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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7-8, 11-12 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weimer et al. (US 6616978 B1) in view of Troczynski et al. (US 6284682 B1) and Church et al. (US 3956531)
As to claim 1, Weimer et al. teaches applying one or more films of aluminum oxide and chromium oxide to protect turbine engine blades (col. 1), then thermally treating the films at the claimed temperature to form a layer comprising aluminum-chromium oxide (col. 4 lines 7-68 et seq and col. 5 et seq., deposited by a liquid for each layer and individually dried) Weimer et al. does not teach that the aluminum oxide is created from polynuclear aluminum oxide hydroxide and that the chromium oxide is created from polynuclear chromium hydroxide.
Trocynski et al. teaches similar films for substrate protection (abstract) that includes an aluminum oxide layer made by heating deposited polynuclear aluminum oxide hydroxide (General Example 1, col. 8 line 35 – col. 9 line 25) to form a dense and crack free film (col. 2 lines 54-58). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Weimer et al. to include an aluminum oxide layer made by heating deposited polynuclear aluminum oxide hydroxide as taught by Trocynski et al. in order to form a dense and crack free film.
Church et al. teaches similar films for substrate protection (col. 1 lines 45-55) that includes a chromium oxide layer made by heating polynuclear chromium hydroxide in col. 2 lines 42-69 to achieve a dense layer with high hardness in col. 3 lines 15-20, abstract. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Weimer et al. to include a chromium oxide layer made by heating polynuclear chromium hydroxide as taught by Church et al. in order to achieve a dense layer with high hardness.
As to claims 3-4, zirconia is added in Troczynski et al. to the alumina to improve the strength of the film in Example 3. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the amount of zirconia in the film depending on the strength desired, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
As to claims 7-8, 12 and 15-17, these features are natural results of the claimed method. As the above combination meets the method limitation, thus these results naturally follow.
As to claim 11, the references teach turbine engine blades or porous materials where the coatings are deposited in internal passages (introduction sections).
Claim(s) 5-6 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weimer et al. (US 6616978 B1) in view of Troczynski et al. (US 6284682 B1) and Church et al. (US 3956531) and in further view of Burns et al. (US 2007/0172676 A1)
As to claims 5-6, Weimer, Troczynski and Church do not teach the dopants. Burns et al. teaches that yttrium and zirconium are useful additions to alumina layers in thermal barrier coatings in para 0015-0016. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Weimer, Troczynski and Church to include the claimed dopants as Burns et al. teaches the art recognized suitability of such.
As to claims 13-14, Weimer, Troczynski and Church do not teach a bond coat and upper coat as claimed. Burns et al. teaches both as part of a thermal barrier coating stack in para 0014-0016. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Weimer, Troczynski and Church to include the upper and bond coats as Burns et al. teaches the art recognized suitability of such.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 9-10 and 18-20 are 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 prior art, alone or in combination, does not teach the specific features of these claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY M GAMBETTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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.
KELLY M. GAMBETTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1718
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights