mullite is produced}; alternatively as the same precursors (SiC and AlN )has been taught by Luthra032 under exposure to high temperature oxidative conditions (such as those observed by the EBC coated components when in service) generating aluminum – silicon interlayer oxides, at least some degree of mullite would have been formed at the interface (Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Luthra032 in view of Luthra teaches the method above, but Luthra032 does not explicitly teach wherein the oxide layer is formed after oxidation for 500 hrs at 1300oC under humid air. Wang teaches a method for making and testing barrier coating systems comprising silicon / mullite containing bond coatings between CMC substrates and EBCS (See, for example, abstract, [0015-0017]). Wang further teaches subjecting such samples to oxidation testing for 500 hrs at 1300oC and humid air as a means to properly assess the coatings suitability for service (see, for example, [0029]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated oxidation for 500 hrs at 1300oC under humid air since such environmental testing conditions are conventional in the art to establish coating performance suitability.
Claim 7: Luthra032 further teaches wherein the atomic ratio of aluminum: silicon of the mullite precursor is 3:2 (see, for example, [0009]).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luthra in view of Luthra032 and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Diss (WO 2014/053751; citations directed to machine translation provided herein; hereafter Diss).
Claims 8-9: Luthra in view of Luthra032 and Wang teach wherein the bonding and protective layer can be obtained by coating technology including spray, vapor, and slurry based processes (see, for example, [0023], but it does not explicitly teach flash sintering. Diss teaches a method of consolidation of barrier coatings, further mullite and disilicate, on CMC articles by flash sintering (see, for example, [0001-0002], [0094-0099]). Diss further teaches wherein flash sintering provides for greatly reduced ramp and sintering times, and reduced sintering temperatures while achieving densification and reaction ([0078], [0084], [0088]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated obtaining the coatings by flash sintering as it would predictably reduce ramp and sintering times, and reduced sintering temperatures.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luthra032 in view of Luthra and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Diss.
Claims 8-9: Luthra032 in view of Luthra and Wang teach wherein the bonding and protective layer can be obtained by coating technology including slurry based process followed by sintering (see, for example, [0053], but it does not explicitly teach flash sintering. Diss teaches a method of consolidation of barrier coatings, further mullite and disilicate, on CMC articles by flash sintering (see, for example, [0001-0002], [0094-0099]). Diss further teaches wherein flash sintering provides for greatly reduced ramp and sintering times, and reduced sintering temperatures while achieving densification and reaction ([0078], [0084], [0088]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated obtaining the coatings by flash sintering as it would predictably reduce ramp and sintering times, and reduced sintering temperatures.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luthra in view of Luthra032 and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pin et al (US 2019/0345074; hereafter Pin).
Claim 14: Luthra in view of Luthra032 and Wang teach the method of claim 1 (above), but it is silent as to the pressures involved during the oxidation testing, therefore it does not explicitly teach the oxidation is performed under a pressure of air of 50kPa and a pressure of H2O of 50 kPa. Pin teaches a method of forming an EBC system onto CMC articles, further comprising bonding and rare-earth disilicate layers (See, for example, abstract, [0001-0003],[0022-0026], Figures, claims). Pin, like Wang, teaches subjecting such coating systems to oxidation / corrosion testing in humid air, further at a pressure of 50 kPa H2O and 50 kPa of air, as a predictable means to properly assess the coatings suitability for service (see, for example, [0067]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated oxidation under a pressure of air of 50kPa and a pressure of H2O of 50 kPa since such environmental testing conditions are conventional in the art to establish coating performance suitability, and / or since when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luthra032 in view of Luthra and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pin.
Claims 8-9: Luthra032 in view of Luthra and Wang teach the method of claim 1 (above), but it is silent as to the pressures involved during the oxidation testing, therefore it does not explicitly teach the oxidation is performed under a pressure of air of 50kPa and a pressure of H2O of 50 kPa. Pin teaches a method of forming an EBC system onto CMC articles, further comprising bonding and rare-earth disilicate layers (See, for example, abstract, [0001-0003],[0022-0026], Figures, claims). Pin, like Wang, teaches subjecting such coating systems to oxidation / corrosion testing in humid air, further at a pressure of 50 kPa H2O and 50 kPa of air, as a predictable means to properly assess the coatings suitability for service (see, for example, [0067]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated oxidation under a pressure of air of 50kPa and a pressure of H2O of 50 kPa since such environmental testing conditions are conventional in the art to establish coating performance suitability, and / or since when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s cancelation of claims 4-6 and 11-13, filed 5/5/26, with respect to the 35 USC 112 (a) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive, therefore these 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 14, filed 5/5/26, with respect to the 35 USC 112 (b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive, therefore this 112b rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/5/26 with respect to the combination of Luthra / Luthra032 and Wang as not suitably teaching the amended content of claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “Wang employs [oxidation conditions] specifically to induce and evaluate coating failure…Wang neither discloses nor suggests forming such an oxide layer, nor does it recognize oxidation as a beneficial mechanism.” The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). So Wang does not have to teach the same reason as applicant for conducting the thermal treatment; as described previously and maintained herein, the motivation for incorporation of the thermal treatment step (per Wang) is as a means to properly assess the coatings suitability for service, as such, the combination with / reliance upon the teachings of Wang is apt. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (Wang does not disclose forming an oxide layer), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Considering the applied combination, Luthra and Luthra032 each teach oxidation of the precursors (See, for example, Luthra: [0026], and Luthra032: Figure 6A-B [0055-58] layer following thermal treatment is taught to be mullite) and further {Fukuzawa} @ [0018] evidences that heating a mixture of adjacent alumina and silica sources produce mullite}; alternatively as the same precursors (SiC and AlN )has been taught by Luthra / Luthra032 under exposure to high temperature oxidative conditions generating aluminum – silicon interlayer oxides, at least some degree of oxide layer would have been formed at the interface (Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)). Thus when considering the combination of the teachings of prior art, the examiner maintains reliance upon said combination is apt.
The newly added limitations of claim 14 are unconvincing in view of newly-incorporated Pin, as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN H EMPIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30AM - 4 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/NATHAN H EMPIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights