DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Applicant's submission filed on 9/30/25 has been entered. Claims 1, and 4-14 are currently pending examination, claims 2-3 have been canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4-6 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant’s original disclosure only appears to explicitly teach the precursors recited in claims 4-6 and 11-13 as alternative embodiments to that now amended into claim 1 (SiC and AlN) (See, [0017-0025]). The disclosure does not provide sufficient detail as to how to achieve forming the oxide layer by oxidation of the combination of the various alternative mullite precursors when used in multiple combination.
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.
Claim 14 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation humid air, and the claim also recites (air/H2O: 50/50 kPa) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination the narrower language is interpreted as at least inclusive of being merely exemplary.
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, 4-6, 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). {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)).
Claim 4: Luthra further teaches wherein the mullite precursor comprises alumina (see, for example, [0007], [0018], [0029]).
Claim 5: Luthra further teaches wherein the mullite precursor comprises aluminum boride (see, for example, [0029]).
Claim 6: Luthra further teaches intermetallic compound of silicon and/or aluminum (such as an alloy or silicide) (see, for example, abstract, [0007], [0018], [0029]).
Claim 10: Luthra further teaches wherein the bonding layer is obtained by chemical vapor deposition (see, for example, [0023]).
Claim(s) 1, and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as Luthra032 in view of Luthra. {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)).
Claim 4: Luthra032 further teaches wherein the mullite precursor comprises alumina (see, for example, [0008-10]).
Claim 5: Luthra further teaches wherein the mullite precursor comprises aluminum boride (see, for example, [0029]).
Claim 6: Luthra further teaches intermetallic compound of silicon and/or aluminum (such as an alloy or silicide) (see, for example, abstract, [0007], [0018], [0029]).
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 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 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 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Diss.
Claims 8-9: Luthra032 in view of Luthra 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) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luthra in view of Luthra032 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shim et al (US 2017/0073277; hereafter Shim).
Claims 11-12: Luthra in view of Luthra032 teach the method of claim 1 above wherein Luthra has taught a variety of mullite precursors including various aluminum sources can be utilized including aluminum (based) alloys within its bond coating (See, for example, [0018], [0029]). But it does not explicitly teach such precursors further comprise hafnium or titanium based alloys. Shim teaches a method of applying bond coatings comprising mullite precursor materials (such as various silicon containing components) between CMC substrates and overlying silicate based EBCS (See, for example, abstract, [0022-0030], [0033]). Shim further teaches wherein additional components including metals and / or alloys of hafnium and / or titanium can be added to bond coating to provide melting point depression and oxidation enhancement (see, for example, [0015], [0023-0027]). 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 a mullite precursor of hafnium-based alloy / titanium-based alloy into the silicon containing bond coating since such components would predictably aid in melting point depression and / or oxidation enhancement.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luthra032 in view of Luthra as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shim.
Claims 11-12: Luthra032 in view of Luthra teaches the method of claim 1 above wherein Luthra has taught a variety of mullite precursors including various aluminum sources can be utilized including aluminum (based) alloys within the bond coating (See, for example, [0018], [0029]). But it does not explicitly teach such precursors further comprise hafnium or titanium based alloys. Shim teaches a method of applying bond coatings comprising mullite precursor materials (such as various silicon containing components) between CMC substrates and overlying silicate based EBCS (See, for example, abstract, [0022-0030], [0033]). Shim further teaches wherein additional components including metals and / or alloys of hafnium and / or titanium can be added to bond coating to provide melting point depression and oxidation enhancement (see, for example, [0015], [0023-0027]). 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 a mullite precursor of hafnium-based alloy / titanium-based alloy into the silicon containing bond coating since such components would predictably aid in melting point depression and / or oxidation enhancement.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luthra in view of Luthra032 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Meschter et al (US 2012/0244383; hereafter Meschter).
Claim 13: Luthra in view of Luthra032 teaches the method of claim 1 above wherein Luthra has taught the mullite precursor includes a silicon source, further a silicon alloy (See, for example [0027], [0032]). But it is silent as to a particular alloy species, so it does not explicitly teach an SixMy alloy wherein M is a metal or rare earth. Meschter teaches a coating system, further comprising a silicon containing bond coatings and an overlying protective coating comprising rare earth (di)silicates for protection from hot corrosion (See, for example, abstract, [0018-0019]). Meschter further teaches wherein silicon sources for such silicon containing bond coatings similarly include silicon alloys, and further teaches wherein silicon-Al, -Cr, -Mg, -Ca, -Mo, and -Ti all serve predictably as silicon alloys for such applications (See, for example, [0018]). 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-Al, -Cr, -Mg, -Ca, -Mo, or -Ti as the silicon alloy since such silicon alloys serve predictably in silicon containing bond coatings for high temperature protective systems between CMC substrates and overlying RE(di) silicate EBCS, and 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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luthra032 in view of Luthra as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Meschter.
Claim 13: Luthra032 in view of Luthra teaches the method of claim 1 above wherein Luthra has further taught the silicon source of the mullite precursor can predictably comprise a silicon alloy (See, for example [0027], [0032]). But it is silent as to a particular alloy species, so it does not explicitly teach an SixMy alloy wherein M is a metal or rare earth. Meschter teaches a coating system, further comprising a silicon containing bond coatings and an overlying protective coating comprising rare earth (di)silicates for protection from hot corrosion (See, for example, abstract, [0018-0019]). Meschter further teaches wherein silicon sources for such silicon containing bond coatings similarly include silicon alloys, and further teaches wherein silicon-Al, -Cr, -Mg, -Ca, -Mo, and -Ti all serve predictably as silicon alloys for such applications (See, for example, [0018]). 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-Al, -Cr, -Mg, -Ca, -Mo, or -Ti as the silicon alloy since such silicon alloys serve predictably in silicon containing bond coatings for high temperature protective systems between CMC substrates and overlying RE(di) silicate EBCS, and 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 Luthra in view of Luthra032 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al (US 2003/0003329; hereafter Wang).
Claim 14: Luthra in view of Luthra032 teaches the method of claim 1 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 and humid air (90%H2O, 10%O2) as a means to properly assess the coatings suitability for service. 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(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luthra032 in view of Luthra as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saak.
Claim 14: Luthra032 in view of Luthra teaches the method of claim 1 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 (90%H2O, 10%O2) as a means to properly assess the coatings suitability for service. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1, filed 9/30/25, with respect to the 35 USC 102 (a)(1) rejections over Luthra have been fully considered and are persuasive, therefore these 102 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1, filed 9/30/25, with respect to the 35 USC 102 (a)(1) rejections over Luthra032 have been fully considered and are persuasive, therefore these 102 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/30/25 with respect to the combination of Luthra and Luthra032 as not suitably teaching the amended content of claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As described previously and above, Luthra and Luthra032 collectively have taught SiC and Aluminum nitride as suitable and predictable Si and Al precursors within silicon and aluminum containing bond coatings between CMC substrates and overlying RE(di)silicate EBCs. Further with respect to the argument that Luthra032 does not disclose that silicon carbide forms an oxide layer as recited in claim 1, the examiner maintains that as the same precursors (SiC / AlN) has been taught by Luthra / 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 inherently 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)).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (Luthra032 does not disclose or suggest silicon carbide in combination with aluminum nitride), 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). The rejection is over the combination of Luthra and Lutha023 not Luthra032 alone. As described in the preceding paragraph, when considering these two prior art references collectively SiC and Aluminum nitride have been demonstrated as suitable and predictable Si and Al precursors within silicon and aluminum containing bond coatings between CMC substrates and overlying RE(di)silicate EBCs. And 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).
As to the remaining dependent claims they remain rejected as no additional separate arguments are provided.
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 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