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 .
Introduction
Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-15 and 20 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been overcome by the amendments to the claims, however, a new rejection under 112(b) is presented below. The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) has been overcome by the amendments to the claims.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 11 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 5, 11 and 20 do not relate the term, “RE,” to anything previously recited in the claim. From the specification and originally presented claims, it is clear that RE refers to rare earth elements previously recited in the claims. Notwithstanding, appropriate correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 6, as it was originally presented, further defined claim 1 by narrowing which materials are included in the layer. Claim 1, as amended, deleted hafnium silicate as a possible material. However, claim 6 permits the material to be hafnon, which is a hafnium silicate species. Similarly, claim 1 deleted the sub-genus of rare earth stabilized zirconia, and claim 6 still permits yttrium stabilized zirconia. Claim 1, as amended, deleted hafnium silicate as a possible material, and claim 6 still permits Hf silicate containing a greater than stoichiometric amount of SiO2. The contrast results in one or ordinary skill in the art being unable to ascertain whether the species of claim 6 are meant to be in addition to claim 1 or merely falling within subgenuses recited in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-4, 7-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20170218501 A1)(Lee).
Lee teaches a multilayer coating applied to a ceramic or ceramic matrix composite. See the abstract. Lee teaches a bond coat (36), a first layer (38) and a second layer (40). See figure 2, and paragraphs [0048]-[0070]. The first layer (38) has the characteristics of an environmental barrier coating because it shields the substrate from water. See paragraph [0020]. The second layer (40) has the characteristics of a thermal barrier coating because the layer mitigates stresses due to thermal expansion mismatch. See paragraph [0021]. For the reasons that follow, either the first layer, or the second layer render obvious claims 1 and 20. Each case will be taken separately.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 15 and 20 are rendered obvious by the first layer (38) of Lee
As to claims 1, 15 and 20, Lee teaches a multilayer coating applied to a ceramic or ceramic matrix composite. See the abstract. The phrase “ceramic matrix composite” taught by Lee indicates to one of ordinary skill in the art “fiber tows within a ceramic matrix.” See also paragraph [0035].
Lee teaches a first layer (38) contains excess rare earth that forms a rare earth oxide. See paragraph [0045].
Lee teaches the first layer comprises a dopant of alumina, an alkali oxide, or an alkaline earth oxide (i.e., MgO, SrO, CaO or BaO). See paragraph [0051]. The dopant is added in an amount of 0.1 to 5 wt%. Id. This range of dopant content overlaps the range of metal oxide recited in claims 1, 3, 5 and 20, and overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range of dopant content taught by Lee, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 2, Lee teaches the dopant may be alumina or an alkaline earth. See paragraph [0034]. MgO is an alkaline earth oxide.
As to claim 4, the first layer (38) has the characteristics of an environmental barrier coating because it shields the substrate from water. See paragraph [0020].
As to claim 7, Lee fails to disclose the thickness of the first layer. However, it has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to have changed the size of a prior art product. See MPEP 2144.04 IVA. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adjusted the thickness of the first layer of Lee because it has been held to have been obvious to have changed the size of a prior art product.
As to claim 8, Lee teaches the coating system includes a bond coat (36). See figure 2, and paragraph [0048].
As to claim 9, Lee fails to disclose the thickness of the bond coat. However, it has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to have changed the size of a prior art product. See MPEP 2144.04 IVA. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adjusted the thickness of the bond coat of Lee because it has been held to have been obvious to have changed the size of a prior art product.
Further as to claim 20, Lee teaches the article may be a seal segment, a blade track, an airfoil, a blade, a vane, a combustion chamber liner, or the like. See paragraph [0034].
Claims 1-3, 10-15 and 20 are rendered obvious by the second layer (40) of Lee
As to claims 1, 15 and 20, Lee teaches a multilayer coating applied to a ceramic or ceramic matrix composite. See the abstract. The phrase “ceramic matrix composite” taught by Lee indicates to one of ordinary skill in the art “fiber tows within a ceramic matrix.” See also paragraph [0035].
Lee teaches the second layer (40) comprises a rare earth zirconate. See figure 2, and paragraphs [0063].
Lee teaches the second layer (40) comprises a dopant of alumina, an alkali oxide, or an alkaline earth oxide (i.e., MgO, SrO, CaO or BaO). See paragraph [0070]. The dopant is added in an amount of 0.1 to 5 wt%. Id. This range of dopant content overlaps the range of metal oxide recited in claims 1, 3, 11 and 20, and overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range of dopant content taught by Lee, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 2, Lee teaches the dopant may be alumina or an alkaline earth. See paragraph [0070]. MgO is an alkaline earth oxide.
As to claim 10, the second layer (40) has the characteristics of a thermal barrier coating because the layer mitigates stresses due to thermal expansion mismatch. See paragraph [0021].
As to claim 11, Lee teaches a second layer (40) comprises a rare earth zirconate. See figure 2, and paragraphs [0063].
As to claim 12, Lee fails to disclose the thickness of the second layer. However, it has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to have changed the size of a prior art product. See MPEP 2144.04 IVA. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adjusted the thickness of the second layer of Lee because it has been held to have been obvious to have changed the size of a prior art product.
As to claim 13, Lee teaches the coating system includes a bond coat (36). See figure 2, and paragraph [0048].
As to claim 14, Lee fails to disclose the thickness of the bond coat. However, it has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to have changed the size of a prior art product. See MPEP 2144.04 IVA. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adjusted the thickness of the bond coat of Lee because it has been held to have been obvious to have changed the size of a prior art product.
Further as to claim 20, Lee teaches the article may be a seal segment, a blade track, an airfoil, a blade, a vane, a combustion chamber liner, or the like. See paragraph [0034].
Claims 1-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatia et al. (US 2007/0065672 A1)(Bhatia).
As to claims 1, 15 and 20, Bhatia teaches a substrate having an environmental barrier layer applied thereto. See the abstract. The substrate may be a ceramic matrix composite. See paragraph [0013]. The phrase “ceramic matrix composite” taught by Bhatia indicates to one of ordinary skill in the art “fiber tows within a ceramic matrix.” See also paragraph [0013].
The environmental barrier layer contains zirconium silicate and hafnium silicate in the form of HfSiO4 (hafnon). See the abstract and paragraph [0021]. The coating may also contain thermal expansion tailoring additives such as Nb2O3, MgO, CaO, SrO, BaO, SiO2, or Al2O3 (among others). The thermal expansion tailoring additive is added in an amount of 5 to 50 volume percent. See paragraph [0016]. This range of dopant content is believed to overlap the range of metal oxide recited in claims 1, 3, 11 and 20. In this regard, a layer containing 95 volume percent HfSiO4 and 5 volume percent Al2O3 has a corresponding composition in weight precent of 97 wt% HfSiO4 and 3 wt% Al2O3. This calculation was made using a density of 6.97 g/cc for HfSiO4 and 4.00 g/cc for Al2O3. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range of dopant content taught by Lee, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 2, Bhatia teaches the CTE additive may be Al2O3, MgO or Nb2O3. See paragraph [0015].
As to claim 4, Bhatia teaches the layer is an environmental barrier coating in the abstract.
As to claim 5, Bhatia teaches the layer may contain zirconium silicate. See paragraph [0014].
As to claim 6, Bhatia teaches the layer may contain HfSiO4 (paragraph [0021]) which is also called hafnon.
As to claim 7, Bhatia teaches the barrier layer may have a thickness of 0.1 to 300 mils (2.5 to 7600 microns). See paragraph [0018]. This range overlaps the range recited in claim 7.
As to claim 8, Bhatia teaches including a bond coat in claim 24.
As to claim 9, Bhatia fails to disclose the thickness of the bond coat. However, it has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to have changed the size of a prior art product. See MPEP 2144.04 IVA. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adjusted the thickness of the bond coat of Bhatia because it has been held to have been obvious to have changed the size of a prior art product.
As to claim 10, Bhatia teaches the coating has the properties of a thermal barrier coating as well as an environmental barrier coating in paragraph [0012].
As to claim 11, Bhatia teaches the layer includes HfO2 in paragraph [0021].
As to claim 12, Bhatia teaches the barrier layer may have a thickness of 0.1 to 300 mils (2.5 to 7600 microns). See paragraph [0018]. This range overlaps the range recited in claim 12.
As to claim 13, Bhatia teaches including a bond coat in claim 24.
As to claim 14, Lee fails to disclose the thickness of the bond coat. However, it has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to have changed the size of a prior art product. See MPEP 2144.04 IVA. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adjusted the thickness of the bond coat of Bhatia because it has been held to have been obvious to have changed the size of a prior art product.
Further as to claim 20, Bhatia teaches the article including the barrier layer is used in gas turbine engines (paragraph [0003]), but fails to teach the specific components: turbine blade, turbine airfoil, blade outer air seal, or combustor liner. However, it would have been obvious to have employed the coated article of Bhatia in any of the components of a turbine engine which are exposed to high temperatures, including a turbine blade, turbine airfoil, blade outer air seal, or combustor liner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants assert Lee does not render obvious the claim as amended. This argument is not deemed persuasive because Lee discloses the layer 40 may contain a rare earth zirconate. See figure 2, and paragraphs [0063].). In an alternate interpretation, Lee et al. further discloses layer 38 may contain free rare earth oxide.
Applicants assert Bhatia et al. does not render obvious the claim as amended. This argument is not deemed persuasive because Bhatia discloses the layer may contain zirconium silicate in paragraph [0014].
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 David Sample whose telephone number is (571)272-1376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7AM to 3:30 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, 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.
/David Sample/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights