DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II claims 40, 41, 46-49, 59, 61, and 63 in the reply filed on 3/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims directed to the coating have been canceled by amendment.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 3/20/2026 are entered and fully considered.
Claims 67-78 are new.
Claim Interpretation
The claims use the term “about” which is defined in the specification as an “ordinary meaning” and “it may mean plus or minus 10% or plus or minus 5%”. The broadest reasonable interpretation is therefore plus or minus 10%.
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 59, 61, 63, 69, 70, and 71 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.
The term “slowly” in claim 59 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “slowly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The examiner notes that the specification (and claim 59) notes that cooling can be done at up to 200°C/min.
The term “gradually” in claim 61 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. Depending claim 77 resolves the 112 issue.
Claim 63 refers to step c) which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 69 has a typo referring to claim 402 instead of 40 (claim 42 is canceled).
Claim 70 is a multiple dependent claim that depends from canceled claims.
Claim 71 refers to “the shortest possible stand-off distance” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 40, 41, 46, 48, 67-69, 71 and 75 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BAKAN et al. (US 2023/0328870), evidenced by the TriplexPro-210 product page (2017).
Regarding claims 40 and 46,
BAKAN teaches a method of coating using an atmospheric plasma spraying abstract. The coating includes rare earth silicates [0032] and specifically teaches both monosilicate and disilicates of Yb [0060]. An example ratio of disilicate:monosilicate is 3:1 which is greater than (at least) 70:30 [0119]. In the example, only short/unconnected cracks occur and the crystallinity is 92% [0116]. Porosity is not more than 15% [0020].
The atmospheric plasma spraying (APS) [0021] includes heating the substrate to 500 or 600°C (at least about 500°C) [0049]. The coating can be a protective coating and the precursor materials are disilicates and monosilicates [0119]. BAKAN teaches using a TriplexPro-201 plasma torch [0086] and the product page for the TriplexPro-201 plasma torch has a standard operation of 65kW and a high velocity operation of 90 kW product data sheet. Without specific instruction the plasma torch can be reasonably inferred to be operating at standard power (at least 60 kW).
Regarding claim 41,
The atmospheric plasma spraying (APS) [0021] includes heating the substrate to 500 or 600°C (at least about 600°C) [0049].
Regarding claim 48,
The spray distance in BAKAN is 60-200mm [0043] which falls within the claimed range of at most about 200mm.
Regarding claim 67,
The substrate is necessarily heated by the operation of the plasma torch performing deposition.
Regarding claim 68 and 69,
The TriplexPro-201 plasma torch has a standard operation of 65kW and a high velocity operation of 90 kW product data sheet.
Regarding claim 71,
The “shortest possible stand-off” distance is interpreted to mean the lowest point of a range of disclosed spray distances. BAKAN teaches a range of distances as short as 60mm [0043].
Regarding claim 75,
BAKAN teaches the torch velocity is 250-500 mm/s [0045] which falls within the claimed range.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 70, 72 and 73 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAKAN et al. (US 2023/0328870), evidenced by the TriplexPro-210 product page (2017).
Regarding claim 70,
The BAKAN reference teaches TriplexPro-201 plasma torch has a standard operation of 65kW and a high velocity operation of 90 kW product data sheet but does not expressly teach using high velocity operation. However, at the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art to use the high velocity setting to increase deposition speed.
Regarding claim 72,
BAKAN teaches a feed rate of 5-150 g/min [0046] which overlaps the claimed range and is considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 73,
The BAKAN reference teaches a torch nozzle minimum diameter of up to 8mm [0052]. This overlaps the diameter of 5/16 to ½ inch and is considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I.
Claim(s) 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAKAN et al. (US 2023/0328870), evidenced by the TriplexPro-210 product page (2017) in view of Axial III Plasma Spray System product page (2013).
Regarding claim 47,
BAKAN teaches using a TriplexPro-210 plasma torch but does not teach a torch with an injection axial to the plasma. However, Mettech offered the Axial III Spray system and noted that the axial system has improved deposition efficiency when compared to radial system, see Axial III product page. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the Axial III plasma torch to improve deposition efficiency.
Claim(s) 59, 63, 74, 76, and 78 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAKAN et al. (US 2023/0328870), evidenced by the TriplexPro-210 product page (2017) in view of GARCIA et al. “Phase and microstructure evolution in plasma sprayed Yb2Si2O7 coatings” (Nov. 2018).
Regarding claims 59, 63, and 76,
BAKAN teaches the deposition of a rare earth disilicate but does not teach additional treatment of the film. However, GARCIA teaches that when making a Yb2Si2O7 film by atmospheric plasma spray an additional anneal can be done to remove microcracks abstract which also improves thermal conductivity Fig. 7. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add an additional heating (annealing) and cooling step according to GARCIA to improve the deposited coating of BAKAN. GARCIA teaches the annealing is done in 3 thermal cycles performed at 5°/min (additional annealing cycles after cooling) experimental.
Regarding claim 78,
GACRIA teaches the annealing heat to 1300°C Experimental right column and Fig. 9.
Regarding claim 74,
BAKAN teaches atmospheric plasma spray but does not measure the particle temperatures. However, GARCIA teaches a similar spray for depositing Yb disilicates and measures the temperature of particles at overlapping ranges in Table 1. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to perform the deposition of Yb disilicates by atmospheric plasma spray with the temperature of GARCIA as a known temperature for deposition.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 61 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 77 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 61 requires “cooling” the substrate by lowering the power of the plasma torch. This is counterintuitive because a plasma torch that is still operating (even at a lower power) is still expected to be a heat source. However, one could envisage a steady state temperature achieved at a higher power setting (depending on insulation and/or cooling elements) and lowering the power setting to arrive at a new lower temperature. The term “gradually” is unclear but certainly excludes a step of turning off the plasma torch. The examiner also notes that the “cooling” is accomplished by reducing the amount of heating which is distinguished from cooling by injecting a stream of cool inert gas or activating cooling coils.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571272-1418. 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.
/AUSTIN MURATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights