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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/25/2025.
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 5 and 7 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 5 recites the limitation "the baseline TBC" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be treated as “a baseline TBC”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the operating conditions" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be treated as “the operating parameters”.
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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (Li et al., Design of Thermal Barrier Coatings Thickness for Gas Turbine Blade Based on Finite Element Analysis, Hindawi: Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Vol. 2017, Article ID 2147830, pg. 1-13).
Regarding Claim 1, Li teaches a method of manufacturing a component of a gas turbine engine (abstract), comprising: providing a precursor component having at least one internal cooling passage configured to receive a flow of cooling air therethrough (Fig. 1(f)); estimating a predicted temperature profile for the component based on one or more operating parameters of the gas turbine engine, the predicted temperature profile indicating a predicted operating temperature of at least one gas-washed surface of the component (Fig. 6); determining a thermal barrier coating (TBC) configuration for the component based on the predicted temperature profile (3. Design of Top-Coat Thickness for Turbine Blade), comprising setting a TBC thickness to be below a threshold thickness in a region of the at least one surface of the component (“upper limit of TC thickness” 3.1, 4.2 2nd-3rd para.) based on the predicted operating temperature of the at least gas-washed one surface of the component exceeding a threshold temperature (“critical value” 3.1, 4.2 2nd-3rd para.); and applying a TBC to the precursor component according to the TBC configuration (“spray the coatings by dividing the subregions along the vertical direction”).
Regarding Claim 2, Li teaches wherein the one or more operating parameters comprise at least one of a parameter relating to a temperature of operation of the gas turbine engine (2.2), a temperature of the component during operation of the gas turbine engine (Fig. 6), or a geometry of the component (Fig. 3 and 8).
Regarding Claim 3, Li teaches cooling airflow affects the temperature and required coating thickness (pg. 7 1st full para., Fig 6).
Regarding Claim 4, Li teaches wherein the surface of the component is an external surface (2.2, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Li teaches a baseline TBC level wherein the surface is formed by the baseline TBC (2.2 BC layer, TGO layer; 3.1 hl), and determining the predicted operating temperature of the at least one gas-washed surface based on the one or more operating parameters of the gas turbine engine (2.2, typical thermal conditions in turbine engine).
Regarding Claim 6, Li teaches wherein determining the TBC configuration comprises adjusting a baseline TBC thickness as defined by the baseline TBC level (hl, 100 microns).
Regarding Claim 7, Li teaches a threshold temperature is the critical value of the temperature on the superalloy substrate (3.1 6th para.), i.e. based on a material of the component.
Regarding Claim 8, Li teaches line-of-sight coating (spraying, 4.2).
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) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (Li et al., Design of Thermal Barrier Coatings Thickness for Gas Turbine Blade Based on Finite Element Analysis, Hindawi: Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Vol. 2017, Article ID 2147830, pg. 1-13), as applied to Claims 1-8 above, and further in view of Duda (US 20070063351 A1).
Regarding Claims 9-10, Li teaches line-of-sight coating (spraying, 4.2). Li does not teach masking or removing applied material; however, Duda teaches masking and grinding are known processes in the art of thermal barrier coatings ([0045-0046]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Li to include masking and/or grinding, as taught in Duda, in order to achieve a coating having the desired location and dimensions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TABATHA L PENNY whose telephone number is (571)270-5512. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 5712721418. 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.
/TABATHA L PENNY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712