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 .
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 16-18 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.
Regarding Claim 18, it is unclear whether there is any difference in “chromium” and “chrome”. Claim 18 refers to “chrome” at line 2 and to “chromium” elsewhere, including by reference in Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 16, it is unclear what characterizes and distinguishes “nanometer” and “micrometer” sizes. Any size can be expressed in one or the other of these units of length, and so it is unclear what constitutes the respective sizes.
Regarding Claim 17, it is unclear whether these oxides are necessarily present or whether, if oxides are present, they must be of these types. Analogous rejection applies to carbides of Claim 18.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 15, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu, et al., “NiAl bond coats made by directed vapor deposition approach” in Materials Science and Engineering A 394 (2005, no month) (pages 43-52) in view of Darolia USPN 8,512,874. Yu teaches teaches metal component (page 46, top right column) superalloy substrate having beta phase NiAl bond coat layer (page 46, Figure 5; page 47, Figure 6) formed by EBPVD with controlled substrate temperature (page 45, top left column; page 50, Figure 11). Yu teaches these layers are used in TBC system (page 43, middle left column). Yu teaches that coating can include Zr (page 52, top left column). Yu teaches that fully dense (page 50, top right column) coating with no pores (page 45, lower middle left column: “pore free”; page 46, middle right column: “No pores”) is formed. The coating interdiffuses with the substrate (page 46, Figure 5; page 47; Figure 6; page 50, Figure 11). Yu does not exemplify using Zr. Darolia teaches metal component superalloy substrate having beta NiAl bond coat layer formed of metals including Zr or Ta (col. 5, lines 56-62) wherein the layer is formed by EBPVD and heat treatment so as to interdiffuse the coating with the substrate (col. 7, lines 13-54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to include Zr in the beta NiAl coating of Yu since Yu recognizes its possible usefulness and so does Darolia in comparable system. In view of the interdiffused nature of the bondcoat, it can be characterized as being metallurgically fused and indistinguishable from one formed by CVD or other methods claimed since no claimed process parameters are specified that would be expected to lead to bonding that would not encompass the coating of Yu in view of Darolia. Furthermore, the coating is dense and nonporous as characterized in Yu, which is the only expressly claimed structural characteristic. The EBPVD with controlled substrate temperature deposition technique of Yu may be considered a type of fusion welding since it results in an interdiffused layer. Nevertheless, these methods arguably also may not be encompassed by the claimed product-by-process steps of this claim. However, the resulting articles in Yu in view of Darolia would be expected to have metallurgical bonding that is the same as or substantially the same as that encompassed by the claims in view of the interdiffusion and integral bonding that results therefrom. Absent evidence to the contrary, there is no expectation of a structural or compositional nature to the bonding formed by the claimed techniques that would necessarily be absent in Yu in view of Darolia’s bonding. While Yu teaches these coated substrates as to be used in TBC system, Yu does not expressly suggest forming TBC by thermal spraying or composition of TBC. Darolia teaches that ceramic TBC layer, such as YSZ, (Figure 2 at 26; col. 9, line 43) can be applied by thermal spraying (col. 4, line 38) wherein the ceramic can be one of many others as well (col. 4, line 33 through col. 5, line 12: [CMAS, which includes silica, i.e., silicon oxide]). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide a thermally sprayed top coating to Yu since Yu recognizes making TBC system which inherently provides for ceramic top coat and since Darolia expressly characterizes TBC system as having thermally sprayed ceramic top coat. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide a thermally sprayed top coat of any of the suggested materials of Darolia including CMAS since they are suggested by Darolia as being effective and since it would be expected that they would confer thermal protection.
Claim(s) 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu, et al., “NiAl bond coats made by directed vapor deposition approach” in Materials Science and Engineering A 394 (2005, no month) (pages 43-52) in view of Darolia USPN 8,512,874 in view of Huddleston et al. USPA 2007/0098987. Yu teaches metal component (page 46, top right column) superalloy substrate having beta phase NiAl bond coat layer (page 46, Figure 5; page 47, Figure 6) formed by EBPVD with controlled substrate temperature (page 45, top left column; page 50, Figure 11). Yu teaches these layers are used in TBC system (page 43, middle left column). Yu teaches that coating can include Zr (page 52, top left column). Yu teaches that fully dense (page 50, top right column) coating with no pores (page 45, lower middle left column: “pore free”; page 46, middle right column: “No pores”) is formed. The coating interdiffuses with the substrate (page 46, Figure 5; page 47; Figure 6; page 50, Figure 11). Yu does not exemplify using Zr. Darolia teaches metal component superalloy substrate having beta NiAl bond coat layer formed of metals including Zr or Ta (col. 5, lines 56-62) wherein the layer is formed by EBPVD and heat treatment so as to interdiffuse the coating with the substrate (col. 7, lines 13-54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to include Zr in the beta NiAl coating of Yu since Yu recognizes its possible usefulness and so does Darolia in comparable system. In view of the interdiffused nature of the bondcoat, it can be characterized as being metallurgically fused and indistinguishable from one formed by CVD or other methods claimed since no claimed process parameters are specified that would be expected to lead to bonding that would not encompass the coating of Yu in view of Darolia. Furthermore, the coating is dense and nonporous as characterized in Yu, which is the only expressly claimed structural characteristic. The EBPVD with controlled substrate temperature deposition technique of Yu may be considered a type of fusion welding since it results in an interdiffused layer. Nevertheless, these methods arguably also may not be encompassed by the claimed product-by-process steps of this claim. However, the resulting articles in Yu in view of Darolia would be expected to have metallurgical bonding that is the same as or substantially the same as that encompassed by the claims in view of the interdiffusion and integral bonding that results therefrom. Absent evidence to the contrary, there is no expectation of a structural or compositional nature to the bonding formed by the claimed techniques that would necessarily be absent in Yu in view of Darolia’s bonding. While Yu teaches these coated substrates to be used in TBC system, Yu does not expressly suggest forming TBC by thermal spraying or composition of TBC. Darolia teaches that ceramic TBC layer, such as YSZ, (Figure 2 at 26; col. 9, line 43) can be applied by thermal spraying (col. 4, line 38) wherein the ceramic can be one of many others as well (col. 4, line 33 through col. 5, line 12: [CMAS, which includes silica, i.e., silicon oxide]). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide a thermally sprayed top coating to Yu since Yu recognizes making TBC system which inherently provides for ceramic top coat and since Darolia expressly characterizes TBC system as having thermally sprayed ceramic top coat. Darolia may not teach claimed oxide in that CMAS may not be considered oxide of silicon. Huddleston teaches that oxide of titanium (what can be considered “titanium oxide”) incorporated into YSZ is an effective TBC material for gas turbine (paragraph 49) and teaches other ceramics meeting oxide of titanium and silicon requirement (paragraph 21: “silicon dioxide”, which can be considered “silicon oxide”) all of which can be in powder form (paragraph 24 [micron sized]) that is thermally sprayed (paragraph 32; and Table 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to choose effective ceramic TBC material in Darolia such as those mentioned in Huddleston and to apply such ceramic by thermal spray means suggested by Darolia and Huddleston at particle size taught as effective by Huddleston in order to obtain coating layer that provides expected TBC performance required in gas turbine environment.
Response to Amendment
In view of applicant’s amendments and arguments, applicant traverses the NSDP rejection over USPN 12,129,554 of the Office Action mailed on 1 October 2025. Rejection is withdrawn.
In view of applicant’s amendments and arguments, applicant traverses the section 112, paragraph (b) rejection of the Office Action mailed on 1 October 2025. Except as repeated above for the reasons provided above, rejections are withdrawn. Regarding 16, applicant has provided definitions of nanometer and micrometer as basis for traversal. The indefiniteness does not relate to what these terms mean; rather, it pertains to how does knowing these definitions lead to a definite characterization of what the size of respective particles must be. For example, if a particle is 1 mm, is that a 1000 micrometer sized particle (what is being claimed) or a millimeter sized particle (outside the claim scope)? If a particle is 500 nm or 0.5 micron, is that a nanometer sized particle, a micrometer sized particle, or neither? Can these claimed particles essentially be any size?
In view of applicant’s amendments and arguments, applicant traverses the section 103 rejection over Darolia and the section 103 rejection over Darolia in view of Huddleston of the Office Action mailed on 1 October 2025. Rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding Huddleston, applicant argues that it is non-analogous art. Since Huddleston is presented in a revised rejection, this argument is addressed. Standard for nonanalogous art is presented in MPEP 2141.01(a) (“ A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Note that "same field of endeavor" and "reasonably pertinent" are two separate tests for establishing analogous art; it is not necessary for a reference to fulfill both tests in order to qualify as analogous art.”). Applicant’s claims are general and not specific to any field. Applicant’s Specification explains that the invention relates to “any and all metal components used in any and all industrial processes that require increased resistance against corrosion, wear, and erosion” See Specification (top page 6). Huddleston relates to TBC coatings for gas turbines (paragraph 1), which is a component used in industrial process. While Huddleston’s particular emphasis is providing for YSZ based TBC that is abradable, such coating remains a TBC coating to be used in gas turbine. Its abradability is not tailored so as to be worn away and destroyed as applicant argues. Rather the coating is to serve as a TBC protective coating on surface of component that needs to form seal at close tolerance (paragraphs 2 and 3) which is accomplished by its abradability character. Hardwicke et al. in “Advances in Thermal Spray Coatings for Gas Turbines and Energy Generation: A Review” in J. Thermal Spray Technology, Vol. 22(5) (2013, June) (pages 564-576) explains that TBC coating needs to provide corrosion and wear and erosion protection (page 564). Hardwicke mentions YSZ as being among those coatings (page 565). So, Huddleston relates to the same field of endeavor as applicant as it relates to components needing corrosion, erosion, and wear resistance in view of applicant’s characterization of what the invention is in the Specification and as explained by Hardwicke as to what TBC coatings need to accomplish. As well, Huddleston, for the same reasons, is pertinent to the problem applicant is addressing, namely, how to provide coating that is corrosion, erosion, and wear resistant. Thus, Huddleston is analogous art, contrary to applicant’s contentions.
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 MICHAEL E. LA VILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-1539. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. from 9:00 a.m. ET to 5:30 p.m. ET.
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 N. 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.
/MICHAEL E. LA VILLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
21 May 2026
Prosecution Insights