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 .
The amendment of December 5, 2025 has been received and entered. With the entry of the amendment, claim 3 is canceled, claim 4 is withdrawn and claims 1-2 are pending for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 4 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on September 12, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 1-3 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn due to the amendments of December 5, 2025.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skoog et al (US 2006/0222777) in view of VanEvery (US 2015/0086725), Fauchais, et al “What Do We Know, What are the Current Limitations of Suspension Plasma Spraying” (hereinafter Fauchais article) and Browning (US 5372857).
Claim 1: Skoog teaches a method for applying a thermal barrier coating (note 0021). The process includes providing a step of forming a top coat layer on a bond coat layer formed on a heat resistant alloy (note nickel based alloy material, indicated as the heat resistant alloy in claim 1) (note 0023, as to the substrate, 0020, 0024, bond coat, 0021). The step of forming the top coat layer can be by forming the top coat layer by thermal spraying a suspension, which contains ceramic powder, with atmospheric plasma spraying, where the suspension is shown as being injected downstream of the nozzle of a thermal spray gun into the plasma flame blown from the spray gun and putting particles into the plasma flame to be directed to the substrate (note figure 2, 0006, suspension plasma spraying, 0018, 0021, using an atmospheric plasma spray gun, which would at least suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art to use atmospheric plasma spraying as the spray gun is described for such use, 0022, 0025). Skoog allows for additional material to be added to the flame after the suspension injected (note figure 3, 0036, in this case additional powder).
Skoog does not teach providing the forming of the top coat with the suspension plasma spraying where during the thermal spraying, cooling a portion of the plasma flame by supplying water as a cooling fluid toward the plasma flame, with a supply rate of 25-100 ml/min.
However, VanEvery provides for a thermal spraying process (note 0018), where it is noted that thermal spraying can include using a plasma for spraying (note 0005), where the process can include spraying a suspension of particles in a liquid medium (note 0008, claim 6), where it is indicated that particles typically spread out in the thermal spray space, where larger and heavier particles tend to penetrate farther through the gas column (thermal spray jet) and travel outside the core region into a cooler and slower region, where the particles in the cooler region do not receive enough heat and form a suboptimal deposit, and the smaller and lightest particles also give a similar problem of forming a suboptimal deposit around the core region (note figure 1, 0009). VanEvery indicates to inject water coolant into the outer periphery of the thermal spray jet blown from a nozzle of a thermal spray gun during the thermal spraying in order to cool particles in the outside periphery of the thermal spray so that they do not adhere to the substrate and cause suboptimal deposits (note 0031, 0034, claims 1, 11). The liquid can be injected after the particles/suspension are injected toward the jet (note figures 3, 4, for example).
Fauchais article describes how one can provide suspension plasma spraying (note the abstract) and that injecting water at 22 ml/min to the plasma jet provides significant cooling of the jet, including at the outer periphery (note page 1123, figure 3).
Browning also describes how outer periphery/regions of a jet from a thermal spray gun can be cooled by providing water in the outer periphery/regions of the jet blown from the thermal spray gun (note figure 1 and column 3, lines 1-25), where the process can be used for plasma spraying with a plasma spray jet (note column 4, lines 50-60), and water can be feed into the hot gases surrounding the jet core (note column 4, lines 60-68). Browning describes different amounts of water used, such as 2-3 pounds/min or 1-1.5 pounds/min (note column 3, lines 60-68 and column 4, lines 20-35), where the amount used would vary based on the amount of BTU from the jet and the amount of cooling desired (note column 3, lines 60-68, column 4, lines 20-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Skoog to inject water toward the plasma flame blown from a nozzle of a thermal spray gun during the plasma spraying of the top coating to cool a portion of the flame, with the amount of water in the claimed range as suggested by VanEvery, Fauchais article and Browning with an expectation of providing a desirably better coating without suboptimal particles included that give a worse coating, since Skoog describes suspension plasma spraying of thermal barrier coating, with injection of suspension downstream of the spray nozzle/gun and VanEvery teaches that in a similar apparatus set up that can provide suspension plasma spraying, it is desirable to provide a downstream (from the suspension injection) injection of cooling fluid such as water that helps cool particles toward and into the outer periphery of the jet blown from a nozzle of a thermal spray gun to help prevent suboptimal particles from becoming part of the coating, and the cooling that would cool particles also understood to cool the outer region of the jet, giving the cooling action/material that would be present, and also as indicated by Fauchais article which indicates how injection of water would cool a plasma jet, and further as to the supply rate of the cooling liquid, Fauchais and Browning would indicate how different amounts of water can be used to cool a plasma jet, with Browning indicating that the amount would be adjusted based on the amount of cooling needed, heat of the jet, etc., thus suggesting to optimize to find the best amount needed, which would give a value in the claimed range.
The Examiner notes that the test results provide in the specification would not show criticality as test results near but outside the end points of 25 ml/min and 100 ml/min not provided, and also it is not shown that these ranges would be critical under all conditions allowed by the claims, such as different plasma jets with different temperatures that can be used, different suspension liquids, etc. A showing commensurate in scope with what is claimed has not been made. Note MPEP 716.02(d).
Claim 2: As to the ceramic powder material, Skoog notes that ceramic material can be used, and notes using YSZ (note 0025), described as yttrium stabilized zirconia (note claim 11). Fauchais article also notes YSZ for thermal barrier coating material would include yttria stabilized zirconia that can be used for suspension plasma spraying (page 1127, section 7.2), so at the least it would be suggested that yttria stabilized zirconia would be acceptably used for the ceramic powder.
Itoh et al (US 5340023) notes cooling the outer periphery of a plasma jet with cooling water (note figures 1, 3, column 3, lines 60-68, column 4, lines 30-40).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 6, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to the 35 USC 103 rejection, applicant argues that unexpected results were shown for the 25-100 ml/min flow rate, where Fauchais article describes 22 ml/min, outside the claimed range, and Browning shows values well above the claimed range, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no reasonable basis to optimize. It is also argued that the range gives unexpected results as described.
The Examiner has reviewed these arguments, however, the rejections above are maintained. As to the suggestion from Fauchais article and Browning, while specific values in the claimed range were not specifically taught, the different values of Fauchais article and Browning show that different flow rates/amounts are known to be used for cooling, and Browning indicates that the amount of water used can be adjusted based on the amount of cooling needed, thus indicating that the flow rate/amount of water used would be a result effective variable that would be optimized for the specific coatings to be applied. Note In re Aller indicates how even if specific values taught are not in the claimed range, it is still obvious to optimize. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.) (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)). Furthermore, Browning does include values in the same order of magnitude, where 100 ml/min and 454 ml/min are still in the same order of magnitude (of hundreds, for example).
Furthermore, as to a showing of unexpected benefits, criticality/unexpected benefits as not been shown for the scope of the claims as worded. Note the discussion in the rejection above. As discussed for MPEP 716.02(d) a showing of unexpected benefits must be commensurate in scope with the claimed invention, and as noted in MPEP 716.02(d)(II), “ To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).” Here applicant as not shown this, where as described in the Examples, the all seem to have been done with the same plasma gas, the same plasma spray material, etc. and no described test used, for water, more than 0 ml/min and less than 50 ml/min or had a testing value between 100 ml/min and 200 ml/min. Therefore, the claimed range is not shown to be critical, because, for example (1) it is not shown if the values change with different plasma materials, different coating materials, etc. and (2) there is not a showing that 25 ml/min is the end point of criticality of the ranges or that 100 ml/min is the end point of criticality (what happens at 20 ml/min 25 ml/min, 105 ml/min, for example?). Therefore, the rejection above is maintained.
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 KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 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, GORDON BALDWIN can be reached at 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718