CTFR 18/765,491 CTFR 93604 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In reference to claim 1 , in line 5 amend “elongated-surface connected” to “elongated surface-connected” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA 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. 07-31-01 Claim 21 is 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. In reference to claim 21 , new claim 21 recites the barrier layer substantially prevents chemical interaction between the protective composition and the thermal barrier coating in lines 1-3. While the originally filed disclosure provides support for (1) the barrier layer comprising a barrier material that inhibits or prevents reaction of CMAS with a rare earth element in the TBC and with compositions of the bondcoat and (2) the barrier layer substantially prevents chemical interaction between the protective composition and a thermally grown oxide layer or bondcoat at [0060]. There does not appear to be support for the barrier layer substantially preventing chemical interaction between the protective composition and the thermal barrier coating as presently claimed. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-15, 18 and 21 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. In reference to claim 1 , the claim has been amended to recite “the protective composition forms a protective coating that substantially covers the column walls” in lines 14-15. The term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The Specification discloses the protective composition may from a protective coating on at least 50% of a surface area of the column wall defining the surface-connected voids at [0042]. For the purpose of compact prosecution, “substantially covers” will be interpreted as the protective coating on at least 50% of a surface area of the column walls. However, clarification is requested. Regarding dependent claims 2-15, 18 and 21, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale. In reference to claim 21 , the limitations “substantially prevents” is recited in lines 1-2. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of compact prosecution, “substantially prevents” will be interpreted as inhibits. However, clarification is requested. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-11, 13-15, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keshavan et al . (US 2019/0211696) (Keshavan) in view of Nagaraj et al. (US 2004/0115471) (Nagaraj) and Brosnan et al. (US 2016/0168684) . In reference to claims 1, 4 and 18 , Keshavan teaches a component including a slotted ceramic coating with a reactive phase coating disposed thereon ([0011]) ( corresponding to a coating system ). The coated component includes a substrate defining a surface, the ceramic coating disposed on the surface of the substrate and the reactive coating disposed along the ceramic coating ([0012]) ( corresponding to disposed on a surface of a substrate ). FIG. 3, provided below, shows the coated component includes the substrate 102, a bond coat 104, ceramic coating 106 including a plurality of slots 110 formed therein and a reactive phase coating 112 ([0045]) ( corresponding to a bondcoat on the surface of the substrate ). The ceramic coating 106 is a thermal barrier coating ([0045]) ( corresponding to a thermal barrier coating on the bondcoat, wherein the thermal barrier coating defines a plurality of elongated surface-connected voids ). The plurality of slots are disposed in a grid pattern forming segments of TBC material on the surface of the substrate, with the slots being disposed in nominally parallel and perpendicular directions. Each slot may extend the length of the surface of the TBC ([0051]). The slots define a plurality of columnar segments in the ceramic coating, each columnar segment defined by a top surface and a plurality of sidewalls (FIG. 8; [0057]; [0088]; claim 14) ( corresponding to each of the elongated-surface connected void of the plurality of elongated surface-connected voids is defined by column walls of the thermal barrier coating ). The reactive phase coating includes at least one protective agent and is applied to each of the plurality of slots ([0081]; claim 14; FIGS. 3, 5, 7 and 9) ( corresponding to a protective composition disposed within the plurality of elongated surface-connected voids of the thermal barrier coating ). The reactive phase coating is applied to both the top surface and the plurality of sidewalls of each of the columnar segments of the ceramic coating, in manner that does not fill the slots (claim 14). Thus, it is clear the reactive phase coating forms a coating on 100% of a surface area of the sidewalls of the columnar segments defined by the slots ( corresponding to the protective composition forms a coating that substantially covers the column walls defining each elongated surface-connected void of the plurality of elongated surface-connected voids ). Keshavan does not explicitly teach (1) the reactive phase coating comprises an oxide or mixture of oxides comprising an alkaline earth element and at least one of aluminum, gallium or combinations of aluminum and gallium and (2) a barrier layer disposed on the column walls of each slot, as presently claimed. However, Keshavan teaches the reactive phase coating includes at least one protective agent that is highly reactive to CMAS-type material, such as complex oxides ([0081]; [0085]). With respect to (1), Nagaraj teaches a thermal barrier coating containing reactive materials, such as alkaline earth aluminates for protection and mitigation against environmental contaminates, in particular oxides of calcium, magnesium, aluminum, silicon, and mixtures thereof (i.e., CMAS-type material) that can become deposited on such coatings ([0001]). Suitable CMAS reactive materials comprise alkaline earth aluminates, wherein the alkaline earth is barium, strontium or a mixture thereof ([0026]) ( corresponding to the protective composition comprises an oxide or a mixture of oxides, wherein the oxide or the mixture of oxides comprises an alkaline earth element and at least one of aluminum; the alkaline earth element comprises strontium ). The CMAS reactive material is present in an outer layer overlaying a thermal barrier coating inner layer ([0035]). The outer layer comprises the CMAS-reactive material in an amount of about 20 to 100% and is sufficient to protect the thermal barrier coating at least partially against CMAS contaminates that become deposited on the exposed surface ([0035]). Accordingly, the prior art references teach that it is known that complex oxides and alkaline earth aluminates, wherein the alkaline earth is barium, strontium or a mixture thereof are functional equivalents known in the art for providing protection to TBCs by way of being reactive with CMAS-type material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have used the alkaline earth aluminate containing outer layer of Nagaraj as the reactive phase coating of Keshavan, in order to provide protection and mitigation against environmental contaminates and because both elements were known equivalents for providing protection to TBCs by reacting with CMAS, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention. The substitution would have resulted in the predictable result of providing protection and mitigation against environmental contaminates, in particular oxides of calcium, magnesium, aluminum, silicon, and mixtures thereof (i.e., CMAS-type material) that can become deposited on such coatings. With respect to (2), Brosnan teaches an article that comprises a coating disposed on a substrate, the coating comprises a plurality of elongated surface-connected voids and a protective agent disposed within at least some of the voids of the coating ([0005]). The protective agent comprises a substance capable of chemically reacting with CMAS ([0005]). Brosnan teaches a barrier agent disposed to separate the protective agent from the bond coat or substrate. The barrier agent substantially prevents chemical interaction between the protective agent and a thermally grown oxide disposed on the substrate or bondcoat ([0039]). The barrier agent is disposed within the pores where the bondcoat and protective coating meet ([0051]) ( corresponding to a barrier coating disposed on the column walls of each of the plurality of elongated surface-connected voids of the thermal barrier coating ). The barrier agent is applied to the coating system before deposition of the protective agent, therefore in location of the coating system including both the barrier agent and protective agent it is clear the barrier agent is between the thermal barrier coating and the protective agent ([0052]) ( wherein the barrier layer is positioned between the thermal barrier coating and the protective composition ). The barrier agent comprises aluminum oxide ([0039]) ( corresponding to the barrier layer comprises alumina ). PNG media_image1.png 475 873 media_image1.png Greyscale In light of the motivation of Brosnan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to include a barrier agent comprising aluminum oxide in the coating system of Keshavan in view of Nagaraj where the reactive phase coating would contact the bond coat or substrate, in order to prevent chemical interaction between the reactive phase coating and a thermally grown oxide disposed on the substrate or bondcoat, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention. In reference to claims 2 and 3 , Keshavan in view of Nagaraj and Brosnan teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Keshavan in view of Nagaraj and Brosnan teaches the reactive phase coating comprises up to 100% of the alkaline earth aluminate (Nagaraj, [0026]; [0035]). Thus, it is clear when the reactive phase coating includes 100% of the alkaline earth aluminate, such as barium strontium aluminate, there will be no rare earth elements of silica in the coating ( corresponding to the protective composition is substantially free from a rare earth element; the protective composition is substantially free from silica ). In reference to claims 5, 9-11 and 14 , Keshavan in view of Nagaraj and Brosnan teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Keshavan in view of Nagaraj and Brosnan teaches the reactive phase coating comprises barium strontium aluminate comprising from about 0 to about 1 moles BaO, from about 0 to about 1 moles SrO and from about 1 to about 2 moles Al 2 O 3 ([0026]) ( corresponding to the protective composition comprises the mixture of oxides, wherein the mixture of oxides comprises an alkaline earth oxide and Al- 2-x Ga x O 3 where x is 0 to 2; x is 0 to 1; x is less than 1; x is 0; the protective composition comprises at least two alkaline earth oxides and Al- 2-x Ga x O 3 where x is 0 to 2, wherein the at least two alkaline earth oxides are different from each other ). In reference to claim 6-8 , Keshavan in view of Nagaraj and Brosnan teaches the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above. Keshavan in view of Nagaraj and Brosnan teaches suitable CMAS reactive materials typically comprise barium strontium aluminates (BSAs), wherein the BSAs include from about 0.00 to about 1.00 moles BaO, from about 0.00 to about 1.00 moles SrO and from about 1.00 to about 2.00 moles Al 2 O 3 ([0026]). The combined moles of BaO and SrO is about 1.00 mole (Nagaraj, [0026]). When the reactive phase coating comprises 100% of the reactive material (Nagaraj, [0035]), it is clear the molar ratio of alkaline earth oxides to Al 2 O 3 is 1:2 ( corresponding to the protective composition comprises the alkaline earth oxide in a molar ratio to Al- 2-x Ga x O 3 that is 1:2 to 2:1 ). Further, the weight percentage of Al 2 O 3 is between about 43 to about 45 wt% (i.e., molar mass of alumina = 101.96 g/mol; molar mass BaO = 153.33 g/mol; molar mass SrO = 103.62 g/mol; for Ba 0.4 Sr 0.6 Al 2 O 4 – wt% alumina = 100*((101.96) / (101.96) + (0.4*153.33) + (0.6*103.62))) ( corresponding to the protective composition comprises 5 wt% to 85 wt% of the Al- 2-x Ga x O 3 where x is 0 to 2; the protective composition comprises 10 wt% to 75 wt% of the Al- 2-x Ga x O 3 where x is 0 to 2 ). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In reference to claim 13 , Keshavan in view of Nagaraj and Brosnan teaches the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above. Keshavan in view of Nagaraj and Brosnan further teaches the reactive phase coating comprises from about 20 to 100% reactive material and from 0 to about 80% ceramic thermal barrier coating material, more typically about 40% to about 60% of the reactive material and about 40 to about 60% of the ceramic thermal barrier coating material (Nagaraj, [0035]). Ceramic thermal barrier material includes calcia-stabilized zirconias and magnesia-stabilized zirconias (Nagaraj, [0027]) ( corresponding to the alkaline earth oxide comprises MgO, CaO, or a mixture thereof ). In reference to claim 15 , Keshavan in view of Nagaraj and Brosnan teaches the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above. Keshavan in view of Nagaraj and Brosnan teaches the reactive phase coating comprises barium strontium aluminate (Nagaraj, [0026]) ( corresponding to the protective composition comprises an oxide compound comprising the alkaline earth element and at least one of aluminum ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-15, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keshavan in view of Schaeffer and Brosnan . In reference to claim 1 , Keshavan teaches a component including a slotted ceramic coating with a reactive phase coating disposed thereon ([0011]) ( corresponding to a coating system ). The coated component includes a substrate defining a surface, the ceramic coating disposed on the surface of the substrate and the reactive coating disposed along the ceramic coating ([0012]) ( corresponding to disposed on a surface of a substrate ). FIG. 3, provided below, shows the coated component includes the substrate 102, a bond coat 104, ceramic coating 106 including a plurality of slots 110 formed therein and a reactive phase coating 112 ([0045]) ( corresponding to a bondcoat on the surface of the substrate ). The ceramic coating 106 is a thermal barrier coating ([0045]) ( corresponding to a thermal barrier coating on the bondcoat, wherein the thermal barrier coating defines a plurality of elongated surface-connected voids ). The plurality of slots are disposed in a grid pattern forming segments of TBC material on the surface of the substrate, with the slots being disposed in nominally parallel and perpendicular directions. Each slot may extend the length of the surface of the TBC ([0051]). The slots define a plurality of columnar segments in the ceramic coating, each columnar segment defined by a top surface and a plurality of sidewalls (FIG. 8; [0057]; [0088]; claim 14) ( corresponding to each of the elongated-surface connected void of the plurality of elongated surface-connected voids is defined by column walls of the thermal barrier coating ). The reactive phase coating includes at least one protective agent and is applied to each of the plurality of slots ([0081]; claim 14; FIGS. 3, 5, 7 and 9) ( corresponding to a protective composition disposed within the plurality of elongated surface-connected voids of the thermal barrier coating ). The reactive phase coating is applied to both the top surface and the plurality of sidewalls of each of the columnar segments of the ceramic coating, in manner that does not fill the slots (claim 14). Thus, it is clear the reactive phase coating forms a coating on 100% of a surface area of the sidewalls of the columnar segments defined by the slots ( corresponding to the protective composition forms a coating that substantially covers the column walls defining each elongated surface-connected void of the plurality of elongated surface-connected voids ). Keshavan does not explicitly teach (1) the reactive phase coating comprises an oxide or mixture of oxides comprising an alkaline earth element and at least one of aluminum, gallium or combinations of aluminum and gallium and (2) a barrier layer disposed on the column walls of each slot, as presently claimed. However, Keshavan teaches the reactive phase coating includes at least one protective agent that is highly reactive to CMAS-type material, such as complex oxides ([0081]; [0085]). With respect to (1), Schaeffer teaches an article, such as a gas turbine engine component, which mitigates or inhibits radiation produced by the materials used in the manufacture of the thermal barrier coating ([0001]). The article comprises a substrate, a thermal barrier coating and a radiation inhibitor layer on the thermal barrier coating ([0006]). The radiation inhibitor coating layer comprises a ceramic material, the ceramic material is a calcium magnesium aluminosilicate (CMAS) mitigation composition. The CMAS mitigation composition comprises alkaline earth aluminates (AeAl 12- O 19 , AeAl 4 O 9 ), rare earth gallates (Ln 3 Ga 5 O 12 , Ln 4 Ga 2 O 9 ) or a combination comprising at least one of the foregoing ([0022]-[0023]; [0033]-[0034]) ( corresponding to the protective composition comprises an oxide or a mixture of oxides, wherein the oxide or the mixture of oxides comprises an alkaline earth element and at least one of aluminum; the alkaline earth element comprises strontium ). Accordingly, the prior art references teach that it is known that the protective agent and CMAS mitigation composition including alkaline earth aluminates, rare earth gallates and combinations thereof are functional equivalents known in the art for reacting with CMAS. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have used the CMAS mitigating layer comprising alkaline earth aluminates (AeAl 12- O 19 , AeAl 4 O 9 ), rare earth gallates (Ln 3 Ga 5 O 12 , Ln 4 Ga 2 O 9 ) or a combination thereof of Schaeffer as the reactive phase coating of Keshavan, in order to provide protection and mitigation against environmental contaminates and because both compositions were known equivalents for providing protection to TBCs by reacting with CMAS, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention. The substitution would have resulted in the predictable result of providing protection and mitigation against environmental contaminates, in particular oxides of calcium, magnesium, aluminum, silicon, and mixtures thereof (i.e., CMAS-type material) that can become deposited on such coatings. With respect to (2), Brosnan teaches an article that comprises a coating disposed on a substrate, the coating comprises a plurality of elongated surface-connected voids and a protective agent disposed within at least some of the voids of the coating ([0005]). The protective agent comprises a substance capable of chemically reacting with CMAS ([0005]). Brosnan teaches a barrier agent disposed to separate the protective agent from the bond coat or substrate. The barrier agent substantially prevents chemical interaction between the protective agent and a thermally grown oxide disposed on the substrate or bondcoat ([0039]). The barrier agent is disposed within the pores where the bondcoat and protective coating meet ([0051]) ( corresponding to a barrier coating disposed on the column walls of each of the plurality of elongated surface-connected voids of the thermal barrier coating ). The barrier agent is applied to the coating system before deposition of the protective agent, therefore in location of the coating system including both the barrier agent and protective agent it is clear the barrier agent is between the thermal barrier coating and the protective agent ([0052]) ( wherein the barrier layer is positioned between the thermal barrier coating and the protective composition ). The barrier agent comprises aluminum oxide ([0039]) ( corresponding to the barrier layer comprises alumina ). In light of the motivation of Brosnan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to include a barrier agent comprising aluminum oxide in the coating system of Keshavan in view of Schaeffer where the reactive phase coating would contact the bond coat or substrate, in order to prevent chemical interaction between the reactive phase coating and a thermally grown oxide disposed on the substrate or bondcoat, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention. In reference to claims 2-5, 8-11 and 13 , Keshavan in view of Schaeffer and Brosnan teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Keshavan in view of Schaeffer and Brosnan teaches the reactive phase coating comprising alkaline earth aluminates (AeAl 12- O 19 , AeAl 4 O 9 ), rare earth gallates (Ln 3 Ga 5 O 12 , Ln 4 Ga 2 O 9 ) or a combination thereof (Schaeffer, [0022]-[0023]; [0033]-[0034]). The alkaline earth or “Ae” include magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), strontium (Sr), barium (Ba), or a combination comprising at least one of the foregoing (Schaeffer, [0023]) ( corresponding to the alkaline earth element comprises magnesium, calcium, strontium, or a mixture thereof; the alkaline earth oxide comprises MgO, CaO, or a mixture thereof ). Given that Keshavan in view of Schaeffer teaches the reactive phase coating that overlaps the presently claimed protective composition, including alkaline earth aluminates (AeAl 12- O 19 , AeAl 4 O 9 ), wherein Ae is Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba or combinations thereof, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the alkaline earth aluminates (AeAl 12- O 19 , AeAl 4 O 9 ), wherein Ae is Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba or combinations thereof in the reactive phase coating, which is both disclosed by Keshavan in view of Schaeffer and encompassed within the scope of the present claims. Thus, it is clear the reactive phase coating does not include a rare earth element or silica and includes a mixture of oxides comprises of alkaline earth oxides and alumina (i.e., Al 2-x Ga x O 3 where x = 0) ( corresponding to the protective composition is substantially free from a rare earth element; the protective composition is substantially free from silica; the protective composition comprises the mixtures of oxides, wherein the mixture of oxides comprises an alkaline earth oxide and Al 2-x Ga x O 3 where x is 0 to 2; x is 0 to 1; x is less than 1; x is 0 ). In reference to claims 3, 4-5, 9-10, 12-13 and 15 , Keshavan in view of Schaeffer and Brosnan teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Keshavan in view of Schaeffer and Brosnan teaches the reactive phase coating comprising alkaline earth aluminates (AeAl 12- O 19 , AeAl 4 O 9 ), rare earth gallates (Ln 3 Ga 5 O 12 , Ln 4 Ga 2 O 9 ) or a combination thereof (Schaeffer, [0022]-[0023]; [0033]-[0034]). The alkaline earth or “Ae” include magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), strontium (Sr), barium (Ba), or a combination comprising at least one of the foregoing (Schaeffer, [0023]) ( corresponding to the alkaline earth element comprises magnesium, calcium, strontium, or a mixture thereof; the alkaline earth oxide comprises MgO, CaO, or a mixture thereof ). Given that Keshavan in view of Schaeffer and Brosnan teaches the reactive phase coating that overlaps the presently claimed protective composition, including rare earth gallates (Ln 3 Ga 5 O 12 , Ln 4 Ga 2 O 9 ) and alkaline earth aluminates (AeAl 12- O 19 , AeAl 4 O 9 ), wherein Ae is Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba or combinations thereof, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use a combination of rare earth gallates and alkaline earth aluminates in the reactive phase coating, which is both disclosed by Keshavan in view of Schaeffer and Brosnan and encompassed within the scope of the present claims. Thus, it is clear the reactive phase coating does not include silica and includes a mixture of oxides comprises of alkaline earth oxides, rare earth oxides, gallium oxide and alumina (i.e., Al 2-x Ga x O 3 where x = greater than 0 to 1) ( corresponding to the protective composition is substantially free from silica; the protective composition comprises the mixtures of oxides, wherein the mixture of oxides comprises an alkaline earth oxide and Al 2-x Ga x O 3 where x is 0 to 2; x is less than 1; x is greater than 0 to 1; the protective composition comprises an oxide compound comprising the alkaline earth element and at least one of aluminum, gallium, or a combination thereof ). In reference to claims 6 and 7 , Keshavan in view of Schaeffer and Brosnan teaches the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above. When the reactive phase coating of Keshavan in view of Schaeffer and Brosnan includes only alkaline earth aluminates (AeAl 4 O 9 ), it is clear the weight percent of Al 2 O 3 is about 31 to 63 wt% (i.e., molar mass of alumina is 101.96, molar mass of MgO is 44.304, molar mass of BaO is 153.33, wt% alumina in 3MgO·2 Al 2 O 3 = 100*((2*101.96)/(2*101.96)+(3*40.304) = 62.7%) ( corresponding to the protective composition comprises 5 wt% to 85 wt% of Al 2-x Ga x O 3 where x is 0 to 2; the protective composition comprises 10 wt% to 75 wt% of Al 2-x Ga x O 3 where x is 0 to 2 ). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In reference to claim 8 , Keshavan in view of Schaeffer and Brosnan teaches the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above. When the reactive phase coating of Keshavan in view of Schaeffer and Brosnan includes both rare earth gallates (Ln 4 Ga 2 O 9 ) and alkaline earth aluminates (AeAl 4 O 9 ), it is clear a molar ratio of the alkaline earth oxide (i.e., AeO) to aluminum and gallium oxides would be 1:1 (i.e., 2Ln 2 O 3 ·Ga 2 O 3 and 3AeO·2Al 2 O 3 gives 3 moles Ga 2 O 3 + Al 2 O 3 to 3 moles AeO). Response to Arguments In response to amended claim 8 and cancelled claims 16-17 the previous Claim Objections of record are withdrawn. However, the amendments necessitate a new set of Claim Objections, as set forth above. In response to amended claim 1, which now requires a barrier layer disposed on the column walls of each elongated surface-connected void of the plurality of elongated surface-connected voids of the thermal barrier coating and the barrier layer is positioned between the thermal barrier coating and the protective composition, it is noted that Subramanian (US 2004/0001977) no longer meets the present limitations. Therefore, the previous 35 USC 103 rejections over Subramanian are withdrawn. Applicant primarily argues: “Original claim 17 was rejected in view of Keshavan in combination with Nagaraj and Brosnan. However, none of these references teach or suggest the combination recited by independent claim 1. In particular, these references fail to teach or suggest a barrier layer disposed on the column walls of each elongated surface-connected void of the plurality of elongated surface-connected voids of the thermal barrier coating and a protective composition that forms a protective coating that substantially covers the column walls defining each elongated-surface connected void of the plurality of elongated surface-connected voids.” Remarks, p. 5 The examiner respectfully traverses as follows: It is noted that original claim 17 was also rejected in view of Keshavan in combination with Schaeffer and Brosnan. Applicant has not specifically pointed out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from Keshavan in combination with Schaeffer and Brosnan. As discussed in the rejection above, Keshavan teaches the slots define a plurality of columnar segments in the ceramic coating, each columnar segment defined by a top surface and a plurality of sidewalls, and wherein the reactive phase coating is applied to both the top surface and the plurality of sidewalls of each of the columnar segments of the ceramic coating (claim 14). Keshavan in view of Nagaraj and Brosnan teaches a barrier agent is applied to the coating system before deposition of the protective agent (i.e., reactive phase coating), therefore in location of the coating system including both the barrier agent and the reactive phase coating it is clear the barrier agent is between the thermal barrier coating and the protective agent (Brosnan, [0052]). Therefore, Applicant's arguments filed 04/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 Mary I Omori whose telephone number is (571)270-1203. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm. 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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. /MARY I OMORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784 Application/Control Number: 18/765,491 Page 2 Art Unit: 1784 Application/Control Number: 18/765,491 Page 3 Art Unit: 1784
Prosecution Insights