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 I, claims 1-14 and 20 in the reply filed on 2/27/26 is acknowledged. Since the election is made without traverse, the restriction is deemed as proper and therefore made FINAL. Claims 15-19 are withdrawn from consideration.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2021/179013 (herein referred to as JP ‘013) in view of Allimant et al US 2021/0115548.
Per claims 1-2, 12-14, JP ‘013 teaches a method of manufacturing a plasma sprayed coating (abstract) comprising providing a yttrium oxide powder (Example 1), forming a plasma stream toward a base material from a plasma spray torch (abstract), forming molten droplets (inherent as with the spraying of a dispersion of particles, see abstract) of the granular powder by supplying the powder to the stream (Example 1), providing a coolant stream intersecting the plasma stream containing the molten droplets (abstract), and providing the base material with the plasma stream that has undergone the coolant stream thereby forming the sprayed coating. JP ‘013 is silent regarding the presence of crystalline YAG. Allimant teaches a powder for coating which is deposited via plasma spray [0014], wherein the powder coating is YAG [0026]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized powder YAG in the plasma spray process of JP ‘013 (JP ‘013 already teaches the use of yttrium oxide powders) because Allimant teaches that YAG is particularly suitable for plasma spraying [0001]. Since the prior art teaches all the claimed limitations, the final formed spray coating in the crystalline an amorphous phase would necessarily been present from following the claimed process, or in the alternative, one would have expected the properties to be present when performing the claimed process. As such, the claim is not patentably distinct from the prior art especially in the absence of unexpected results. Allimant teaches the particle diameter D50 of YAG to be 20-60 microns [0065], which overlaps with 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected a value within the disclosed workable range of the prior art to arrive at the desired result with a reasonable expectation for success.
Per claim 5, since the prior art teaches all the claimed limitations, the final formed spray coating in the crystalline an amorphous phase would necessarily been present from following the claimed process, or in the alternative, one would have expected the properties to be present when performing the claimed process. As such, the claim is not patentably distinct from the prior art especially in the absence of unexpected results.
Per claims 6 and 20, JP ‘013 teaches a porosity of 2% or less (Example 1) which falls within 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected a value within the disclosed workable range of the prior art to arrive at the desired result with a reasonable expectation for success.
Per claim 7, JP ‘013 teaches the coolant stream contains water (abstract).
Per claim 8, JP ‘013 teaches a base to torch distance of 80 mm (comparative example 1), which falls within the claimed range.
Per claims 9-10, JP ‘013 teaches a water shroud (ring shaped) wherein a plurality of injection ports are utilized for the coolant (water) (pages 3-4).
Per claim 11, JP ‘013 teaches that the momentum (speed) of the injected water is adjusted to apply substantially uniformly to the ejection direction of the plasma flame (pages 3-4) and as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have controlled and optimized the speed of coolant to arrive at the desired results via routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/31/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued several features that are based on the limitation of the granular powder having a D50 of 15-45 microns. However, the prior art clearly teaches a D50 that overlaps with the claimed range (see above rejection) [0065]. As such, the properties and special features would be present in the prior art and Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 NATHAN T. LEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-6:00pm.
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.
/NATHAN T LEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights