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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species (a-ii), drawn to the environmental protection layer comprises a silicate including ytterbium silicate, a yttrium silicate, a barium strontium aluminosilicate, and/or mullite, in the reply filed on 08/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 2 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/13/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “502” in FIG. 5 has been used to designate both an isolation barrier layer and an environmental barrier layer. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Razzell et al. (US 2021/0032995) (Razzell).
In reference to claims 1 and 3-5, Razzell teaches an airfoil for use in a gas turbine engine including a ceramic matrix composite body and a hollow tube embedded in the body ([0005]) (corresponding to a ceramic matrix composite (CMC) component comprising: a CMC body in which and environmental protection layer is completely embedded with a CMC material of the CMC body). The tube is made from an environmental barrier material ([0007]). The environmental barrier material is a rare earth (RE) silicate, for example, in the form of RE2SiO5 or RE2Si2O7 where RE comprises at least one of yttrium, ytterbium, erbium, lutetium, europium, terbium, neodymium, praseodymium, dysprosium, or any other suitable rare earth element ([0058]).
Given that Razzell teaches the tube made from the environmental barrier material that overlaps the presently claimed environmental protection layer, yttrium monosilicate, yttrium disilicate, ytterbium monosiliate and ytterbium disilicate, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the Y2SiO5, Y2Si2O7, YbSiO5 or YbSi2O7, which is both disclosed by Razzell and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, given that the ceramic matrix composite body and tube of the environmental barrier material of Razzell are substantially identical to the presently claimed CMC material and environmental protection layer in composition and structure, it is clear that the environmental barrier material of Razzell would inherently have a higher impact and/or environmental resistance than the ceramic matrix composite material.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Claims 1 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoover et al. (US 2009/0092842) (Hoover) in view of Luthra (US 2016/0153288).
In reference to claim 1, Hoover teaches a composite article for resisting erosion ([0001]) (corresponding to a component). The article may be formed into the shape of a gas turbine engine fan blade, compressor blade, compressor vane, exit guide vane, inlet guide vane, compressor splitter, engine case, engine fairing, aircraft propeller, aircraft rotor, airfoil leading edge, or other components subject to erosion ([0013]).
The composite article includes a sacrificial layer, a body layer and an erosion resistant layer ([0015]). The sacrificial layer and the body layer are connected and completely encase the erosion resistant layer ([0016]) (corresponding to a body in which an environmental protection layer is completely embedded within the body). The sacrificial layer and the body layer are the same type of material and are formed from a ceramic material ([0017]; [0019]).
The material of the erosion resistant material is a ceramic material suitable for resistant erosion relative to the sacrificial layer and the body layer and is harder than the material of the body layer and the sacrificial layer ([0020]; [0021]) (corresponding to the environmental protection layer comprises a ceramic that has a higher impact and/or environmental resistance than a material of the body).
Hoover does not explicitly teach the sacrificial layer and the body layer are a CMC material, as presently claimed. However, Hoover teaches the article is a component subject to erosion in a gas turbine engine.
Luthra teaches a ceramic matrix composite (CMC) used in a gas turbine ([0001]). CMCs can be used for higher temperature applications. CMCs can decrease the wight, yet maintain the strength and durability of turbine articles used in higher temperatures sections of the gas turbine engine, such as airfoils (blades and vanes), combustors, shrouds that would benefit from the lighter-weight materials ([0003]).
In light of the motivation of Luthra, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the sacrificial layer and the body layer be made of CMC material, in order to provide the article with lighter-weight materials that retain strength and durability which can be used for higher temperature applications, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
In reference to claims 3-7, Hoover in view of Luthra teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Luthra further teaches environmental barrier coatings (EBCs) are used to protect the CMCs from the loss of thickness or the recession of the ceramic caused by volatilization ([0035]; [0047]). Luthra further teaches a recession resistant silicon containing article including a silicon containing substrate, a two phase barrier layer and an EBC comprising an oxide ([0007]; [0026]; [0027]). The oxide is a rare earth disilicate (REDS), rare earth monosilicate (REMS) or an alkaline earth aluminosilicate ([0060]; [0075]). The rare earth element is Y or Yb and mixtures of barium and strontium are used on the alkaline earth aluminosilicate ([0079]; [0144]; [0146]) (corresponding to the environmental protection layer comprises a silicate including a ytterbium silicate, a yttrium silicate, a barium strontium aluminosilicate; the environmental protection layer comprises a rare earth element comprising ytterbium and/or yttrium; the environmental protection layer comprises a rare earth silicate selected from the group consisting of: ytterbium monosilicate (YBSiO5), ytterbium disilicate (YbSi2O7), yttrium monosilicate (Y2SiO5) and yttrium disilicate (Y2Si2O7)).
The barrier layer comprises a rare earth oxide and a silicon-containing compound, such as SiC or Si3N4 ([0083]; [0085]; FIG. 10) (corresponding to at least a portion of the environmental protection layer has an isolation barrier layer thereon; the isolation barrier comprises SiC or Si3N4). On exposure to water vapor, the SiC or Si3N4 will volatize leaving the rare-earth oxide behind and improves the mechanical integrity of the CMC/coating interface because of continuity of the oxide phase ([0083]; [0085]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the erosion resistant layer be made of the EBC oxides of Yb disilicate, Yb monosilicate, Y disilicate, Y monosiliate or a barium strontium aluminosilicate in order to provide an erosion resistant layer that can protect the body layer from recession. Further, 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 two phase barrier layer including SiC or Si3N4 provided between the erosion resistant layer and the body and sacrificial layer in order to reduce the recession rate of the CMC of the body layer and improve the mechanical integrity of the CMC/coating interface, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
In reference to claims 8 and 9, Hoover teaches a composite article for resisting erosion ([0001]) (corresponding to a component). The article may be formed into the shape of a gas turbine engine fan blade, compressor blade, compressor vane, exit guide vane, inlet guide vane, compressor splitter, engine case, engine fairing, aircraft propeller, aircraft rotor, airfoil leading edge, or other components subject to erosion ([0013]).
The composite article includes a sacrificial layer, a body layer and an erosion resistant layer ([0015]). The sacrificial layer and the body layer are connected and completely encase the erosion resistant layer ([0016]) (corresponding to a body; an environmental protection layer completely embedded within the body). The sacrificial layer and the body layer are the same type of material and are formed from a ceramic material ([0017]; [0019]).
The material of the erosion resistant material is a ceramic material suitable for resistant erosion relative to the sacrificial layer and the body layer and is harder than the material of the body layer and the sacrificial layer ([0020]; [0021]) (corresponding to the environmental protection layer comprises a ceramic that has a higher impact and/or environmental resistance than a material of the body).
Hoover does not explicitly teach the sacrificial layer and the body layer are a CMC material, as presently claimed. However, Hoover teaches the article is a component subject to erosion in a gas turbine engine.
Luthra teaches a ceramic matrix composite (CMC) used in a gas turbine ([0001]). CMCs can be used for higher temperature applications. CMCs can decrease the wight, yet maintain the strength and durability of turbine articles used in higher temperatures sections of the gas turbine engine, such as airfoils (blades and vanes), combustors, shrouds that would benefit from the lighter-weight materials ([0003]).
In light of the motivation of Luthra, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the sacrificial layer and the body layer be made of CMC material, in order to provide the article with lighter-weight materials that retain strength and durability which can be used for higher temperature applications.
Luthra further teaches environmental barrier coatings (EBCs) are used to protect the CMCs from the loss of thickness or the recession of the ceramic caused by volatilization ([0035]; [0047]). Luthra further teaches a recession resistant silicon containing article including a silicon containing substrate, a two phase barrier layer and an EBC comprising an oxide ([0007]; [0026]; [0027]). The oxide is a rare earth disilicate (REDS), rare earth monosilicate (REMS) or an alkaline earth aluminosilicate ([0060]; [0075]). The rare earth element is Y or Yb and mixtures of barium and strontium are used on the alkaline earth aluminosilicate ([0079]; [0144]; [0146]) (corresponding to the environmental protection layer comprises a silicate including a ytterbium silicate, a yttrium silicate, a barium strontium aluminosilicate; the environmental protection layer comprises a rare earth element comprising ytterbium and/or yttrium; the environmental protection layer comprises a rare earth silicate selected from the group consisting of: ytterbium monosilicate (YBSiO5), ytterbium disilicate (YbSi2O7), yttrium monosilicate (Y2SiO5) and yttrium disilicate (Y2Si2O7)).
The barrier layer comprises a rare earth oxide and a silicon-containing compound, such as SiC or Si3N4 ([0083]; [0085]; FIG. 10) (corresponding to at least a portion of the environmental protection layer has an isolation barrier layer thereon; the isolation barrier comprises SiC or Si3N4). On exposure to water vapor, the SiC or Si3N4 will volatize leaving the rare-earth oxide behind and improves the mechanical integrity of the CMC/coating interface because of continuity of the oxide phase ([0083]; [0085]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the erosion resistant layer be made of the EBC oxides of Yb disilicate, Yb monosilicate, Y disilicate, Y monosiliate or a barium strontium aluminosilicate in order to provide an erosion resistant layer that can protect the body layer from recession. Further, 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 two phase barrier layer including SiC or Si3N4 provided between the erosion resistant layer and the body and sacrificial layer in order to reduce the recession rate of the CMC of the body layer and improve the mechanical integrity of the CMC/coating interface, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
In reference to claim 10, Hoover in view of Luthra teaches the limitations of claim 9, as discussed above. Hoover teaches the erosion resistant layer is a single layer of ceramic material inserted between the body layer and the sacrifice layer ([0020]-[0021]; FIGS. 1-2) (corresponding to the environmental protection layer is a monolithic ceramic insert).
In reference to claim 11, Hoover in view of Luthra teaches the limitations of claim 10, as discussed above. Hoover in view of Luthra teaches the body layer and the sacrificial layer are CMCs, as discussed above. Luthra further teaches the two phase barrier layer comprising SiC or Si3N4 provides better mechanical integrity to the CMC/coating interface ([0027]; [0085]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the erosion resistant layer of Hoover in view of Luthra include the barrier layer on all external surfaces thereof in contact with the CMCs of the body layer and the sacrificial layer, in order to provide better mechanical integrity between the CMC materials and the erosion resistant layer, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Claims 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Razzell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Luthra.
In reference to claims 6 and 7, Razzell teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Razzell does not explicitly teach at least a portion of the tube embedded in the body has an isolation barrier layer thereon, as presently claimed.
Luthra teaches a two phase barrier layer provided between a ceramic matrix composite (CMC) substrate and an environmental barrier coating ([0007]; [0008]). The barrier layer comprises a rare earth oxide and a silicon-containing compound, such as SiC or Si3N4 ([0083]; [0085]; FIG. 10) (corresponding to at least a portion of the environmental protection layer has an isolation barrier layer thereon; the isolation barrier comprises SiC or Si3N4). On exposure to water vapor, the SiC or Si3N4 will volatize leaving the rare-earth oxide behind and improves the mechanical integrity of the CMC/coating interface because of continuity of the oxide phase ([0083]; [0085]).
In light of the motivation of Luthra, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to provide the barrier coating between the tube and the body, in order to provide improved mechanical integrity of the CMC/coating interface, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
In reference to claims 8 and 9, Razzell teaches an airfoil for use in a gas turbine engine including a ceramic matrix composite body and a hollow tube embedded in the body ([0005]) (corresponding to a ceramic matrix composite (CMC) component comprising: a CMC body; an environmental protection layer is completely embedded with a CMC material of the CMC body). The tube is made from an environmental barrier material ([0007]). The environmental barrier material is a rare earth (RE) silicate, for example, in the form of RE2SiO5 or RE2Si2O7 where RE comprises at least one of yttrium, ytterbium, erbium, lutetium, europium, terbium, neodymium, praseodymium, dysprosium, or any other suitable rare earth element ([0058]).
Given that Razzell teaches the tube made from the environmental barrier material that overlaps the presently claimed environmental protection layer, yttrium monosilicate, yttrium disilicate, ytterbium monosiliate and ytterbium disilicate, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the Y2SiO5, Y2Si2O7, YbSiO5 or YbSi2O7, which is both disclosed by Razzell and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, given that the ceramic matrix composite body and tube of the environmental barrier material of Razzell are substantially identical to the presently claimed CMC material and environmental protection layer in composition and structure, it is clear that the environmental barrier material of Razzell would inherently have a higher impact and/or environmental resistance than the ceramic matrix composite material.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Razzell does not explicitly teach at least a portion of the tube embedded in the body has an isolation barrier layer thereon, as presently claimed.
Luthra teaches a two phase barrier layer provided between a ceramic matrix composite (CMC) substrate and an environmental barrier coating ([0007]; [0008]). The barrier layer comprises a rare earth oxide and a silicon-containing compound, such as SiC or Si3N4 ([0083]; [0085]; FIG. 10) (corresponding to at least a portion of the environmental protection layer has an isolation barrier layer thereon; the isolation barrier comprises SiC or Si3N4). On exposure to water vapor, the SiC or Si3N4 will volatize leaving the rare-earth oxide behind and improves the mechanical integrity of the CMC/coating interface because of continuity of the oxide phase ([0083]; [0085]).
In light of the motivation of Luthra, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to provide the barrier coating between the tube and the body, in order to provide improved mechanical integrity of the CMC/coating interface, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
In reference to claim 10, Razzell in view of Luthra teaches the limitations of claim 9, as discussed above. Razzell teaches the hollow tube a single unit embedded in the body and made from the environmental barrier material ([0005]; [0007]; FIG. 4) (corresponding to the environmental protection layer is a monolithic ceramic insert)
In reference to claim 11, Razzell in view of Luthra teaches the limitations of claim 10, as discussed above. Razzell in view of Luthra further teaches the two phase barrier layer comprising SiC or Si3N4 provides better mechanical integrity to the CMC/coating interface (Luthra, [0027]; [0085]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have all external surfaces of the tube of Razzell in view of Luthra in contact with the CMC body include the barrier layer, in order to provide better mechanical integrity between the CMC materials and the tube, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, namely Jones et al. (US 2020/0362706), is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. However, the rejection using this reference would be cumulative to the rejection of record set forth above.
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
Prosecution Insights