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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/28/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 10/28/2025, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendment to claims 23 and the cancellation of claim 31,33, 39-40and the addition of new claims 42-46. Claims 23-30, 34-38, 41-46 remain pending, with claims 34-38 and 41 withdrawn from consideration due to a restriction requirement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 10/28/2025, have been fully considered and are deemed moot as they are directed to newly added claim requirements that are specifically addressed hereinafter.
Applicant’s argues that the disclosed plasma source as the thermal source is different from a burner or a laser. The examiner disagrees and notes the cited prior art herein that discloses and/or makes obvious a plasma spraying including a burner as instantly claimed as evidenced by the cited prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
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 –
Claim(s) 23-28, 30 and 42-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bai et al. (Review of suspension and solution precursor plasma sprayed thermal barrier coatings), hereinafter Bai et al. as evidenced by WO 2013083671 A1, hereinafter WO 671.
Claim 23: Bai et al. discloses a method of applying a coating to a metallic substrate, comprising: providing a metallic substrate to be coated, inserting the metallic substrate into a reactive area of a thermal source, inserting precursor compounds into the reactive area of the thermal source to produce coating additives, and coating of the metallic substrate with the coating additives (Section 5.1, 5.2, Figures 11-15, Figure 18). Bai discloses the precursor compounds include solids dissolved in water (see Introduction as it relates to SPPS with water as solvent and Section 2.1). Bai et al. discloses the coating of the metallic substrate is within the reactive area of the thermal source (see Figure 11 and 15 and accompanying text, as the reactive “area” is broadly drafted and thus the area of the substrate of Figure 11 and 15 can be considered within the broadly drafted “reactive area”). Bai discloses the coating of the substrate is within the reactive area of the thermal source, the flame of the plasma, see Figure 11. Bai et al. discloses a continuous liquid jet or linear speed of the jet, i.e. what can reasonably be considered partially automated (see 2.2.2, Table 1).
As for the requirement of a burner and a flame as claimed, the examiner cites here WO 671 which disclose the components of a plasma spray system includes a burner and a flame (See Embodiment, stating “the plasma spraying device 3 (burner) for generating the process jet 2 or the plasma flame 2 'is provided on a burner shaft 30 of the plasma spraying device 1”). Therefore by disclosing a plasma spraying, the examiner notes that the prior art disclosure meets the burner and flame as broadly drafted.
Claim 24: Bai et al. discloses preparing the metallic substrate for coating of the metallic substrate comprising pre-treating the metallic substrate (Figure 15, see e.g. bond coat). The scope of the claims is broadly drafted and does not define the pretreating that is within the scope of this claim and thus pretreating the substrate can include any number of steps, including moving or heating as taught by Bai et al.
Claim 25: Bai et al. discloses coating of the metallic substrate occurs at a substrate temperature between 0° C. and 800° C (see Table 1).
Claim 26: Bai et al. discloses the inserting the precursor compounds into the reactive area of the thermal source is through a dosing device (Figure 11 and 14, see device for supplying solution/suspension).
Claim 27: Bai et al. discloses inserting the precursor compounds into the reactive area of the thermal source comprises adding at least one of: inert gases (Bai et al. disclose argon at 2.2.1)
Claim 28 and 42: Bai et al. discloses the compounds are nanoparticles with a particle size of e.g. few tens of nanometers, see Section 3 or nano solid particles at section 2.1. This disclosure meets the claimed requirements.
Claim 30: Bai et al. discloses a process that results in coating of the metallic substrate is a partial coating (See Figure 15, coating on one surface is a partial coating as claimed).
Claim 43: Bai discloses the precursor compounds include solids dissolved in water (see Introduction as it relates to SPPS with water as solvent and Section 2.1), where water is an oxidizing chemical as claimed.
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) 23-30 and 42-43, 45-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over US 8629371 by Oberste-Berghaus et al. taken with Bai et al. or vice versa each further in view of WO 671 or Pawlowski (Suspension and solution thermal spray coatings).
Claim 23: Oberste-Berghaus et al. discloses a method of applying a coating to a metallic substrate, comprising: providing a metallic substrate to be coated, inserting the metallic substrate into a reactive area of a thermal source, inserting precursor compounds into the reactive area of the thermal source to produce coating additives, and coating of the metallic substrate with the coating additives (Figure 1 and accompanying text, Figure 2, Example 1 and 2). Oberste-Berghaus et al. discloses the coating of the metallic substrate is within the reactive area of the thermal source (see Figure 1 and accompanying text, as the reactive “area” is broadly drafted and thus the area of the substrate of Figure 1 can be considered within the broadly drafted “reactive area”).
Oberste-Berghaus et al. discloses the compounds are nanoparticles with a particle size of e.g. 29-80 nm at Example 1 and similar sizes are taught at Example 2); however, fails to disclose the precursor compounds comprise solid dissolved in water. However, Bai, also in the art of applying a coating to a metallic substrate discloses the precursors compounds supplied to the thermal source include suspensions or solution precursors (see Introduction). Bai discloses the suspensions include nanoparticles with a water solvent and discloses the suspensions are prepared by dissolving submicron or nanoparticle solids in water (see section 2.1). Therefore, taking the references collectively, providing the precursors compounds via a dissolved solid in water would have been obvious as a known method for supply precursors to a thermal spraying process.
Alternatively, Bai discloses a method for supplying solutions, including dissolving metal precursors in a solvent, water (section 2.1, Introduction), and supplying such to the thermal source for deposition and depositing such on a metallic substrate (see e.g. Figure 15). Bai discloses using this method in the alternative to coating using solid particles or suspension and therefore taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Oberste-Berghaus et al. to use the dissolved metal salt in water as such is illustrated by Bai as known alternative and predictable results would have followed (i.e. deposition of a layer onto a metallic substrate).
As for the requirement of a burner and flame, while the examiner maintains that such are necessarily present in a plasma spray system disclosed by Oberste-Berghaus et al. and Bai, WO 671, also in the art of plasma spraying a coating onto a substrate and discloses the components of a plasma spray system includes a burner and a flame (See Embodiment, stating “the plasma spraying device 3 (burner) for generating the process jet 2 or the plasma flame 2 'is provided on a burner shaft 30 of the plasma spraying device 1”). Therefore, taking the references collectively and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art, modification of Oberste-Berghaus et al. with Bai or via versa to include a “burner” and a “flame” would have been obvious as WO 671 discloses a plasma spray system known in the art to include a burner and flame as instantly claimed. Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR Int'l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d.
Alternatively, examiner cites here Pawlowski, also in the art of thermal spray coatings using a liquid or suspension and discloses the use of flame (see abstract), including for depositing TBC coatings (see 8.3) and a torch (see Figure 11a or Figure 12a), where the torch can reasonably be considered the claimed burner. As such, taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to have modified Oberste-Berghaus et al. with Bai or via versa to include a “burner” and a “flame” would have been obvious as WO 671 discloses a thermal spray system for solutions or suspensions are known in the art to include a burner and flame as instantly claimed.
Claim 24: Oberste-Berghaus et al. discloses preparing the metallic substrate for coating of the metallic substrate comprising pre-treating the metallic substrate (Example 1, Example 2, see heating the substrate). The scope of the claims is broadly drafted and does not define the pretreating that is within the scope of this claim and thus pretreating the substrate can include any number of steps, including moving or heating as taught by Oberste-Berghaus et al.
Claim 25: Oberste-Berghaus et al. discloses coating of the metallic substrate occurs at a substrate temperature between 0° C. and 800° C (example 1 at 200C and example 2 at 400 or 300C, each of which reads on the claim scope). The temperature of the substrate is taught as being within the range as claimed and therefore additionally makes obvious the claimed range (i.e. 200, 300 and 400C).
Claim 26: Oberste-Berghaus et al. discloses the inserting the precursor compounds into the reactive area of the thermal source is through a dosing device (examples 1 and 2 related to injection orifice).
Claim 27: Oberste-Berghaus et al. discloses inserting the precursor compounds into the reactive area of the thermal source comprises adding at least one of: inert gases (nitrogen gas, reasonably inert gas as claimed) and further additives (ethanol additive), see examples. Oberste-Berghaus et al. disclose argon at column 6, lines 62-64.
Claim 28 and 42: Oberste-Berghaus et al. discloses the compounds are nanoparticles with a particle size of e.g. 29-80 nm at Example 1 and similar sizes are taught at Example 2). This disclosure meets the claimed requirements.
Claim 29: Oberste-Berghaus et al. discloses all that is taught above and discloses inserting the precursor compounds into the reactive area; however, fails to disclose the claimed outflow rate. However, the outflow rate of the precursor compounds would have been recognized as a result effective variable, directly affecting the coating (too little precursor will not provide enough material for deposition and too much material detrimental to the process). As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined the outflow rate through routine experimentation to reap the benefits of depositing the desired coating on the substrate.
Claim 30: Oberste-Berghaus et al. discloses a process that results in coating of the metallic substrate is a partial coating (See Figure 1, coating on one surface is a partial coating as claimed).
Claim 42: Bai discloses the precursor compounds include solids dissolved in water (see Introduction as it relates to SPPS with water as solvent and Section 2.1)
Claim 43: Bai discloses the precursor compounds include solids dissolved in water (see Introduction as it relates to SPPS with water as solvent and Section 2.1), where water is a known oxidizing chemical as claimed. Pawlowski discloses air (Section 4. Transport and injection of liquids into jets and flames, and Figure 12a, compressed air), where air is a known to include oxygen.
Claim 45: Oberste-Berghaus et al. discloses the coatings are grey in color (Example 1) and thus the includes the presence of a colorant as broadly drafted by the applicant (i.e. the color has a grey color and thus must include some colorant material). As the applicant’s have broadly drafted the claims to merely require a generic colorant and does not define such, the prior art that discloses a color meets this broadly drafted requirement.
Claim 46: Pawlowski discloses a particles size that overlaps the range as claimed (see Figure 22 and accompanying text) and discloses the result effective nature of such and therefore it would have been obvious to have determined the optimum particle size to provide the optimum coating (see section 6.1 related to the relationship between particle size and splashing/velocity). The outflow rate of the precursor compounds would have been recognized as a result effective variable, directly affecting the coating (too little precursor will not provide enough material for deposition and too much material detrimental to the process). As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined the outflow rate through routine experimentation to reap the benefits of depositing the desired coating on the substrate. See also Pawlowski at section 4, (“The flowrate of delivered liquid is controlled”), illustrating the desire to control the flow of the liquid into the jet, which would encompass the outflow as claimed.
Claim(s) 23-30 and 42-43, 45-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberste-Berghaus et al. with Bai and Pawlowski taken with DE 102017216139, hereinafter DE 139.
Claims 23-30 and 42-43, 45-46: While the examiner maintains the position as set forth above, the examiner cites here DE 139, which discloses a dosing device that adds the precursor compounds into the reactive area (figure 1 and accompanying text) and thus it would have been obvious to use the dosing device as taught by DE 139 with a reasonable expectation of predictable results in the addition of the precursors to the chamber.
While the examiner maintains the position as set forth above, the examiner notes DE 139 discloses the coating of the substate is within the reactive area (see Figure 1) and thus using such an arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a known and suitable method for coating.
Claim 24: While the examiner maintains the position as set forth above, the examiner cites here DE 139, which discloses cleaning the substrate prior to deposition using thermal spraying (0052) and therefore taking the references collectively and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to have cleaned the substrate as such is a known pretreatment for the substrate to prepare for coating.
Claim(s) 29 and 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over Bai et al.
Claim 29: Bai et al. discloses all that is taught above and discloses inserting the precursor compounds into the reactive area; however, fails to disclose the claimed outflow rate. However, discloses the precursor feed rate is a result effective variable (Section 5.2 stating “role of precursor feed rate on the formation of vertically cracked coatings”). Additionally, the outflow rate of the precursor compounds would have been recognized as a result effective variable, directly affecting the coating (too little precursor will not provide enough material for deposition and too much material detrimental to the process). As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined the outflow rate through routine experimentation to reap the benefits of depositing the desired coating on the substrate.
Claim 33: While the examiner maintains the position as set forth above; however, additionally, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to partially automate the process (such as to provide flow or speed as indicated by Bai), since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic method to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberste-Berghaus et al. with Bai and Pawlowski alone or taken with DE 139 each further in view of EP-0413296-A1, hereinafter EP 296.
Oberste-Berghaus et al. with Bai and Pawlowski alone or taken with DE 139 discloses all that is taught above and discloses depositing an oxide material via thermal/plasma spraying and discloses including air/oxygen; however, fails to disclose the inclusion of ozone or H2O2. However, EP 296 also in the art of depositing an oxide material via thermal/plasma spraying and discloses including air or ozone into the jet so as to provide additional oxygen source to the thermal spray system (pages 2-3) and therefore taking the references collectively and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to have modified Oberste-Berghaus et al. with Bai and Pawlowski alone or taken with DE 139 to include ozone, as Pawlowski discloses air enrichment for depositing oxide materials and EP 296 discloses that oxide deposition via thermal spraying and including air and/or ozone as means for controlling the oxygen content in the deposited film.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 571-272-5166. 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718