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 .
The amendment of April 1, 2026 has been received and entered. With the entry of the amendment, claim 10 is withdrawn and claims 1-9 are pending for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on December 23, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 December 23, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 9, “Gd2Zr2O7, or Gd2Hf2O7” should be provided with the proper subscripts to be “Gd2Zr2O7, or Gd2Hf2O7”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 1-9 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn due to the amendments and arguments of April 1, 2026.
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 1-2, 5-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/229406 (hereinafter ‘406) in view of Japan 2011-117012 (hereinafter ‘012) and Bai, et al “Microstructure and phase stability of suspension high velocity oxy-fuel sprayed yttria stabilized zirconia coatings from aqueous and ethanol based suspensions” (hereinafter Bai article), EITHER alone OR further as evidenced by Zhu et al (US 6812176).
*** Please Note: Bianchi et al (US 2021/0148238), the US national stage application of ‘406, is used as a translation of ‘406, so paragraph citations are to Bianchi.***
Claims 1-2, 5: ‘406 teaches a method of applying coating to a gas turbine engine part/member (note 0054, 0001). The method includes a step of forming a bond coat layer on an alloy base material (understood to be a heat resistant alloy as used for a turbine engine part, and from the materials used) of an object (note 0054-0055). Thereafter a top coat layer is formed on the bond coat (note 0057-0058). The top coat can be considered as a “thermal barrier coating” applied to the bond coat, which can be considered a top layer as it would be at least a top layer until further coating applied, and also because it is above the lower bond layer, and where the thermal barrier coating can be made from yttriated zirconia with 7-8 mass% yttria (so considered yttria stabilized zirconia, as desired by claim 9) (note 0058, and therefore the top and bond coats combined can also be considered as providing a thermal barrier coating system). Alternatively, the top coat can be considered as CMAS composite protection layer 22 (in figure 2A) made containing Gd2Zr2O7 (as desired by present claim 9), and where the composite protective layer has good thermal insulation properties, and so can also be considered as a thermal barrier layer) (note 0047, 0050, 0057), and therefore the top and bond coats combined can also be considered as providing a thermal barrier coating system, and would be a top layer until further coating applied. Either the “thermal barrier coating” layer or the composite protection layer can be applied by thermal spraying, such as by plasma spraying methods or HVSFS (also known as suspension HVOF/high velocity flame spraying) (note 0059-0065). When applying the coatings by the suspension HVOF method, this process would provide thermal spraying a suspension of liquid containing ceramic powder (the material of the coating) to be applied by high velocity oxy fuel spray, given the ceramic material and the suspension for the SHVOF, the ceramic would need to be a powder to provide for the suspension (which would be in liquid for the SHVOF method) (note 0058-0060, 0065, 0050) and as well, note 0067, where a suspension used for thermal spraying (here plasma) can be provided for ceramic powder in liquid suspension.
(A) ‘406 does not provide temperature of the top coat features as claimed. However, ‘012 teaches providing a thermal barrier coating on a heat resistant alloy substrate (note 0001, 0005, note use for component of a gas turbine engine), where a bond coat is formed on the substrate (note 0005, 0015), and a top coat layer is formed on the bond coat using thermal spraying (note 0005, 0011, top coat of thermal barrier, with use of a thermal spray method described, with example of plasma spraying, note 0016) of a ceramic powder (0012, and note yttria stabilized zirconia, 0015), where the top coat layer temperature is maintained at a temperature of 450 degrees C or less during forming of the top coat layer (note 0005, 0018, claim 1), and where before spraying, the article can be preheated to 300 degrees C, indicating a lower temperature of at least 300 degree C would be suggested (note 0024), where the heating provides improved adhesion with still allowing desired pores (note 0011).
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 ‘406 to provide the heating of the top layer while thermal spraying to a temperature of between 300-450 degrees C as suggested by ‘012 with an expectation of providing a desirably adhered and porous thermal barrier coating, since both references indicate applying a bond coat to a gas turbine substrate alloy, and then applying a thermal barrier coating by thermal spraying, where ‘012 would indicate the benefits of applying the thermal barrier coating while heating in the claimed range as discussed above. This temperature range would also apply to claim 2. Furthermore, as to the range of claims 1 and 5, it would have been obvious to optimize within the 300-450 degree C range or even within the range of 450 degrees C or less, giving a value in the claimed range. 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). As well, ‘012 at Table 2, gives an example with preheat temperature and surface temperature in the range of 300-400 (note Example 8 preheat temperature of 300 degrees C, and surface temperature of 350 degrees C, in the claimed range, which would indicate the temperature from start to finish in the 300-350 degrees C range, note 0027, Table 2).
(B) As to the proportion of an area in a region in which unmelted ceramic powder is agglomerated to an area of cross section of the top coat layer is equal to or less than 0.15% (claim 1) or equal to or less than 0.02% (claim 2),
Bai article describes providing a coating using suspension HVOF (which would be a high velocity oxy fuel spraying), where to provide the coating, a liquid suspension containing ceramic powder (yttria stabilized zirconia, YSZ) is provided to a thermal spray gun (SHVOF torch) to provide the thermal spraying by SHVOF (note the abstract, figure 2, page 1879, Table 1), where SHVOF understood to be thermal spraying (noting HVOF as thermal spraying, which would include modified HVOF with suspension, note page 1878). It is noted that the suspension HVOF can be used for making thermal barrier coatings (note page 1878). It is described that the coatings can have porosity (page 1881). It is described that for SHVOF complete melting and homogenization of the YSZ feedstock can be provided, which completely removes the impurity m-phase, where the molten droplet solidifies with nucleation of stable t-phase upon impact on the substrates (page 1883).
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 ‘406 in view of ‘012 to specifically provide forming the top coat layer by thermal spraying a suspension of ceramic powder in liquid by high velocity flame spraying (in the form of HVOF) as suggested by Bai article with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since ‘406 indicates using suspension HVOF for coating, and Bai article indicates how suspension HVOF can be provided by thermal spraying a suspension of ceramic powder in liquid. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘406 in view of ‘012 and Bai article to provide that the proportion of an area in a region in which unmelted ceramic powder is agglomerated to an area of cross section of the top coat layer is equal to or less than 0.15% (claim 1) or equal to or less than 0.02% (claim 2) by completely melting the ceramic during coating such that there are no unmelted powders, so the proportion in which unmelted ceramic powder is agglomerated is 0% as suggested by Bai article in order to provide desirable removal of impurity of coating (note removal of m-phase when spraying YSZ) since ‘406 indicates providing SHVOF application of material such as YSZ and Bai article indicates that in such action there is desirable complete melting of the powder where with YSZ this enables complete removal of the impurity m-phase.
Optionally, further using Zhu, as to the coating described by Bai article applying to thermal barrier coatings, Bai article describes that porosity is present, with examples of cumulative porosity of 10.98 vol% (14.9+/-1.9% from imaging analysis), or 12.6+/-1.7% from image analysis (note page 1881). Zhu further evidences that thermal barrier coatings which can be made with ytrria stabilized zirconia conventionally have porosities in the range of 5-20 % (note column 1, lines 25-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifically use the process of ‘406 in view of ‘012 and Bai article to make thermal barrier coatings as Zhu article evidences how conventional thermal barrier coatings have a porosity in the range of 5-20%, and Bai article describes providing SHVOF coatings of YSZ with porosities in such a range.
Claim 6: as to controlling the temperature by cooling with a cooling medium to control the temperature in the step of forming a top coat layer, this would be further suggested by ‘012 (note 0009, 0019). Bai article also notes cooling the substrate with compressed air during spraying (page 1880, first column).
Claim 9: ‘406 and Bai article describe using yttria stabilized zirconia (YSZ), for example, as discussed for claim 1 above.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘406 in view of ‘012 and Bai article, EITHER alone OR further as evidenced by Zhu as applied to claims 1-2, 5-6 and 9 above, and further in view of CN 112708301 (hereinafter ‘301).
Claims 3-4, as to the suspension where an absolute value of a zeta potential of the ceramic powder is equal to or greater than 40 mV is thermally sprayed for the top layer (claim 3), and the water or ethanol dispersion medium and pH of 2-9 for the suspension for the top layer (claim 4), as discussed for claim 1 above, the top layer can be made by the SHVOF of YSZ in a liquid suspension. Bai article notes how aqueous suspension or ethanol suspension (so water or ethanol dispersion mediums) can be used (page 1879).
‘301 describes how aqueous solutions of YSZ can be formed (note the abstract), including with dispersant PAA (note translation, pages 2, 5), where there is a relationship between YSZ particle zeta potential and pH (note translation page 2, figure 6), where it is indicated to provide a stable dispersion, pH of 8 (in the claimed range) and zeta potential of -44.5 (understood to be in mV, or at least suggested to be in mV, as the conventional measure for zeta potential) (absolute value 44.5 mV, in the claimed range)(note figure 6, and translation, page 5).
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 ‘406 in view of ‘012 and Bai article, EITHER alone OR further as evidenced by Zhu to specifically provide the suspension for SHVOF with a zeta potential of the ceramic powder/YSZ greater than 40 mV and with a pH of 8 with a water dispersion medium, for example, as suggested by ‘301 with an expectation of providing a desirably stable dispersion, since Bai article indicates uniform dispersions desirable (note page 1879) and describes using aqueous YSZ suspensions/dispersions and ‘301 indicates how stable dispersions of YSZ, which would be desirable to keep uniform dispersion, can be provided in an aqueous form with a zeta potential of -44.5 mV(absolute value 44.5) and a pH of 8, both in the claimed ranges.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘406 in view of ‘012 and Bai article, EITHER alone OR further as evidenced by Zhu as applied to claims 1-2, 5-6 and 9 above, and further in view of FR 3029814 (hereinafter ‘814).
Claim 7: As to the cooling medium being compressed air compressed by a compressor, ‘012 notes that cooling medium can be provided with coating applied to gas turbine components such as blades with passages for internal cooling, where cooling provided during the coating by flowing a cooling gas through the passage (note 0019). Bai article also notes cooling the substrate with compressed air during spraying (page 1880, first column).
‘814 notes providing turbine parts with fluid flow passages for cooling (note cooling holes, cooling channels), where cooling air in the form of compressed air from a compressor can pass through the passages (note page 2, translation).
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 ‘406 in view of ‘012 and Bai article, EITHER alone OR further as evidenced by Zhu to provide the cooling by cooling with cooling gas in the form of compressed air from a compressor through passages in the turbine component as suggested by ‘814 with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since ‘012 notes how cooling gas for cooling during the spraying can be provided through internal passages, Bai article also notes cooling the substrate with compressed air during spraying, and ‘814 indicates how when providing cooling gas through internal passages of a turbine component, it can be conventionally provided a compressed air from a compressor.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘406 in view of ‘012 and Bai article, EITHER alone OR further as evidenced by Zhu as applied to claims 1-2, 5-6 and 9 above, and further in view of FR 2912072 (hereinafter ‘072).
Claim 8: As to the cooling medium including dry ice, ‘012 notes that cooling medium can be provided on the opposite side of the substrate on which coating applied (note 0009).
‘072 notes providing cooling a surface while thermal spraying by applying dry ice to the surface while spraying, which helps keep a constant coating/substrate temperature (note pages 1-3 translation, figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ‘406 in view of ‘012 and Bai article, EITHER alone OR further as evidenced by Zhu to provide the cooling by cooling with dry ice as suggested by ‘072 with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since ‘012 notes how cooling during the spraying can be provided, and ‘072 notes how providing cooling with dry ice on the surface helps keep a constant surface/substrate temperature. Additionally, while ‘072 describes providing the dry ice to the front of the coating, this would still provide desired cooling as demonstrated by ‘072, or alternatively, the cooling could be provided to the back with the dry ice with an expectation of similar desired cooling, since it is shown that the dry ice cools the coating/substrate.
Claims 1-2 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over WO 2022/145324 (hereinafter ‘324) in view of Bai, et al “Microstructure and phase stability of suspension high velocity oxy-fuel sprayed yttria stabilized zirconia coatings from aqueous and ethanol based suspensions” (hereinafter Bai article), EITHER alone OR further as evidenced by Zhu et al (US 6812176).
*** Please Note: Okajima et al (US 2023/0374643), the US national stage application of ‘324, is used as a translation of ‘324, so paragraph citations are to Okajima.***
Claims 1, 2, 5: ‘324 teaches a method for forming a thermal barrier coating, comprising a step of forming a top coat layer on a bond coat layer formed on a heat-resistant alloy substrate of an object, where the top coat layer is formed by thermally spraying a suspension including ceramic powder using high velocity oxy-fuel (HVOF) (so an S-HVOF process) while maintaining a temperature of the top coat layer at 300 degrees C or higher and 450 degrees C or lower (note 0008, 0048). For claim 5, the temperature can be 300 degrees C or higher and 400 degrees C or lower (note 0008, 0097-0098).
As to the proportion of an area in a region in which unmelted ceramic powder is agglomerated to an area of cross section of the top coat layer is equal to or less than 0.15% (claim 1) or equal to or less than 0.02% (claim 2), ‘324 notes applying yttria stabilized zirconia (YSZ) (note 0040)
Bai article describes providing a coating using suspension HVOF (which would be a high velocity oxy fuel spraying), where to provide the coating, a liquid suspension containing ceramic powder (yttria stabilized zirconia, YSZ) is provided to a thermal spray gun (SHVOF torch) to provide the thermal spraying by SHVOF (note the abstract, figure 2, page 1879, Table 1), where SHVOF understood to be thermal spraying (noting HVOF as thermal spraying, which would include modified HVOF with suspension, note page 1878). It is noted that the suspension HVOF can be used for making thermal barrier coatings (note page 1878). It is described that the coatings can have porosity (page 1881). It is described that for SHVOF complete melting and homogenization of the YSZ feedstock can be provided, which completely removes the impurity m-phase, where the molten droplet solidifies with nucleation of stable t-phase upon impact on the substrates (page 1883).
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 ‘324 to provide to provide that the proportion of an area in a region in which unmelted ceramic powder is agglomerated to an area of cross section of the top coat layer is equal to or less than 0.15% (claim 1) or equal to or less than 0.02% (claim 2) by completely melting the ceramic during coating such that there are no unmelted powders, so the proportion in which unmelted ceramic powder is agglomerated is 0% as suggested by Bai article in order to provide desirable removal of impurity of coating (note removal of m-phase when spraying YSZ) since ‘324 indicates providing SHVOF application of material such as YSZ and Bai article indicates that in such action there is desirable complete melting of the powder where with YSZ this enables complete removal of the impurity m-phase.
Optionally, further using Zhu, as to the coating described by Bai article applying to thermal barrier coatings, Bai article describes that porosity is present, with examples of cumulative porosity of 10.98 vol% (14.9+/-1.9% from imaging analysis), or 12.6+/-1.7% from image analysis (note page 1881). Zhu further evidences that thermal barrier coatings which can be made with ytrria stabilized zirconia conventionally have porosities in the range of 5-20 % (note column 1, lines 25-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifically use the process of ‘324 in view of Bai article to make thermal barrier coatings as Zhu article evidences how conventional thermal barrier coatings have a porosity in the range of 5-20%, and Bai article describes providing SHVOF coatings of YSZ with porosities in such a range.
Claim 6: as to controlling the temperature by cooling with a cooling medium to control the temperature in the step of forming a top coat layer, this would be further suggested by ‘324 (note 0070). Bai article also notes cooling the substrate with compressed air during spraying (page 1880, first column).
Claim 7: in ‘324 the cooling medium can be compressed air compressed by a compressor (note 0126).
Claim 8: in ‘324 the cooling medium can include dry ice (note 0127).
Claim 9: ‘324 describes using yttria stabilized zirconia (YSZ), for example (note 0040).
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection (in the paragraph above) because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘324 in view of Bai article, EITHER alone OR further as evidenced by Zhu as applied to claims 1-2 and 5-9 above, and further in view of CN 112708301 (hereinafter ‘301).
Claims 3-4, as to the suspension where an absolute value of a zeta potential of the ceramic powder is equal to or greater than 40 mV is thermally sprayed for the top layer (claim 3), and the water or ethanol dispersion medium and pH of 2-9 for the suspension for the top layer (claim 4), as discussed for claim 1 above, the top layer can be made by the SHVOF of YSZ in a suspension. Bai article notes how aqueous suspension or ethanol suspension (so water or ethanol dispersion mediums) can be used (page 1879).
‘301 describes how aqueous solutions of YSZ can be formed (note the abstract), including with dispersant PAA (note translation, pages 2, 5), where there is a relationship between YSZ particle zeta potential and pH (note translation page 2, figure 6), where it is indicated to provide a stable dispersion, pH of 8 (in the claimed range) and zeta potential of -44.5 (understood to be in mV, or at least suggested to be in mV, as the conventional measure for zeta potential) (absolute value 44.5 mV, in the claimed range) (note figure 6, and translation, page 5).
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 ‘324 in view of Bai article, EITHER alone OR further as evidenced by Zhu to specifically provide the suspension for SHVOF with a zeta potential of the ceramic powder/YSZ greater than 40 mV and with a pH of 8 and water as a dispersion medium, for example, as suggested by ‘301 with an expectation of providing a desirably stable dispersion, since Bai article indicates uniform dispersions desirable (note page 1879) and describes using aqueous YSZ suspensions/dispersions and ‘301 indicates how stable dispersions of YSZ, which would be desirable to keep uniform dispersion, can be provided in an aqueous form with a zeta potential of -44.5 mV (absolute value 44.5) and a pH of 8, both in the claimed ranges.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection (in the paragraph above) because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Rincon, et al, “ A suspension high velocity oxy-fuel thermal spray manufacturing route for silicon carbide – YAG composite coating” notes the providing of Zeta potential in mV (note figure 1).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 and 6-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,4, 8-12, 14-15 and 18 of copending Application No. 18/031,503 (hereinafter ‘503) in view of Bai, et al “Microstructure and phase stability of suspension high velocity oxy-fuel sprayed yttria stabilized zirconia coatings from aqueous and ethanol based suspensions” (hereinafter Bai article), EITHER alone OR further as evidenced by Zhu et al (US 6812176).
For present claims 1-2, 9, claim 1 of ‘503 provides a method for forming a thermal barrier coating, comprising a step of forming a top coat layer on a bond coat layer formed a base material/substrate (which would be inclusive of a heat resistant alloy) of an object, where the top coat layer is formed by thermally spraying a suspension including ceramic powder using high velocity oxy-fuel (HVOF) (so an S-HVOF process) while maintaining a temperature of the top coat layer at 300 degrees C or higher and 450 degrees C or lower. Claim 8 of ‘503 notes applying yttria stabilized zirconia (YSZ) desired by present claim 9.
As to the proportion of an area in a region in which unmelted ceramic powder is agglomerated to an area of cross section of the top coat layer is equal to or less than 0.15% (claim 1) or equal to or less than 0.02% (claim 2),
Bai article describes providing a coating using suspension HVOF (which would be a high velocity oxy fuel spraying), where to provide the coating, a liquid suspension containing ceramic powder (yttria stabilized zirconia, YSZ) is provided to a thermal spray gun (SHVOF torch) to provide the thermal spraying by SHVOF (note the abstract, figure 2, page 1879, Table 1), where SHVOF understood to be thermal spraying (noting HVOF as thermal spraying, which would include modified HVOF with suspension, note page 1878). It is noted that the suspension HVOF can be used for making thermal barrier coatings (note page 1878). It is described that the coatings can have porosity (page 1881). It is described that for SHVOF complete melting and homogenization of the YSZ feedstock can be provided, which completely removes the impurity m-phase, where the molten droplet solidifies with nucleation of stable t-phase upon impact on the substrates (page 1883).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify ‘503 to provide to provide that the proportion of an area in a region in which unmelted ceramic powder is agglomerated to an area of cross section of the top coat layer is equal to or less than 0.15% (claim 1) or equal to or less than 0.02% (claim 2) by completely melting the ceramic during coating such that there are no unmelted powders, so the proportion in which unmelted ceramic powder is agglomerated is 0% and using liquid suspension as suggested by Bai article in order to provide desirable removal of impurity of coating (note removal of m-phase when spraying YSZ) since ‘503 indicates providing SHVOF application of material such as YSZ and Bai article indicates that in such action there is desirable complete melting of the powder where with YSZ this enables complete removal of the impurity m-phase and using liquid suspension.
Optionally, further using Zhu, as to the coating described by Bai article applying to thermal barrier coatings, Bai article describes that porosity is present, with examples of cumulative porosity of 10.98 vol% (14.9+/-1.9% from imaging analysis), or 12.6+/-1.7% from image analysis (note page 1881). Zhu further evidences that thermal barrier coatings which can be made with ytrria stabilized zirconia conventionally have porosities in the range of 5-20 % (note column 1, lines 25-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to specifically use the process of ‘503 in view of Bai article to make thermal barrier coatings as Zhu article evidences how conventional thermal barrier coatings have a porosity in the range of 5-20%, and Bai article describes providing SHVOF coatings of YSZ with porosities in such a range.
As to present claims 6, 7, ‘503 provides these features in claim 1, 4. As to present claim 8, ‘503 provides these features in claim 18.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 3 and 4 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over ‘503 in view of Bai article EITHER alone OR further in view of Zhu (as discussed for paragraph 19 above) and further in view of CN 112708301 (hereinafter ‘301).
Claims 3-4, as to the suspension where an absolute value of a zeta potential of the ceramic powder is equal to or greater than 40 mV is thermally sprayed for the top layer (claim 3), and the water or ethanol dispersion medium and pH of 2-9 for the suspension for the top layer (claim 4), as discussed for claim 1 above, the top layer can be made by the SHVOF of YSZ in a suspension. Bai article notes how aqueous suspension or ethanol suspension (so water or ethanol dispersion mediums) can be used (page 1879).
‘301 describes how aqueous solutions of YSZ can be formed (note the abstract), including with dispersant PAA (note translation, pages 2, 5), where there is a relationship between YSZ particle zeta potential and pH (note translation page 2, figure 6), where it is indicated to provide a stable dispersion, pH of 8 (in the claimed range) and zeta potential of -44.5 (understood to be in mV, or at least suggested to be in mV, as the conventional measure for zeta potential) (absolute value 44.5 mV, in the claimed range) (note figure 6, and translation, page 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify ‘503 in view of Bai article, EITHER alone OR further as evidenced by Zhu to specifically provide the suspension for SHVOF with a zeta potential of the ceramic powder/YSZ greater than 40 mV and with a pH of 8 and water as a dispersion medium, for example, as suggested by ‘301 with an expectation of providing a desirably stable dispersion, since Bai article indicates uniform dispersions desirable (note page 1879) and describes using aqueous YSZ suspensions/dispersions and ‘301 indicates how stable dispersions of YSZ, which would be desirable to keep uniform dispersion, can be provided in an aqueous form with a zeta potential of -44.5 mV (absolute value 44.5) and a pH of 8, both in the claimed ranges.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
The US PG Publication of 18/031,503 is US 2023/0374643.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 1, 2026 have been fully considered.
(A) As to the arguments in regard to the 35 USC 103 rejection using ‘406 as the primary reference, it is argued that ‘012 would not teach the lower temperature limit of 300 degrees C during spraying, rather indicating this as a preheating temperature prior to the start of film formation and not the temperature to be maintained during film formation, rather teaching an upper limit of 450 during film formation and no lower limit. Furthermore, it is argued that ‘012 teaches the cooling the substrate to maintain the surface temperature at 450 degrees C or less in order to prevent stress/cracks due to the difference in thermal expansion, where Bai article teaches increasing thermal energy during thermal spraying, such as with the suspension liquid to eliminate unmelted particles and achieve a state of complete melting, so to achieve the purpose of Bai article, it is necessary to keep the thermal energy of the sprayed surface as high as possible, and thus one wanting the complete meting would strongly hesitate to provide the cooling to 450 degrees C or less of Bai article, since the flying molten particles will be rapidly cooled and prematurely solidify, which would fundamentally hinder the complete melting, and teach away from the combination, and none of the combined references would suggest providing the combination of features by applicant.
The Examiner has reviewed these arguments, however, the rejections above are maintained. As to the lower temperature limit of 300 degrees C as claimed, firstly as noted in the rejection ‘012 notes the desire for the temperature to be 450 degrees C or less (note 0005), and at the least this provides a range of temperature to use that overlaps that claimed, with In re Wertheim as discussed in the rejection suggesting to optimize from this range, giving a value in the claimed range. Furthermore as to the Examiner’s position that a lower temperature range of 300 degrees C would be suggested, ‘012 describes preheating to 300 degrees C (note 0024). ‘012 also describes how the temperature can rise from the preheat temperature (note 0027, Table 2, preheat temperature 300 degrees C, final temperature 350 degrees C), and how continuous thermal spraying raises the temperature of the surface, suggesting therefore, that the temperature would be suggested to increase from the preheat temperature, thereby giving the range of 300-450 degrees C, for example. Applicant’s own arguments are that ‘012 provides cooling during the thermal spraying to maintain the temperature (note page 7 of the amendment), and again if there is cooling during the thermal spraying, and the temperature still raises at the end of spraying, it would be suggested that the preheat temperature would be the low temperature in the process. As well, ‘012 provides the preheating in order to provide some flattening of sprayed particles (note 0032-0033), and thus it would further be suggested that the temperature during spraying would be kept to at least the preheat temperature to provide the desirable flattening.
Furthermore, as to the argument that the temperatures indicated by ‘012 would not be suggested to be used with Bai article, as the particles of Bai article would be rapidly cooled and prematurely solidify, so teaches away from cooling as in ‘012, the Examiner disagrees. ‘012 notes the temperature of the substrate is desired not to be so cool that flattening does not occur (note 0032-0033). Furthermore, Bai article teaches that the feedstock is completely melted, and the molten droplet solidifies on impact with the substrate, and that the substrate is typically cooled (with air jets) (note page 1883, second column). Thus, Bai article is indicating melting during the spraying with cooling occurring on impact and where the substrate can be cooled. This does not teach away from having the process of ‘012 with a cooling/temperature control of the substrate. The heating to melting of the particles is not provided by the temperature of the substrate. Therefore, the two references do not teach against each other and the rejections are maintained.
(B) As to the 35 USC 103 rejections using WO ‘324, applicant has provided a statement of common ownership.
The Examiner notes that applicant’s representative (attorney of record) provided a statement of common ownership that ‘324 and the present application were commonly owned by the same applicant prior to the effective filing date of the present application, thus providing a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement, where ‘324 would be an applied reference has a common assignee/inventor with the instant application, where based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it would constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). However, this would remove rejections based on 35 USC 102(a)(2) only. Upon review, it is noted that ‘324 was published July 7, 2022, which was before the filing date of the PCT application and after the foreign application priority date of April 14, 2022 in the present case. However, as noted in the rejections above, Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. Therefore, the current priority date of the present application has not been certified, so the effective filing date of the present application only extends back to the filing date of the PCT application (March 24, 2023), and the rejection is therefore also valid by way of 35 USC 102(a)(1), and the statement of common owenership does not overcome a rejection based on this. Therefore, the above rejection is maintained.
(C) As to the obviousness double patenting rejections, it is argued that one reading Bai article would not be suggested to use intentional cooling as claimed.
However, the Examiner disagrees. As discussed above, with regard to the 35 USC 103 rejection using ‘406 as the primary reference, Bai article teaches that the feedstock is completely melted, and the molten droplet solidifies on impact with the substrate, and that the substrate is typically cooled (with air jets) (note page 1883, second column). Thus, Bai article is indicating melting during the spraying with cooling occurring on impact and where the substrate can be cooled. This does not teach away from having the process of ‘503 with a cooling/temperature control of the substrate. The heating to melting of the particles is not provided by the temperature of the substrate. Therefore, the two references do not teach against each other and the rejections are maintained.
(D) Note the objection to claim 9 due to the lack of subscript.
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