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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 16 January 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 11, and 15 remain pending in the application, wherein claim 1 has been amended.
Support for the amendment regarding fluorite structure is found in paragraph 0022 of the instant specification. Accordingly, no new matter has been introduced by these amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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, 3, 5-6, 8, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gold et al. (US 2019/0017177).
Claim 1: Gold teaches a multi-layer thermal barrier coating (“TBC”) that reduces transfer of thermal energy from high-temperature gases to the substrate (paragraph 0014). One or more layers of the multi-layer TBC may be deposited on a substrate using a suspension plasma spray technique such that the multilayer TBC has at least two different microstructures (paragraph 0017). The substrate may include a super alloy such as alloys based on Ni, Co, Ni/Fe, etc. (i.e. a nickel-based superalloy substrate is disclosed) (paragraph 0022). Being a superalloy substrate selected from the instantly claimed group is not specifically taught by Gold, but the listed substrate types are commercially available and well-known in the art (see paragraph 0069 of the instant specification as filed for evidence). Gold teaches that a bond coat may be deposited on the substrate to promote adhesion between the substrate and one or more additional layers deposited on the bond coat such as the first layer of the multi-layer TBC, wherein the bond coat may include an alloy (i.e. a metal adhesive layer) (paragraph 0078). That is, Gold teaches a nickel-based superalloy substrate, a metal adhesive layer, and the multi-layer TBC stacked in sequence. The bond coat (i.e. metal adhesive layer) may include an alloy such as a MCrAlY alloy where M is Ni, Co, or NiCo (i.e. a NiCoCrAlY alloy) (paragraph 0078) and may have a thickness of less than about 200 µm (paragraph 0083). This thickness overlaps the instantly claimed range, and the courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap, lie inside of, or are close to ranges in the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is noted that as of the writing of this Office Action, no demonstration of a criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented. The multi-layer TBC includes a first layer, a second layer (i.e. a “surface TBC layer”), etc. (paragraph 0027), wherein the first layer may be yttria-stabilized-zirconia (i.e. a YSZ layer), which includes about 92-94 wt% zirconia with 6-8 wt% yttria (i.e. a molar fraction of yttria of about 3.4-4.5%) (paragraph 0029), which overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05. The first layer may be relatively thin, such as between about 10 µm and about 80 µm, and may contribute to thermal cycling performance even at these relatively small thicknesses (paragraph 0035), which is considered to teach that larger thicknesses are also contemplated or known (i.e. thicknesses greater than about 80 µm), which overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05. Gold also teaches the first layer as having a columnar microstructure (paragraph 0033) having elongated intercolumnar voids (i.e. pores) to allow improved in-place strain tolerance compared to a dense microstructure (paragraphs 0015-0016), wherein a dense microstructure is characterized by a low volume porosity such as less than about 5 vol% (paragraph 0051). Therefore, the first layer (i.e. the YSZ layer) having a columnar microstructure (paragraph 0032), which has increased porosity (paragraph 0016), is considered to have a porosity greater than the porosity of a dense microstructure (i.e. greater than about 5 vol%), which overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05. The second layer may provide a low thermal conductivity (i.e. a TBC material) may include predominately zirconia mixed with rare earth oxide (paragraph 0037), wherein the composition may be selected to provide a desired phase constitution (paragraph 0039), such as including about 20-40 mol% ytterbia, about 10-20 mol% gadolinia, about 10-20 mol% samaria, and balance zirconia in order to achieve a compound phase constitution (paragraph 0040), or may have 3-10% ytterbia, 1-5% gadolinia, 1-5% samaria and about 80-95% zirconia to achieve a cubic phase (i.e. fluorite structure is a cubic phase) (paragraph 0041). The second layer may include or include a majority of a cubic phase constitution because the cubic phase may provide a lower thermal conductivity (paragraph 0043), but the second layer may include combinations of the phases (i.e. cubic phase is desired but may include other phases such as the above mentioned compound phase). Gold further teaches that although the second layer is described with respect to zirconia, ytterbia (i.e. Yb), gadolinia, and samaria (i.e. Sm), one or more of these may be replaced by one or more of hafnia or a rare earth oxide such as Eu, Dy, Y, etc. (paragraph 0045) (i.e., replacing gadolinia for rare earth oxide of Y – that is, Y2O3 – would have been an obvious choice). The second layer may have a thickness between about 25 µm and about 7650 µm, which overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Since the second layer may include cubic phase and other phase such as compound phase, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the ranges of contents of ytterbia, gadolinia, samaria, and the resulting balance of zirconia to be a content that results in cubic phase and up to a content that results in compound phase, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. That is, the ranges for ytterbia of 3-10 mol% to achieve cubic phase and 20-40% to achieve a compound phase result in a range of 3-40% to achieve a phase that ranges from cubic to compound. Similarly, the other ranges include 1-20% gadolinia, and 1-20% samaria, and a balance being zirconia. These ranges for ytterbia and samaria (i.e. a sum of about 4-60%) overlap the instantly claimed ranges for y and n and having A and B selected as Sm and Yb. See MPEP § 2144.05. Since Gold teaches that one or more of these oxides may be replaced by one or more of hafnia or a rare earth oxide such as Eu, Dy, Y, etc. (paragraph 0045), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the composition by replacing gadolinia with oxide of Y (i.e. Y2O3) in a substantially identical amount (i.e. 1-20% Y2O3), and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. This range of Y2O3 (i.e. 1-20%) overlaps the instantly claimed range for x. See MPEP § 2144.05.
While not reciting a singular example of the instantly claimed thermal barrier coating, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the reasons outlined above, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 3, 5-6, 8, and 11: Gold does not specifically teach the instantly claimed preparation method of the TBC. However, these limitations are considered to be product-by-process limitations and therefore are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps, whereas Gold teaches or renders obvious a substantially identical structure as outlined above regarding instant claim 1. See MPEP § 2113.
Claim 15: Gold teaches that teaches that one or more layers of the thermal barrier coating (i.e. including the layer of YSZ and the second layer which corresponds to the instantly claimed surface TBC layer) may be applied using a suspension plasma spray technique (paragraph 0017) but traditional thermal spraying including air plasma spray etc. may be used instead (paragraph 0034 in view of paragraph 0046 teaching the techniques used with the first layer may be used to deposit the second layer). Furthermore, this limitation is considered to be product-by-process limitation and therefore is not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps, whereas Gold teaches or renders obvious a substantially identical structure as outlined above regarding instant claim 1. See MPEP § 2113.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 6-7, filed 16 January 2026, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. It is noted that Applicant argues additional technical features and benefits not taught in the prior art; however, such features not recited in the claims have not been addressed herein. Zajchowski does not disclose the amended list of materials for the metal adhesive layer, a mixed rare earth oxide containing Y2O3 and oxides of any two of Sm, Eu, Dy, and Yb, or wherein the TBC material has a fluorite structure. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gold et al. (US 2019/0017177), as outlined above.
Conclusion
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 KIM S HORGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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.
/KIM S. HORGER/Examiner, Art Unit 1784