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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 15, 2026 has been entered.
The after final amendment file April 21, 2026 has been entered and considered as requested by the RCE submission of May 15, 2026. With the entry of the amendment, claims 7, 8 and 14 are canceled, and claims 1-6, 9-13 and 15-20 are pending for examination.
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 1-6, 9-13 and 15-20 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, and claim 20, as to the “forming a bondcoat having a first tensile strength”, it is confusing and indefinite as worded as to when the bondcoat has this tensile strength. Is it (1) before the first heat treatment?, (2) after the first heat treatment and before the second heat treatment? (3) after the second heat treatment? For the purpose of examination, it is understood that option (1) is intended as described in original claim 14, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 1, and claim 20, as to the “bondcoat has a second tensile bond strength after the first heat treatment”, it is confusing and indefinite as worded as to when the bondcoat has this tensile strength. Is it (1) after the first heat treatment and before the second heat treatment? (2) after the second heat treatment? For the purpose of examination, it is understood that option (1) is intended, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 1, and claim 20, as to the “third tensile bond strength that is within 15% of the second tensile bond strength”, it is confusing and indefinite as worded. Does applicant mean that (1) if the second tensile bond strength is 100, for example, the third tensile bond strength is in the range of 85-115, or (2) if the second tensile bond strength is 100, the third tensile bond strength is 15 or less, or (3) something else? For the purpose of examination, it is understood that option (1) is intended, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
The dependent claims do not cure the defects of the claims from which they depend and are therefore also rejected.
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 1-6, 10-13, 15-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al (US 6372599) in view of EITHER Nagaraj et al (US 2005/0170200, hereinafter Nagaraj ‘200) OR Nagaraj et al (US 2013/0095344, hereinafter Nagaraj ‘344), and further in view of Marumoto et al (US 5827606) and Meng, et al “Vacuum heat treatment mechanisms promoting the adhesion strength of thermally sprayed metallic coatings” (hereinafter Meng article), and as evidenced by Margolies et al (US 2011/0048017),
Claim 1, 4-6: Thompson teaches a method of forming a coated component (note column 1, lines 5-10, column 3, lines 25-50). The method includes forming a bondcoat on a surface of a substrate where the bondcoat comprises MCrAlX in the form of MCrAlY, where M can be Ni or Co, or a mixture thereof, such as NiCrAlY (which gives the features desired by present claim 1, 4, 5, 6) or CoNiCrAlY (which gives the features desired by present claims 1, 4,5 ) (note claims 3, 14, note as worded the bondcoat as claimed could be (a) the aluminum rich mixture with two components including the MCrAlY material that can be NiCrAlY, as described at column 1, lines 25-40 (note the bond coat alloy), column 4, line 35-40, column 4, line 55 to column 5, line 25, column 8, lines 35-50; or (b) the further metallic “bond coat” that may be applied over the aluminum-rich layer, which can also be an MCrAlY of where M is Ni or Co or mixes and specifically NiCrAlY, note column 6, line 40-68, claim 14). Thereafter, a first heat treatment is performed on the bondcoat on the surface of the substrate (note when the bondcoat is considered (a) the aluminum rich layer, a heat treatment is provided after application, note column 6, line 20-30, column 9, lines 30-40, and when the bondcoat is considered (b) the further “bond coat” layer, a heat treatment can be provided after application, note column 7, lines 15-20, which could be in addition to or instead of the heat treatment of the aluminum rich layer, showing the heat treatment for the aluminum rich layer as discussed for (a) would be before the “bond coat” layer applied, column 9,lines 30-50). Thereafter a thermal barrier coating is formed on the bondcoat (note column 7, lines 20-45). The thermal barrier coating can be zirconia based and contain yttria (yttrium oxide) as a stabilizer, at least about 50% zirconia, and can be applied by plasma spraying (note column 7, lines 20-45). Thereafter, a second heat treatment is performed on the barrier coating on the bondcoat to form the coated component (note column 7, lines 45-55, since the heat treatment after the thermal barrier coating applied can be in addition to the earlier heat treatments, it is understood that there can be a heat treatment after the bondcoat applied as discussed above, and before the thermal barrier coating applied, and then a further heat treatment after the thermal barrier coating applied). Various substrates can be used including a turbine blade or combustor liner (note column 3, lines 40-50).
(A) As to providing that the thermal barrier coating is formed as comprising an inner barrier coating layer and an outer barrier coating layer, and wherein the outer barrier coating layer has a higher content of yttria than the inner barrier coating layer, Thompson does not specifically describe using a two layer thermal barrier coating as claimed.
(A1) Using Nagaraj ‘200: However, Nagaraj ‘200 describes providing a thermal barrier coating system that can be used for substrate components including combustor liners (note 0002, 0014). The coating system can include providing a bondcoat on a surface of the substrate, where the bondcoat comprises MCrAlX, where M is Ni or Co and X is Y (note 0005, 0016, figure 1). Over the bondcoat, a thermal barrier coating can be provided in the form of a multilayer coating, where the coating can be provided by plasma spraying (note figure 1, 0016). The thermal barrier coating is provided with an inner layer 20 formed from yttria stabilized zirconia, with desirably about 7-8 wt% yttria, and an outer layer 22 with at least 15 wt% yttria such about 18-20 wt% yttria (note figure 1, 0017, where therefore, the outer barrier coating has a higher content of yttria than the inner barrier coating). After the thermal barrier coating applied, the thermal barrier layer will be exposed to high temperatures (which would therefore treat with heat) (note 0020, 0008). The two layer thermal barrier coating allows for providing an inner coating that is compatible with use of the aluminum rich bond coat/scale developed thereon and with an outer layer that can withstand high temperatures, and withstands spallation (note 0022).
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 Thompson to provide the barrier coating as a two layer barrier coating as described by Nagaraj ‘200 with an inner barrier coating layer and an outer barrier coating layer, and wherein the outer barrier coating layer has a higher content of yttria than the inner barrier coating layer in order to provide an inner coating that is compatible with use of the aluminum rich bond coat/scale developed thereon and with an outer layer that can withstand high temperatures, and withstands spallation, since Thompson is providing components such as combustor liners with an MCrAlX type bond coating and a thermal barrier coating with yttria stabilized zirconia, and Nagaraj ‘200 teaches that when providing such components with such bondcoats, with a thermal barrier coating applied over the bond coat, it is desirable for the thermal barrier coating to be in the form of a two layer barrier coating with an inner barrier coating layer and an outer barrier coating layer, and wherein the outer barrier coating layer has a higher content of yttria than the inner barrier coating layer in order to provide an inner coating that is compatible with use of the aluminum rich bond coat/scale developed thereon and with an outer layer that can withstand high temperatures, and withstands spallation.
(A2) Using Nagaraj ‘344: However, Nagaraj ‘344 describes providing a thermal barrier coating system that can be used for substrate components including turbine blades and combustor liners (note figure 1, 0019-0020). The coating system can include providing a bondcoat 12 on a surface of the substrate, where the bondcoat comprises MCrAlX, where M is Ni or Co and X is Y (note 0003, 0020, figure 1). Over the bondcoat, a thermal barrier coating can be provided in the form of a multilayer coating, where the coating can be provided by plasma spraying (note figure 1, 0021, 0025). The thermal barrier coating is provided with an inner layer 16 formed from yttria stabilized zirconia (YSZ), with desirably about 6-9 wt% yttria, and an outer layer 18 with about 25-75 wt% yttria such as about 38 wt% yttria (note figure 1, 0021-0023, 0004, where therefore, the outer barrier coating has a higher content of yttria than the inner barrier coating). After the thermal barrier coating applied, the thermal barrier layer will be heat treated (note 0028). The two layer thermal barrier coating allows withstanding thermal cycling when exposed to CMAS contaminants and give spallation resistance (note 0013).
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 Thompson to provide the barrier coating as a two layer barrier coating as described by Nagaraj ‘344 with an inner barrier coating layer and an outer barrier coating layer, and wherein the outer barrier coating layer has a higher content of yttria than the inner barrier coating layer in order to provide an inner coating that withstands thermal cycling when exposed to CMAS contaminants and gives spallation resistance, since Thompson is providing components such as turbine blades and combustor liners with an MCrAlX type bond coating and a thermal barrier coating with yttria stabilized zirconia, and Nagaraj ‘344 teaches that when providing such components with such bondcoats, with a thermal barrier coating applied over the bond coat, it is desirable for the thermal barrier coating to be in the form of a two layer barrier coating with an inner barrier coating layer and an outer barrier coating layer, and wherein the outer barrier coating layer has a higher content of yttria than the inner barrier coating layer in order to provide an inner coating that withstands thermal cycling when exposed to CMAS contaminants and gives spallation resistance.
(B) As to forming the bond coat comprises spraying a plurality of particles comprising the MCrAlX onto the surface of the substrate at a rate that forms a bond coat layer that is 40 microns or greater in thickness per second per pass of a spray gun, in Thompson, the bondcoat can be applied by spraying a plurality of particles comprising the MCrAlX onto the surface of the substrate (note for option (a) the aluminum-rich mixture with MCrAlX with the plasma spray of particles, for example, column 5,lines 35-50, column 8, lines 45-68, and for option (b) “bond coat” MCrAlY deposition in the same fashion as for option (a) can be provided, note column 6, lines 60-68, column 9, lines 40-45, so the same plasma spraying of a plurality of particles understood to occur). As to the bondcoat thickness, for option (a) aluminum rich layer, Thompson provides the thickness can be about 25 to about 400 microns (note column 5, lines 25-35, and for option (b) “bond coat” layer, the thickness can be about 50 to about 500 microns (note column 6, lines 45-6).
Marumoto describes how plasma spraying can be provided where coating sprayed on a substrate surface at a rate that forms a layer that is formed with a thickness 100 microns/second, in a series of passes (swings) (note column 26, lines 40-55), where an example is given of 20 microns in one cycle of swing (pass) (note column 16, lines 45-50). However, it is also described that the thickness formed during a swing cycle can be acceptably up to 100 microns (note column 27, lines 1-10), and thus it is indicated that the application can be within the range of at least 40 microns in thickness per second per pass.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thompson in view of EITHER Nagaraj ‘200 OR Nagaraj ‘344 to use passes of plasmas spraying and a thickness application of 100 microns/second and 40-100 microns per pass of the spray gun for applying the bondcoat as suggested by Marumoto with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since Thompson indicates plasma spraying the bondcoat, and Marumoto indicates that such conditions are conventional for plasma spraying, where Maramoto describes how plasma spraying can be provided at 100 microns/second and that the thickness during one swing/pass can be up to 100 microns, and therefore by optimizing the thickness per pass at the spraying rate given, to provide a desired thickness, values in in the claimed range would be provided and allow quick and efficient coating. Note "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
(C) As to the bondcoat having a first tensile bond strength before heat treatment, a second tensile bond strength after the first heat treatment, with the second tensile bond strength being at least twice the first tensile bond strength, and the bondcoat having a third tensile bond strength after the second heat treatment, where the third tensile bond strength is within 15% of the second bond strength, as discussed above, Thompson provides that the bondcoat deposition can be by plasma spraying (note column 5, lines 40-50, column 6, lines 60-68). Furthermore as to the temperature and time of the first heat treatment, in Thompson these would be in the range of about 925-1260 degrees C for about 15 minutes to about 16 hours (note discussion of claim 15 below) and the heat treatment would be under vacuum, so suggested by less than 10 kPa (note discussion for claims 12-13 below). Furthermore as to the temperature and time of the second heat treatment, in Thompson these would be in the range of about 980-1260 degrees C for about 15 minutes to about 16 hours (note discussion of claim 11 below) and the heat treatment would be under vacuum, so suggested by less than 95 kPa (note discussion for claim 16 below).
Meng article describes how an MCrAlY coating (here CoNiCrAlY) can be applied to a substrate by plasma spraying, and then heat treated at 1373 K (about 1100 C) by vacuum heat treating (pressure below 0.001 Pa) for 4 and 10 hours, for example (note sections 2.1, 2.2). Meng article describes how it is known it is known to apply metallic coatings to components exposed to harsh environments, and it is desirable to improve adhesion strength of the coatings, in order to resist spalling during service, where it is well known to provide vacuum heat treatment to enhance the adhesion strength of the coating, where a large number of studies have reported that the adhesion strength of metallic coatings deposited by thermal spraying improved significantly after vacuum heat treatment (note section 1). Meng article describes that for the applied CoNiCrAlY coatings, the adhesion strength increased greatly after heat treatment, where the adhesion strength of the coating without heat treatment was 28 MPa, and after the 4 hour heat treatment was 57 MPa (so more than twice that without heat treatment) and after 10 hour heat treatment was 66 MPa (again more than twice that without heat treatment, and about 16% more than the four hour heat treatment) (note section 3.3, figure 8). It is indicated that improvement in adhesion significantly slows after four hours, where the metallurgical bonding has already been formed (note section 4.2). As to the bond strength being tensile strength, it is indicated that the bond/adhesion strength was evaluated under the ASTM C633-01 standard, with testing with a tensile test machine and subjected to a tensile load (note section 2.4, so understood that tensile strength is being measured).
Additionally, Margolies evidences how bonding strength of a bonding coat measured using an ASTM C633 standard (C633-01) measures tensile bond strength (note 0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thompson in view of EITHER Nagaraj ‘200 OR Nagaraj ‘344, and further in view of Marumoto to provide optimizing the heat treatment for the bondcoat to provide a desirable tensile bond strength, for both the first and second heat treatments as suggested by Meng article as evidenced by Maroglies with an expectation of providing desirable bonding, since Thompson indicates to provide heat treatment at adjustable times and temperatures and Meng article indicates how heat treatment of an applied MCrAlY coating at a temperature in the range of Thompson and at times in the range of Thompson and with a vacuum as used by Thompson helps increase bond strength which is desirable to prevent spalling, which strength would be at least evidenced by Margolies to be tensile strength or at least suggested to be this type of strength as the type shown to be measured for bond coats, where Meng article further shows how changes in heating conditions adjust the resulting bond strength and its improvement from the non-heat treated state, where the improvement can be from a first tensile strength without heating to a second tensile strength with heating that can be more than twice that without heating, so by providing such optimization, providing the second tensile bond strength of at least twice the first tensile bond strength would be expected. Note "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, as to the third tensile strength after the second heating, Thompson describes using similar heat treatment temperatures, times and vacuum conditions for the second heat treatment and first heat treatment, and one would be suggested to optimize the conditions for desirable heat treatment, and where Meng article indicates that further heating of the MCrAlY coating after metallurgical bonding provided gives a much smaller improvement in bonding strength, and so when optimizing the conditions for the second heat treatment, it would be predictably acceptable that the third tensile strength is within 15% of the second tensile bond strength.
Claim 2: As to the substrate thickness, Thompson further teaches a substrate thickness of less than about 0.25 cm (2500 microns) (note column 3, lines 45-50), which would give a range overlapping that claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to optimize from this range, giving a value in the claimed range. Note In the case where the claimed ranges "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).
Claim 3: In Thompson, the substrate can be a nickel based superalloy, for example (note column 3, lines 35-45, column 8, lines 35-40).
Claim 10: As to the bondcoat thickness, for option (a) aluminum rich layer, Thompson provides the thickness can be about 25 to about 400 microns (note column 5, lines 25-35, overlapping the claimed range, and for option (b) “bond coat” layer, the thickness can be about 50 to about 500 microns (note column 6, lines 45-6), also overlapping the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to optimize from this range (for either option), giving a value in the claimed range. Note In the case where the claimed ranges "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).
Claim 11: In Thompson, the first heat treatment temperature and time is described as ranges for the option (a) aluminum rich mixture and a range and time that can be the same as for option (a) for the option (b) “bond coat” deposition (note column 6, line 25-40, and column 7, lines 15-20), where an example first heat treatment temperature and time is described as 1080 degrees C, for four hours (note column 9, lines 35-40), in the claimed range. Alternatively, Thompson, the first heat treatment temperature is described as a range of about 925 to about 1260 degrees C and time of about 15 minutes to about 16 hours for the option (a) aluminum rich mixture and a temperature range and time range that can be the same as for option (a) for the option (b) “bond coat” deposition (note column 6, line 25-40, and column 7, lines 15-20), and these ranges overlap that claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to optimize from these ranges (for either option), giving values in the claimed range. Note In the case where the claimed ranges "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).
Claims 12, 13: as to the pressure during first heat treatment, in Thompson, it is indicated that for heat treatment after option (a) aluminum rich mixture or option (b) “bond coat” layer, the conditions can be the same (note column 7, lines 15-20). It is indicated that the heat treatment can be under vacuum (note column 6, lines 20-30, column 9, lines 35-40). While a specific pressure is not given, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to optimize to provide a best condition of “vacuum” for the treatment, giving a pressure value in the claimed range. Note "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 15: As to the second heat treatment temperature and time, Thompson indicates that this temperature range can be about 980 to about 1260 degrees C for about 15 minutes to about 16 hours (note column 7, lines 45-55, overlapping the claimed range). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to optimize from these ranges, giving values in the claimed range. Note In the case where the claimed ranges "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). Additionally, when using Nagaraj ‘344 it describes heat treatment for the thermal barrier coating at 1080 degrees C for 4 hours (in the claimed range) (note 0028), further giving a suggested heat treatment in the claimed range.
Claim 16: As to the second heat treatment atmosphere, Thompson indicates that the second heat treatment can be under conditions usually similar to those described earlier (note column 7, lines 45-55), which as discussed for claims 12-13 above can be under vacuum. Thus, the use of vacuum conditions for the second heat treatment atmosphere would be suggested as well. While a specific pressure is not given, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to optimize to optimize to provide a best condition of “vacuum” for the treatment, giving a pressure value in the claimed range. Note "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, when using Nagaraj ‘344 it describes heat treatment for the thermal barrier coating in vacuum as well (note 0028).
Claim 19: In Thompson, the coated component can be a combustion liner, as a combustion liner substrate can be coated (note column 3, lines 40-45. Additionally, when using Nagaraj ‘200 it also indicates the component as a combustor liner (0014). Additionally, when using Nagaraj ‘344 it also indicates the component as a combustor liner (0019).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of EITHER Nagaraj ‘200 OR Nagaraj ‘344, and further in view of Marumoto and Meng article, and as evidenced by Margolies as applied to claims 1-6, 10-13, 15-16 and 19 above, EITHER alone OR further in view of Lindblom (US 4687678).
Claim 9: As to forming alumina during the spraying such that the bondcoat comprises alumina and the MCrAlX, Thompson provides that the spraying can be by plasma spraying, for example (note column 5, lines 40-50, column 6, lines 60-68).
(A) Using Thompson in view of EITHER Nagaraj ‘200 OR Nagaraj ‘344, and further in view of Marumoto and Meng article, and as evidenced by Margolies alone: Meng article would indicate that the as sprayed MCrAlY plasma sprayed coating would contain alumina (note section 3.1) and further notes the conventional providing of metal oxide plasma spraying (note section 1), further indicating the general expectation that aluminum oxide would form in the MCrAlY coating that contains aluminum as a source metal.
(B) Using Thompson in view of EITHER Nagaraj ‘200 OR Nagaraj ‘344, and further in view of Marumoto and Meng article, and as evidenced by Margolies, further in view of Lindblom: Lindblom describes how it is desired to form MCrAlY coatings (where M can be Ni or Co) by plasma spraying powder under conditions to also provide oxidation of Al, for example, giving alumina in the coating along with MCrAlY (note claim 1), where this increases usable lifetime of coatings (note column 2, lines 55-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thompson in view of EITHER Nagaraj ‘200 OR Nagaraj ‘344, and further in view of Marumoto and Meng article, and as evidenced by Margolies to specifically provide forming alumina during the spraying such that the bondcoat comprises alumina and the MCrAlX as suggested by Lindblom with an expectation of providing a desirable longer lasting coating, since Thompson indicates plasma spraying the MCrAlY, and Lindblom teaches that it is desirable to from alumina during the plasma spraying such that the coating comprises alumina and the MCrAlX to increase coating lifetime.
Claims 17 and 20 are ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of EITHER Nagaraj ‘200 OR Nagaraj ‘344, and further in view of Marumoto and Meng article, and as evidenced by Margolies as applied to claims 1-6, 10-13, 15-16 and 19 above, and further in view of Loringer (US 6573474).
Claim 17: As to after performing the second heat treatment, forming a plurality of internal passages coextending through the barrier coating, through the bondcoat, and through the substrate, Thompson provides that the coating system can be applied to a combustor liner, for example (note column 3, lines 40-50).
Loringer indicates how a combustor liner can be provided (note column 1, lines 5-10, column 2, line 60 to column 3, line 5). The process includes providing a substrate with a bond coat, that can be an NiCrAlY coating, and a thermal barrier coating on top of that (note column 3, lines 1-14 and 40-50). Thereafter, internal passages (cooling holes) are formed through the barrier coating, the NiCrAlY bond coating, and the substrate (note column 2, lines 60-65, column 3, line 10 to column 4, line 30, figures 1-2), where a plurality of holes would be provided (note column 1, lines 5-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thompson in view of EITHER Nagaraj ‘200 OR Nagaraj ‘344, and further in view of Marumoto and Meng article, and as evidenced by Margolies to provide after performing the second heat treatment, forming a plurality of internal passages coextending through the barrier coating, through the bondcoat, and through the substrate as suggested by Loringer with an expectation of providing a desirable combustor liner for use, since Thompson can provide a thermal barrier and bond coated combustor liner coating, and Loringer indicates that when providing combustor liners, after forming the thermal barrier and bond coated liner, it would be conventional to provide after performing the second heat treatment, forming a plurality of internal passages coextending through the barrier coating, through the bondcoat, and through the substrate. As to specifically providing this after the second heat treatment as well, at the least this would be suggested with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, because heat treatment and the passage forming would be provided after the thermal barrier coat forming, with no limit as to which comes first, so predictably acceptable results expected if the second heat treatment performed before the passage forming.
Claim 20: As discussed for claims 1, 3 and 19 above, Thompson in view of EITHER Nagaraj ‘200 OR Nagaraj ‘344, and further in view of Marumoto and Meng article, and as evidenced by Margolies suggests forming a combustion liner where a bondcoat is formed on the surface of a substrate where the bondcoat comprises MCrAlY and the substrate is a nickel based superalloy. Thereafter, as discussed for claims 1, 19, a first heat treatment would be provided to the bond coat on the surface of the substrate, and thereafter a barrier coating formed on the surface of the substrate, where the barrier coating comprises an inner barrier coating layer and an outer barrier coating layer and wherein the outer barrier coating layer has a higher content of yttria than the inner barrier coating layer, and thereafter a second heat treatment performed to the barrier coating on the bondcoat to form a combustion liner. The first, second and third tensile bond strengths would be provided as claimed. The bond coat would be provided by spraying MCrAlX particles the rate claimed. As to the substrate thickness, Thompson further teaches a substrate thickness of less than about 0.25 cm (2500 microns) (note column 3, lines 45-50), which would give a range overlapping that claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to optimize from this range, giving a value in the claimed range. Note In the case where the claimed ranges "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). Note the discussion for claim 2 above. As to forming the internal passages as claimed, this would be suggested by Loringer as discussed for claim 17 above.
Claim 18 is ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of EITHER Nagaraj ‘200 OR Nagaraj ‘344, and further in view of Marumoto and Meng article, and as evidenced by Margolies as applied to claims 1-6, 10-13, 15-16 and 19 above, and further in view of Nagaraj et al (US 5723078, hereinafter Nagaraj ‘078).
Claim 17: As to after performing the second heat treatment, brazing the coated component on a second component, Thompson provides that the coating system can be applied to a combustor liner, turbine blade, turbine nozzle guide blade for engine parts, for example (note column 3, lines 40-50).
Nagaraj ‘078 describes how gas turbine components are conventionally provided with bond coats of MCrAlY and ceramic thermal barrier coatings, where the coatings are applied by methods such as plasma spraying (note column 1, lines 15-55). It is further noted that to form the desired segment of a turbine engine, individual airfoils are typically coated with the thermal barrier coating and these airfoils brazed to bands to form the segment (note column 2, lines 35-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thompson in view of EITHER Nagaraj ‘200 OR Nagaraj ‘344, and further in view of Marumoto and Meng article, and as evidenced by Margolies to provide after performing the second heat treatment, brazing the coated component on a second component as suggested by Nagaraj ‘078 with an expectation of providing a desirable combustor liner for use, since Thompson can provide a thermal barrier and bond coated engine part (component) such as turbine blades, etc. and Nagaraj ‘078 indicates how similarly coated turbine engine parts (components) can be brazed to another component (band) when forming a desired segment for a turbine engine, where as to specifically providing the brazing after the second heat treatment as well, at the least this would be suggested with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, because heat treatment and the brazing would be provided after the thermal barrier coat forming, with no limit as to which comes first, so predictably acceptable results expected if the second heat treatment performed before the brazing.
Feng et al (US 2014/0042128) also notes forming cooling holes/passages in a thermal barrier and bond coated component (note figure 1, 0016, 0019).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 21, 2026 have been fully considered.
Note the adjusting of the rejections with the new references to Meng article and the new 35 USC 112 rejections due to the amendments to the claims.
As to the 35 USC 103 rejections, it is argued that as to the spray rate, at the high deposition rate claimed, the residual stress in the deposited bond coat may be relatively high, which may lead to cracking in use, and claim 1 is not just about the spray rate, but also about a specific heat treatment process to solve the problems of such stress, and since the cited references fail to realize this problem, one would understand the process of Marumoto to be undesirable. It is further argued that ‘043 would not suggest providing the tensile strength improvements in the amount claimed.
The Examiner has reviewed these arguments, however, the rejections are maintained. There is nothing claimed as to any specific stress that can lead to cracking, and as to heat treatment, Thompson shows that heat treatments as claimed are well known to be provided. As to the spray rate, Marumoto is cited as to specifically known conventional spray rates to use when plasma spraying, and as such would give a spray rate to use with an expectation of predictably acceptable results and give quick coating application. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Similarly, as to the heat treatment and tensile bond strengths, Meng article has been further cited as to specifically providing how it is well known to provide heat treatment to improve adhesion/bond strength of MCrAlY/metal coatings to a substrate to help prevent undesirable spallation, and including where the improvement can be such that the second tensile strength after heat treating is more than twice the first tensile strength before heat treating, where the heat treatment conditions are within conditions taught by Thompson, and therefore, indicating that optimizing from the range of Thompson can provide the features claimed. Meng article would indicate that heat treatment is a result effective variable improving adhesion strength that is would be obvious to optimize from. Further, as discussed in the rejection above, the second heat treatment would be expected to predictably and acceptably be optimized and provide the third tensile strength in the range claimed. Therefore, the rejections above are maintained.
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