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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-11, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thayer [US 20220298645] in view of Bamberg [US 20130230723] and Burns [US 6042898].
Claim 1: Thayer teaches a method for coating a component of a gas turbine engine [0002], comprising the component having a bond coat and contaminants on the surface of the bond coat [0047]; laser treating the surface to remove the contaminants and to produce a cleaned surface on the bond coat [0049-0050]. Thayer further teaches another surface modification for special elements can be performed after the initial surface cleaning process, wherein the special elements could be added by deposition or other types of processes to add elements to the surface of the bond coat [0058]. However, Thayer does not appear to teach peening the cleaned surface and applying a ceramic coat. Bamberg is provided.
Bamberg teaches prior to shot peening, a pre-cleaning step may be carried out to clean the surface to be coated [0014]. Bamberg also teaches that afterwards, a deposition of coating following cleaning/strengthening [0029]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to subsequently provide a shot peening step after laser cleaning the bond coat since Bamberg teaches such step increases strengthening [0008]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide peening after laser cleaning since Bamberg teaches such step helps strengthen the underlying layer and prevents cracks [0013].
However, the prior art does not appear to teach applying a ceramic coat to the peened surface. Burns is provided.
Burns teaches after cleaning a ceramic layer may be formed on the bond layer [col 4, ln 24-35]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a ceramic layer on the cleaned surface so as to form a barrier coating system that can withstand the high temperatures of operating [col 1, ln 15-22].
Claim 5: Thayer teaches the laser power can range up to 1000 W.
Claims 6-7: Thayer teaches the bond coating can be MCrAlY coating (metallic bond coat) to an airfoil [0041].
Claim 8: Thayer teaches the bond coat may be applied by low pressure plasma spray, high velocity oxygen fuel, cathodic arc and the like [0041].
Claim 9: Burns teaches the cereamic coat is atrium stabilized zirconia [col 4, ln 38-55].
Claim 10: Thayer teaches the gas turbine components that are exposed to high temperatures [0002].
Claim 11: Thayer teaches the turbine can include airfoil exposed to high temperatures and pressures [0037].
Claim 13: Thayer teaches the bond coat has a thickness from 0.5mils – 10 mils (12microns -254 microns) [0040], where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05.I).
Claim 14: Burns teaches the ceramic layer can have a thickness of 125-1250 microns [col 5, ln 20-25], where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05.I).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thayer in view of Bamberg, and Burns as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Coates [WO2015189600].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned but does not appear to teach the limitations of claim 2. Coates is provided.
Claim 2: Coates teaches it would be possible to change an environment in the chamber of the work station to be a clean environment depending on the process being carried out [pg 3, para 5]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change to a clean environment during laser treating since Coates teaches it is possible by providing a chamber with inert gas to reduce contaminants [pg 3, para 5].
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thayer in view of Bamberg, and Burns as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP260 [JP 2017530260].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the limitations of claim 3. JP260 is provided.
Claim 3: JP260 teaches peen is performed immediately after laser processing [pg 16, para 14]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the peening step immediate as taught by JP260 since the prior art does not provide further time details and JP260 teaches it is known to immediately peen after laser treatment.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thayer in view of Bamberg, and Burns as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hackel [EP1212472].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the limitations of claim 4. Hackel is provided.
Claim 4: Hackel teaches raster scanning with laser pulse footprint and overlap affects the laser treatment process [0027-0028], where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the overlap and pulse duration of the laser treatment since through routine experimentation as a workable parameter for surface treatment.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thayer in view of Bamberg, and Burns as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cyrek [EP4056310].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the limitations of claim 12. Cyrek is provided.
Claim 12: Cyrek teaches the laser beam pulses allows for visual inspection and removal of contaminants from the coating [0023]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a visual inspection with the laser treatment since Cyrek teaches laser beam pulsing allows for visual inspections of any contaminants.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that Bamberg and Burns are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, they are both directed to the problem of pretreating a surface.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MANDY C LOUIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 1:00PM to 4:00PM PT.
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, Timothy Meeks can be reached at (571)272-1423. 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.
/MANDY C LOUIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718