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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 22, 2026 has been entered.
As requested by the RCE submission of May 22, 2026, the after final amendment of May 14, 2026 has been entered and considered. With the entry of the amendment, claim 3 is canceled, claim 4 is withdrawn and claims 1-2 and new claim 5 are pending for examination.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Claim 4 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 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.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are 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.
Claim 1, line 8, “the nozzle” and “the thermal spray gun” lack antecedent basis.
Claim 1, line 11, “average grain size” is confusing as worded as to what is specifically referred to, such as whether it means the size of the particles sprayed or crystal size in the coating, etc. The specification as filed refers to an average grain size of crystals in the coating in the claimed range (note 0039 of the specification as filed), so for the purpose of examination, it is understood that an average grain size of crystals in the top coat layer is referred to, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Dependent claims 2 and 5 are also rejected as not curing the defects of the claim from which they depend.
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 and 5 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), Browning (US 5372857) and Tao, et al “Thermal Stability of YSZ Thick Thermal Barrier Coatings Deposited by Suspension and Atmospheric Plasma Spraying” (hereinafter Tao article).
Claims 1 and 2: 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).
(A) Skoog does not teach providing the forming of the top coat with the suspension plasma spraying where during the thermal spraying, cooling an outer region of the plasma flame by injecting water as a cooling fluid toward the plasma flame, with a supply rate of 25-100 ml/min, to cool a portion of the plasma flame blown from the nozzle of the thermal spray gun.
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 (outer region) 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, figures 3-5). 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 fed 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 an outer region/portion of the plasma flame blown from the nozzle of the thermal spray gun, 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/region of the jet/flame 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 Browning which indicates how injection of water into the outer region of a thermal spray jet would cool the outer region, 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).
(B) Furthermore, as to the average grain size of the top coat layer, and the ceramic powder material used (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. Further as to the grain size, Skoog notes that when using the process described (so the suspension plasma spray process), the coatings achieve a finer grain size (note 0008).
Tao article further describes spraying coatings of YSZ using suspension plasma spraying and atmospheric plasma spraying (note the abstract). The suspension plasma spray is preformed with no indication of any pressure adjustment, and so understood to be predictably and acceptably performed at atmospheric pressure (note section 2.1). Investigation of the average grain size in the YSZ coatings as sprayed provided that they would be 0.96 microns for regular APS and 0.72 microns (in the claimed range) for suspension plasma spraying (SPS), where it is understood that the grain sizes are crystal grain sizes, noting the reference to the crystal grains in the coatings (note pages 8-9, abstract, figure 9).
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 in view of VanEvery, Fauchais article and Browning to provide that the spray conditions provide that the average grain size in the top coat (YSZ coating) is within the range of 0.3-0.8 microns as suggested by Tao article with an expectation of predictably acceptable coating, since Skoog in view of VanEvery, Fauchais article and Browning would suggest to provide a suspension plasma sprayed YSZ top coating, where Skoog indicates finer grain sizes over regular plasma spraying, and Tao articles indicates that when suspension plasma spraying YSZ coatings, an average grain size that can acceptably be provided is 0.72 microns, within the claimed range, suggesting an average grain size to provide for use.
Claim 5: As to the injecting of the water decreasing a temperature of the inner region of the plasma flame to a lesser degree than a decrease in a temperature of the outer region of the plasma flame, this would be suggested to occur from VanEvery and Browning, where VanEvery indicates that the cooling liquid affects the outer region/particles in the outer region are cooled and the liquid is entrained substantially within the outer region, but the center region continues to have the hot particles that coat with optimal temperature (note claim 1) and Browning which specifically describes how coolant/water mixes with the outer regions of the hot thermal jet and has a large cooling effect on outer region b and the inner core of the hot jet remains at full peak temperature (so would decrease a temperature of the inner region less than a decrease in temperature of the outer region) (note column 3, lines 15-30, figure 1).
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 May 14, 2026 have been fully considered.
Please note the adjustment to the rejections due to the amendments to the claims with the new 35 USC 112 rejection and the use of the additional reference to Tao article.
As to the 35 USC 103 rejections, it is argued that the grain size is not provided by the applied references. The Examiner notes this argument, however, as discussed in the rejection above, the new reference to Tao article is provided as to the suggestion to have grain size in the claimed range.
It is further argued that Fauchais article would indicate that increasing the flow rate from 22 ml/min would result in severing the plasma jet, rendering the combination of references inoperable. The Examiner disagrees. While Fauchais article indicates nearly severing the jet, with that injection, Browning indicates that based on how the liquid provided, it would not act to sever, but merely mix with the hot outer layers of a jet (note column 3, lines 15-30), where Browning would have a higher flow rate than Fauchais article (note Browning at column 3, lines 60-70 or column 4, lines 25-30). Thus, it would not be expected that the combination is inoperable. VanEvery also indicates providing liquid to only affect the outer areas of the plasma jet (note figures 3-5). Therefore, the outstanding rejections are maintained.
As to new claim 5, it would further be rejected by the combination of references as discussed in detail in the rejection above.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights