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 .
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicants' claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 17/770,821, filed on 21 April 2022.
Claim Interpretation
With Regards to Claim 11: Claim 11 has been interpreted below as reciting (8.0 - x) wt% of Y2O3 and from 2*x wt% to 4*x wt% of Yb2O3 and/or Er2O3. Claim 1 recites that Y2O3 can be present in an amount of 0.2 wt% to 8.0 wt% and optionally that Yb2O3 and/or Er2O3 are present in an amount of 0.2 wt% to 20 wt%. As such, the value of "x" in claim 11 has been interpreted to be limited to being equal to or greater than zero (0) and less than or equal to five (5). Whereby for (x=0), there is 8.0 wt% Y2O3 and none of Yb2O3 and/or Er2O3, and whereby for (x=5), there is 3.0 wt% Y2O3 and from 10 wt% to 20 wt. of Yb2O3 and/or Er2O3; both of which are within the bounds of the ranges of claim 1, from which claim 11 depends. Therefore, for the purposes of examination "x" is strictly limited to values of greater than or equal to zero and less than or equal to five. (Appropriate correction requested.)
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are:
The instant specification recites --an NiCoCrAlY-X alloy, optionally with x = Ta, Re, Fe and/or Si-- in [Pg. 3: li. 1-2] of the filed specification; which is unclear as to how "x" is associated to the "NiCoCrAlY" alloy. It is recommended to correct this to read "an NiCoCrAlY-X alloy, wherein X is optional and can be
[Pg. 8: li. 17-18] of the filed specification recites --For example, when x corresponds to 2, the ceramic material would comprise 4.0 wt% of Y2O3 and between 4 wt% and 8 wt%--, which appears to be a typographical error; recommend correcting this to read as "For example, when x corresponds to 2, the ceramic material would comprise 4.0 wt% of Y2O3 and between 4 wt% and 8 wt% of Yb2O3/Er2O3".
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, 8, 11, and 14-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With Regards to Claim 1: Instant claim 1 recites --base stabilizers:, more particularly with 0.2 wt% to 6.0 wt% of base stabilizers: yttrium oxide (Y2O3)-- on lines 3 to 6; recommend correcting this to read as "base stabilizers:2O3)".
With Regards to Claim 1: Instant claim 1 recites --at least one of the additional stabilizers-- on line 10; recommend correcting this to read as "at least one stabilizer
With Regards to Claim 7: Instant claim 7 recites --comprising, more particularly consisting of, ZrO2-HfO2-Y2O3-Yb2O3-- on lines 1 to 2; recommend correcting this to read as "comprising, more particularly consisting of, ZrO2, ZrO2, HfO2, and Y2O3
With Regards to Claim 8: Instant claim 8 recites --comprising, more particularly consisting of, ZrO2-HfO2-Y2O3-Yb2O3-Er2O3-- on lines 1 to 2; recommend correcting this to read as "comprising, more particularly consisting of, ZrO2, ZrO2, HfO2, Y2O3, and Er2O3
With Regards to Claim 11: Instant claim 11 recites --comprising (8.0 – x) wt% of Y2O3 + (2-4) x wt% of Yb2O3/Er2O3, more particularly (6.0 - x) wt% of Y2O3 + (2-4) x wt.% of Yb2O3/Er2O3--; for clarity, recommend correcting this to read as "comprising (8.0 - x) wt% of Y2O3 and between 2*x wt% and 4*x wt% of Yb2O3/Er2O32O3 and between 2*x wt% and 4*x wt% of Yb2O3/Er2O3".
With Regards to Claim 14: Instant claim 14 recites --a material as claimed in claim 1-- on line 3, which appears to be a typographical error; recommend correcting this to read as "the[[a]] ceramic material as claimed in claim 1".
With Regards to Claim 15: Instant claim 15 recites in lines 1 to 5 that:
A system (1) of layers at least comprising a metallic substrate (4), optionally a metallic adhesion promoter layer (7), and an at least one ceramic layer (10I, 10II, 10III, 10IV) based on the material of the invention as claimed in claim 1
recommend correcting this to read as:
A system ceramic material
With Regards to Claim 16: Instant claim 16 recites in lines 2 to 8 that:
promoter layer (7) between the ceramic layer (13II, 13IV, 10I, 10III) and the metallic substrate (4), more particularly directly on the substrate (4), wherein the adhesion promoter layer (7) comprises an alloy of the type NiCoCrAlY-X, X being optionally = Ta, Re and/or Si, more particularly NiCoCrAlY or NiCoCrAlY-Ta
which appears to be a typographical error; recommend correcting this to read as:
promoter layer at least one ceramic layer metallic substrateis optional and can be
With Regards to Claim 17: Instant claim 17 recites in lines 2 to 9 that:
promoter layer (7) between the ceramic layer (13II, 13IV, 10I, 10III) and the metallic substrate (4), more particularly directly on the substrate (4), wherein the adhesion promoter layer (7) comprises an alloy of the type NiCoCrAlY-X, X being optionally = Ta, Re and/or Si, more particularly NiCoCrAlY or NiCoCrAlY-Ta
which appears to be a typographical error; recommend correcting this to read as:
promoter layer at least one ceramic layer metallic substrateis optional and can be
With Regards to Claim 18: Instant claim 18 recites --cracks (14; 15, 15I), in the one or more ceramic layers (10III,10IV; 13IV), more particularly also in the ceramic sublayer (13IV)-- on lines 4 to 6; recommend correcting this to read as " cracks at least one
With Regards to Claim 19: Instant claim 19 recites --cracks (15, 15I) only in the outermost ceramic layer (10III,10IV)-- on lines 3 to 4; recommend correcting this to read as "cracks
With Regards to Claim 20: Instant claim 20 recites --both ceramic layers (10IV; 13IV)-- on line 3; recommend correcting this to read as "both ceramic layers.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 3-5, 7-13, and 16-20 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.
With Regards to Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, and 10-13: A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP §2173.05(c). In the present instance:
Claim 1 recites the broad recitation "0.2 wt% to 8.0 wt% of base stabilizers", and the claim also recites "0.2 wt% to 6.0 wt% of base stabilizers" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 3 recites the broad recitation "1.5 wt% to 3.0wt%", and the claim also recites "2.0 wt% to 2.5 wt%" which is the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 5 recites the broad recitation "0.2 wt% to 4.0 wt%", and the claim also recites "0.6 wt% to 4.0 wt%" and "0.8 wt% to 4.0 wt%" which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 9 recites the broad recitation "3.0 wt% to 4.5 wt%", and the claim also recites "3.5 wt% to 4.0 wt%" which is the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 10 recites the broad recitation "2.0 wt% to 4.0 wt%", and the claim also recites "2.5 wt% to 3.5 wt%" which is the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 11 recites the broad recitation "(8.0 - x ) wt% of Y2O3 + (2-4) x wt% of Yb2O3/Er2O3", and the claim also recites "(6.0 - x ) wt% of Y2O3 + (2-4) x wt% of Yb2O3/Er2O3" which is the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 12 recites the broad recitation "0.2 wt% to 2.0 wt%", and the claim also recites "0.6 wt% to 2.0 wt%" and "0.8 wt% to 2.0 wt%" which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 13 recites the broad recitation "2.0 wt% to 4.0 wt%", and the claim also recites "2.4 wt% to 4.0 wt%" and "3.0 wt% to 4.0 wt%" which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
With Regards to Claim 4: Instant claim 4 recites the limitation --at least yttrium oxide (Y203) and hafnium oxide (HfO2) as base stabilizers, and more particularly comprises only yttrium oxide (Y203) and hafnium oxide (HfO2) as base stabilizers-- on lines 3 to 6. As written, the claim is rendered indefinite because it has two conflicting limitation, wherein a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention. In the instant case, it is unclear if the base stabilizers comprise: (1) at least Y2O3 and HfO2; or (2) only Y2O3 and HfO2. For the purposes of examination, it is the decision of the examiner to give the limitation the broadest reasonable interpretation, and give the limitation the former interpretation.
With Regards to Claim 7: Instant claim 7 recites the limitation --comprising, more particularly consisting of,-- on lines 1 to 2. As written, the claim is rendered indefinite because it has two conflicting limitation, wherein a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention. In the instant case, it is unclear if the ceramic material is being further limited by: (1) comprising; or (2) consisting of. For the purposes of examination, it is the decision of the examiner treat the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation to read as "comprising
With Regards to Claim 8: Instant claim 8 recites the limitation --comprising, more particularly consisting of,-- on lines 1 to 2. As written, the claim is rendered indefinite because it has two conflicting limitation, wherein a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention. In the instant case, it is unclear if the ceramic material is being further limited by: (1) comprising; or (2) consisting of. For the purposes of examination, it is the decision of the examiner treat the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation to read as "comprising
With Regards to Claim 16: Instant claim 16 recites the limitation --comprising, more particularly consisting of,-- on lines 1 to 2. As written, the claim is rendered indefinite because it has two conflicting limitation, wherein a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention. In the instant case, it is unclear if the ceramic material is being further limited by: (1) comprising; or (2) consisting of. For the purposes of examination, it is the decision of the examiner treat the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation to read as "comprising
With Regards to Claim 16: Instant claim 16 recites the limitation --a metallic adhesion promoter layer-- on line 2. Instant claim 15, from which claim 16 depends, recites --a metallic adhesion promoter layer-- online 3. In the instant case, the claim is rendered indefinite because it can have two conflicting interpretations: (1) that the "metallic adhesion promoter layer" of claim 16 is the same as the one in claim 15; or (2) that the "metallic adhesion promoter layer" of claim 16 is different from the one in claim 15. For the purposes of examination, it is the decision of the examiner to give the limitation the former interpretation, and read the limitation as "the[[a]] metallic adhesion promoter layer".
With Regards to Claim 16: Instant claim 16 recites --a metallic adhesion promoter layer between the ceramic layer and the metallic substrate, more particularly directly on the metallic substrate-- on lines 2 to 4. As written, the claim is rendered indefinite because it has two conflicting limitation, wherein a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention. In the instant case, it is unclear if the limitation of the metallic adhesion promotor layer being directly on the metallic substrate is (1) optional; or (2) not optional. For the purposes of examination, it is the decision of the examiner to consider the limitation "more particularly directly on the metallic substrate" to be optional.
With Regards to Claim 16: Instant claim 16 recites the limitation --an alloy of the type NiCoCrAlY-X, X is optional and can be Ta, Re and/or Si, more particularly NiCoCrAlY or NiCoCrAlY-Ta-- on lines 5 to 6. As written, the claim is rendered indefinite because it has two conflicting limitation, wherein a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention. In the instant case, it is unclear if the limitation intends to have the alloy of the metallic adhesion promoter layer be: (1) NiCoCrAlY or NiCoCrAlY-X, where X can be Ta, Re and/or Si; or (2) NiCoCrAlY or NiCoCrAl-Ta. For the purposes of examination, it is the decision of the examiner to treat the limitation to be read as "an alloy of the type NiCoCrAlY-X, X is optional and can be Ta, Re and/or Si(In view of the correction recited in numbered paragraph 12 above.)
With Regards to Claim 17: Instant claim 17 recites the limitation --at least 20% thinner in configuration-- in lines 4 to 5. As written the claim is rendered indefinite, because a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention. In the instant case, there is no basis by which "at least 20% thinner" is compared to (i.e., thinner than the layer system; than the ceramic layer). For the purposes of examination, it is the decision of the examiner to treat the claim to read as "at least 20% thinner than the at least one ceramic layer
With Regards to Claim 17: Instant claim 17 recites the limitation --in which a ceramic sublayer is present below the at least one ceramic layer, which more particularly is at least 20% thinner than the at least one ceramic layer and comprises yttrium-stabilized zirconium oxide (YSZ)-- on lines 2 to 6. As written, the claim is rendered indefinite because it has two conflicting limitation, wherein a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention. In the instant case, it is unclear if the limitation of "which more particularly is at least 20% thinner than the ceramic layer and comprises yttrium-stabilized zirconium oxide" is intended to be: (1) optional; or (2) not optional. For the purposes of examination, it is the decision of the examiner to treat the limitation of "which more particularly is at least 20% thinner than the ceramic layer and comprises yttrium-stabilized zirconium oxide" as optional.
With Regards to Claim 17: Regarding claim 17, the phrase "i.e." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2173.05(d).
With Regards to Claim 17: Instant claim 17 recites the limitation --yttrium-stabilized zirconium oxide (YSZ), more particularly 8YSZ, i.e. zirconium oxide stabilized with 3 mol% to 4 mol% of yttrium-- on lines 6 to 9. As written, the claim is rendered indefinite because it has two conflicting limitation, wherein a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention. In the instant case it is unclear if the claim intends it to be 8YSZ or not. For the purpose of examination, it is the decision of the examiner to treat the limitation to read as "yttrium-stabilized zirconium oxide (YSZ)
With Regards to Claim 18: Instant claim 18 recites the limitation --a segmentation, more particularly by means of relatively long vertical cracks-- in lines 2 to 4. As written, the claim is rendered indefinite because it has two conflicting limitation, wherein a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention. In the instant case, it is unclear if the limitation of "by means of relatively long vertical cracks" is (1) optional; or (2) not optional. For the purposes of examination, it is the decision of the examiner to treat the limitation to read as "a segmentation
With Regards to Claim 18: Claim 18 recites the limitation "the one or more ceramic layers" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, it is the decision of the examiner to read the limitation as "the at least one layer
With Regards to Claim 18: Instant claim 18 recites the limitation --a segmentation in the at least one ceramic layer, more particularly also in the ceramic sublayer-- in lines 2 to 6. As written, the claim is rendered indefinite because it has two conflicting limitation, wherein a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention. In the instant case, it is unclear if it is intended that the segmentation be also in the ceramic sublayer or not. For the purposes of examination, it is the decision of the examiner to treat the limitation to read as "a segmentation in the at least one ceramic layer
With Regards to Claim 18: Claim 18 recites the limitation "the ceramic sublayer" in 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With Regards to Claim 19: Claim 19 recites the limitation "the outermost ceramic layer" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is the decision of the examiner to treat the limitation to read as "an[[the]] outermost ceramic layer of the at least one ceramic layer".
With Regards to Claim 20: Instant claim 20 recites the limitation --both ceramic layers-- on line 3. The claim is rendered indefinite because it can have several conflicting interpretations: (1) said "both ceramic layers" is referring to two of the at least one ceramic layer; or (2) said "both ceramic layers" is referring to the "ceramic sublayer" and one ceramic layer of the "at least one ceramic layer". However, said "ceramic sublayer" has insufficient antecedent basis. Therefore, for the purposes of examination, it is the decision of the examiner to treat the claim under the former interpretation, wherein the limitation will be read as "through the at least one ceramic layer
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitations are: "a segmentation, more particularly by means of relatively long vertical cracks" in claim 18; "the segmentation is present by means of vertical cracks" in claim 19; and "the segmentation runs by means of vertical cracks" in claim 20.
Because these claim limitations are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhu et al. (US 6,812,176 B1).
Regarding Claim 1: Zhu teaches a ceramic composition comprising about 46 to 97 molar percent base oxide, about 2 to 25 molar percent primary stabilizer, about 0.5 to 12.5 molar percent group A dopant, and about 0.5 to 12.5 molar percent group B dopant, wherein the base oxide is selected from the group consisting of ZrO2, HfO2, and combinations thereof, wherein the primary stabilizer dopant is selected from the group consisting of Y2O3, Er2O3, and combinations thereof, wherein the group A dopant is selected from the group consisting of alkaline earth oxides, transition metal oxides, rare earth oxides, and combinations thereof (e.g., Yb2O3 and Er2O3) (Tables 1, 2, and [Col. 1: 66 to Col. 3: li. 33] of Zhu). Zhu also teaches in one exemplary embodiment (e.g., Example 1) that the composition can comprise 94 mol% zirconia, 3 mol% yttria, 1.5 mol% ytterbia, and 1.5 mol % samaria (Table 1), a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made could have calculated the weight percentages to be about 86.6 wt% zirconia, about 5.0 wt% yttria, about 4.4 wt% ytterbia, and about 3.9 wt% samaria; which anticipates the claimed ranges of --0.2 wt% to 8.0 wt% of base stabilizer: yttrium oxide (Y2O3)-- and --0.2 wt% to 20 wt% of additional stabilizer: ytterbium oxide (Yb2O3)--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 2: Zhu teaches that the ceramic material comprises about 5 wt% yttria (Table 2); which anticipates the claimed ranges of --at least 0.5 wt% and not more than 6.0 wt% of yttrium oxide (Y2O3)--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 4: Zhu teaches that the ceramic material comprises at least yttrium oxide (Y2O3) and hafnium oxide (HfO2) as base stabilizers ([Col. 1: 66 to Col. 3: li. 33] of Zhu).
Regarding Claim 6: Zhu teaches that the ceramic material comprises ytterbium oxide (Yb2O3) and/or erbium oxide (Er2O3) ([Col. 1: 66 to Col. 3: li. 33] of Zhu).
Regarding Claim 7: Zhu teaches that the ceramic material comprising zirconia, hafnia, yttria, and ytterbia ([Col. 1: 66 to Col. 3: li. 33] of Zhu).
Regarding Claim 8: Zhu teaches the ceramic material comprising zirconia, hafnia, yttria, ytterbia, and erbium oxide ([Col. 1: li. 66 to Col. 3: li. 33] of Zhu).
Regarding Claim 9: Zhu teaches the ceramic material comprising 4.4 wt% ytterbia (calculated from Table 1 of Zhu); which anticipates the claimed range of --3.0 wt% to 4.5 wt% of ytterbium oxide (Yb2O3)--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 15: Zhu teaches a layer system at least comprising a metallic substrate, and at least one ceramic layer based on the ceramic material ([Col. 3: li. 34-39] of Zhu).
Claims 1-7, 9, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Darolia et al. (US 6,887,595 B1).
Regarding Claim 1: Darolia teaches a thermal barrier coating of a zirconia-containing ceramic composition having a lower layer and a upper layer, wherein the lower layer has a ceramic composition of 86.7 wt.% zirconia, 2.5 wt.% yttria, 5.8 wt.% ytterbia, 1.5 wt.% lanthana, and 3.5 wt.% hafnia, or a composition of 85 wt.% zirconia, 3.0 wt.% yttria, 3.0 wt.% ytterbia, 3.0 wt.% lanthana, and 6.0 wt.% hafnia (Tables 1 to 2 and [Col. 2: li. 48 to Col. 3: li. 20] of Darolia); which anticipates the claimed ranges of --0.2 wt% to 8.0 wt.% of base stabilizers-- and --0.2 wt% to 20 wt% of ytterbium oxide (Yb2O3)--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 2: Darolia teaches the ceramic material comprises 2.5 wt% or 3 wt% yttria (Tables 1 to 2 of Darolia); which anticipates the claimed range of --at least 0.5 wt% and not more than 6.0 wt% of yttrium oxide (Y2O3)--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 3: Darolia teaches the ceramic material comprises 2.5 wt% or 3 wt% yttria (Tables 1 to 2 of Darolia); which anticipates the claimed range of --1.5 wt% to 3.0 wt% of yttrium oxide (Y2O3)--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 4: Darolia teaches the ceramic material comprises at least yttrium oxide (Y2O3) and hafnium oxide (HfO2) as base stabilizers (Tables 1 to 2 and [Col. 2: li. 48 to Col. 3: li. 20] of Darolia).
Regarding Claim 5: Darolia teaches the ceramic material has a hafnium oxide (HfO2) content of 3.5 wt% (Table 1 of Darolia); which anticipates the claimed range of --0.2 wt% to 4.0 wt% of hafnium oxide (HfO2)--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 6: Darolia teaches that the ceramic material comprises ytterbium oxide (Yb2O3) as the at least one of the additional stabilizers (Tables 1 to 2 and [Col. 2: li. 48 to Col. 3: li. 20] of Darolia).
Regarding Claim 7: Darolia teaches that the ceramic material comprising zirconia, hafnia, yttria, and ytterbia (Tables 1 to 2 and [Col. 2: li. 48 to Col. 3: li. 20] of Darolia).
Regarding Claim 9: Darolia teaches the ceramic material comprising 3 wt% ytterbia (Table 2 of Darolia); which anticipates the claimed range of --3.0 wt% to 4.5 wt% of ytterbium oxide (Yb2O3)--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 13: Darolia teaches the ceramic material has a hafnium oxide (HfO2) content of 3.5 wt% (Table 1 of Darolia); which anticipates the claimed range of --2.0 wt% to 4.0 wt% of hafnium oxide (HfO2)--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 14: Darolia teaches a ceramic powder comprising a composition of the ceramic material ([Col. 9: li. 62 to Col. 10: li. 25] of Darolia).
Regarding Claim 15: Darolia teaches a system of layers at least comprising a metallic substrate, and an at least one ceramic layer based on the ceramic material ([Col. 7: li. 34-58] of Darolia).
Claims 1-7, 9, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gong et al. (CN 102153346 A).
Regarding Claim 1: Gong teaches a pink rare earth combined oxidation zircon ceramic ball comprising 4.81 to 5.49 wt% Y2O3, 92.01 to 94.40 wt% ZrO2, 0.11 to 0.79 wt% Nd2O3, 0.51 to 2.81 wt% Er2O3, 0.06 to 0.49 wt% La2O3, and 0.11 to 0.29 wt% Sc2O3 (claim 1 of Gong); which anticipates the claimed ranges of --0.2 wt% to 8.0 wt.% of base stabilizer yttrium oxide (Y2O3)-- and --0.2 wt% to 20 wt% of erbium oxide (Er2O3)--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 2: Gong teaches the ceramic material comprises 4.81 wt% to 5.49 wt% Y2O3 (Claim 1 of Gong); which anticipates the claimed range of --at least 0.5 wt% and not more than 6.0 wt% of yttrium oxide (Y2O3)--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 6: Darolia teaches that the ceramic material comprises erbium oxide (Er2O3) as the at least one of the additional stabilizers (Claim 1 of Gong).
Regarding Claim 10: Darolia teaches the ceramic material comprising 0.51 wt% to 2.81 wt% Er2O3 (Claim 1 of Gong); which anticipates the claimed range of --2.0 wt% to 4.0 wt% of erbium oxide (Er2O3)--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Appleby et al. (RU 2008151785 A).
Regarding Claim 1: Appleby discloses a zirconium oxide powder comprising: about 0 to about 0.15 wt% impurity oxides, about 0 to about 2 wt% hafnium oxide, about 6 to about 25 wt% yttrium oxide or about 10 to about 36 wt% ytterbium oxide, and the rest being zirconium oxide ([0002] and [0009] of Appleby); which overlaps the presently claimed ranges of --0.2 wt% to 8.0 wt% of base stabilizers-- and --0.2 wt% to 20 wt% additional stabilizers--. Appleby differs from the claims by failing to disclose an anticipatory example or a range that is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed range. However, it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient 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 taught by Appleby, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding Claim 2: Appleby discloses that the ceramic material can comprise about 6 to about 25 wt% of yttrium oxide ([0009] of Appleby); which overlaps the presently claimed range of --at least 0.5 wt% and not more than 6.0 wt%--. 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 taught by Appleby, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding Claim 4: Appleby discloses that the ceramic material comprises at least yttrium oxide (Y2O3) and hafnium oxide (HfO2) as base stabilizers ([0009] of Appleby).
Regarding Claims 5, 12, and 13: Appleby discloses that the ceramic material further comprises hafnium oxide (HfO2) in an amount of about 0 to about 2 wt% ([0009] of Appleby); which overlaps the claimed ranges of --0.2 wt% to 4.0 wt%-- {instant claim 5}, --0.2 wt% to 2.0 wt%-- {instant claim 12}, and --2.0 wt% to 4.0 wt%-- {instant claim 13}. 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 taught by Appleby, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding Claim 6: Appleby discloses that the ceramic material comprises at least ytterbium oxide (Yb2O3) as an additional stabilizer ([0009] of Appleby).
Regarding Claim 14: Appleby discloses a ceramic powder comprising a composition of the ceramic material ([0002] and [0009] of Appleby).
Regarding Claims 15 and 16: Appleby discloses steel plates (which are considered equivalent to the claimed "metallic substrate") coated with at least one ceramic layer based on the ceramic material, and a bond coating (which is considered equivalent to the claimed "metallic adhesion promoter layer") of MCrAlY+X coating disposed therebetween, wherein M can be Ni, Co, Fe, or any combination of the three, and wherein X can be Ta or Re ([0012]-[0022] and [0065] of Appleby).
Regarding Claim 17: Appleby discloses a ceramic sublayer present below the at least one ceramic layer ([0077]-[0080] of Appleby).
Regarding Claim 18: Appleby discloses a segmentation ("vertical cracks") in the at least one ceramic layer ([0063] of Appleby).
Regarding Claim 19: Appleby discloses the segmentation is present by means of vertical cracks only in the outermost ceramic layer of the at least one ceramic layer ([0063] and [0077]-[0080] of Appleby). (In the instant case, the intermediate product of only the first coating would meet the claimed invention.)
Regarding Claim 20: Appleby discloses that the segmentation runs by means of vertical cracks through the at least one ceramic layer ([0063] of Appleby).
Claims 1-7, 9, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doesburg et al. (US 2007/0082131 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Doesburg discloses a ceramic material for a thermal barrier coating comprising a first material and a second material, wherein the first material is essentially about 4 to 20 weight percent of a stabilizer of one or more rare earth oxides (e.g., yttria and/or ytterbia) and a balance of at least one of zirconia, hafnia, and combinations thereof, wherein the zirconia and/or hafnia is partially stabilized by the stabilizer, and wherein the second material is of a different composition that the first material and essentially about 4 to 20 weight percent of a stabilizer of one or more rare earth oxides, and a balance of at least one of zirconia, hafnia, and combinations thereof, wherein the zirconia and/or hafnia is partially stabilized by the stabilizer, wherein the first material and the second material are blended together ([0015] of Doesburg). Doesburg also discloses that the first material can have about 4 to 12 weight percent yttria stabilizer with the remainder being zirconia, hafnia, or combinations thereof, that the second material can have about 4 to 16 weight percent ytterbia stabilizer with the remainder being zirconia, hafnia, or combinations thereof, and that the combination of the first material and the second material can comprise 5 to 50 weight percent of the second material and 50 to 95 weight percent of the first material ([0076] of Doesburg). (In the instant case, in that the remainder of the first material and the second material can be zirconia, hafnia, or combinations thereof. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made that the first material and the second material could comprise as the remainder amount from 0 to 100 weight percent zirconia and 0 to 100 weight percent hafnia.)
A person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made could have determined that for a 50:50 ratio of the first material to the second material, the ceramic composition to comprise from 2 to 8 weight percent ytterbia, 2 to 6 weight percent yttria, and the remainder amount comprising about 86 to 96 weight percent of the composition, wherein the remainder amount comprises from 0 to 100 weight percent zirconia and 0 to 100 weight percent hafnia ([0015] and [0076] of Doesburg); which overlaps the presently claimed ranges of --0.2 wt% to 8.0 wt% of base stabilizers: yttrium oxide (Y2O3), and/or hafnium oxide (HfO2)-- and --0.2 wt% to 20 wt% of ytterbium oxide (Yb2O3)--. Doesburg differs from the claims by failing to disclose an anticipatory example or a range that is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed range. However, it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient 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 taught by Doesburg, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding Claims 2 and 3: Doesburg discloses that the ceramic material can comprise for a 50:50 mixture of the first material and the second material about 2 to about 6 wt% of yttria ([0076] of Doesburg); which overlaps the presently claimed ranges of --at least 0.5 wt% and not more than 6.0 wt%-- {instant claim 2} and --1.5 wt% to 3.0 wt%-- {instant claim 3}. 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 taught by Doesburg, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding Claim 4: Doesburg discloses that the ceramic material comprises at least yttrium oxide (Y2O3) and hafnium oxide (HfO2) as base stabilizers ([0076] of Doesburg).
Regarding Claims 5, 12, and 13: Doesburg discloses that the ceramic material further comprises hafnia, wherein hafnia can comprise from 0 wt% to 100 wt% of the remainder, wherein the remainder comprises 86 wt% to 96 wt% of the ceramic material (i.e., hafnia can comprise about 0 wt% to about 96 wt%) ([0015] and [0076] of Doesburg); which overlaps the claimed ranges of --0.2 wt% to 4.0 wt%-- {instant claim 5}, --0.2 wt% to 2.0 wt%-- {instant claim 12}, and --2.0 wt% to 4.0 wt%-- {instant claim 13}. 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 taught by Doesburg, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding Claim 6: Doesburg discloses that the ceramic material comprises at least ytterbia as an additional stabilizer ([0015] and [0076] of Doesburg).
Regarding Claim 7: Doesburg discloses that the ceramic material comprising: zirconia, hafnia, yttria, and ytterbia ([0015] and [0076] of Doesburg).
Regarding Claim 9: Doesburg discloses that the ceramic material can comprise for a 50:50 mixture of the first material and the second material about 2 to about 8 wt% of ytterbia ([0076] of Doesburg); which overlaps the presently claimed ranges of --3.0 wt% to 4.5 wt%--. 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 taught by Doesburg, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding Claim 14: Doesburg discloses a ceramic powder comprising a composition of the ceramic material ([0015], [0076], and [0080] of Doesburg).
Regarding Claim 15: Doesburg discloses a system of layers comprising: a metal substrate, a metallic adhesion promoter layer, and an at least one ceramic layer based on the ceramic material ([0008], [0039], and [0076] of Doesburg).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doesburg et al. (US 2007/0082131 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Movchan et al. (US 5,834,070 A)
Doesburg is relied upon as stated above.
Regarding Claim 16: Doesburg discloses the claimed layer system having a bond coat (e.g., MCrAlY) between the substrate and an at least one ceramic layer ([0008], [0039], and [0076] of Doesburg), but fails to disclose --a metallic adhesion promoter layer between the at least one ceramic layer and the metallic substrate, wherein the adhesion promoter layer comprises an alloy of the type NiCoCrAlY-X, X is optional and can be Ta, Re and/or Si--.
Movchan discloses a ceramic coating with an Ni-Co-Cr-Al-Y intermediate bond coat that establishes a high adhesive strength bond with a substrate ([Col. 2: li. 60-66] of Movchan).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the intermediate bond coat of Movchan with the metallic adhesion promoter layer of the layer system disclosed by Doesburg in order to have --a metallic adhesion promoter layer between the at least one ceramic layer and the metallic substrate, wherein the adhesion promoter layer comprises an alloy of the type NiCoCrAlY--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the intermediate bond coat of Movchan with the metallic adhesion promoter layer of the layer system disclosed by Doesburg, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP §2144.07.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to the closest prior art of record Zhu et al. (US 6,812,176 B1): Zhu teaches --a ceramic material--, wherein Zhu's ceramic material further comprises the structure --a ceramic composition comprising about 46 to 97 molar percent base oxide, about 2 to 25 molar percent primary stabilizer, about 0.5 to 12.5 molar percent group A dopant, and about 0.5 to 12.5 molar percent group B dopant, wherein the base oxide is selected from the group consisting of ZrO2, HfO2, and combinations thereof, wherein the primary stabilizer dopant is selected from the group consisting of Y2O3, Er2O3, and combinations thereof, wherein the group A dopant is selected from the group consisting of alkaline earth oxides, transition metal oxides, rare earth oxides, and combinations thereof (e.g., Yb2O3 and Er2O3); wherein in one exemplary embodiment (e.g., Example 1) the composition can comprise 94 mol% zirconia, 3 mol% yttria, 1.5 mol% ytterbia, and 1.5 mol % samaria-- (Tables 1, 2, and [Col. 1: 66 to Col. 3: li. 33] of Zhu). However, Zhu is silent with respect to the presence of --(8.0 - x) wt% of Y2O3 and 2*x wt% to 4*x wt% of Yb2O3 and/or Er2O3--. Therefore, the claims as written overcome the prior art of record. Furthermore, no combination of Zhu with any other prior art of record would have provided sufficient motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Zhu in such a way as to meet the claimed invention. It is these teachings that makes the claim(s) allowable over the prior art of record.
With regards to the closest prior art of record Darolia et al. (US 6,887,595 B1): Darolia teaches --a ceramic material--, wherein Darolia's ceramic material further comprises the structure --a thermal barrier coating on a metal substrate, wherein the thermal barrier coating, formed from a powder, is of a zirconia-containing ceramic composition having a lower layer and a upper layer, wherein the lower layer has a ceramic composition of 86.7 wt.% zirconia, 2.5 wt.% yttria, 5.8 wt.% ytterbia, 1.5 wt.% lanthana, and 3.5 wt.% hafnia, or a composition of 85 wt.% zirconia, 3.0 wt.% yttria, 3.0 wt.% ytterbia, 3.0 wt.% lanthana, and 6.0 wt.% hafnia-- (Tables 1 to 2, [Col. 2: li. 48 to Col. 3: li. 20], [Col. 7: li. 34-58], and [Col. 9: li. 62 to Col. 10: li. 25] of Darolia). However, Darolia is silent with respect to the presence of --(8.0 - x) wt% of Y2O3 and 2*x wt% to 4*x wt% of Yb2O3 and/or Er2O3--. Therefore, the claims as written overcome the prior art of record. Furthermore, no combination of Darolia with any other prior art of record would have provided sufficient motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Darolia in such a way as to meet the claimed invention. It is these teachings that makes the claim(s) allowable over the prior art of record.
With regards to the closest prior art of record Gong et al. (CN 102153346 A): Gong teaches --a ceramic material--, wherein Gong's ceramic material further comprises the structure --a pink rare earth combined oxidation zircon ceramic ball comprising 4.81 to 5.49 wt% Y2O3, 92.01 to 94.40 wt% ZrO2, 0.11 to 0.79 wt% Nd2O3, 0.51 to 2.81 wt% Er2O3, 0.06 to 0.49 wt% La2O3, and 0.11 to 0.29 wt% Sc2O3-- (Claim 1 of Gong). However, Gong is silent with respect to the presence of --(8.0 - x) wt% of Y2O3 and 2*x wt% to 4*x wt% of Yb2O3 and/or Er2O3--. Therefore, the claims as written overcome the prior art of record. Furthermore, no combination of Gong with any other prior art of record would have provided sufficient motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Gong in such a way as to meet the claimed invention. It is these teachings that makes the claim(s) allowable over the prior art of record.
With regards to the closest prior art of record Appleby et al. (RU 2008151785 A): Appleby teaches --a ceramic material--, wherein Appleby's ceramic material further comprises the structure --a zirconium oxide powder comprising: about 0 to about 0.15 wt% impurity oxides, about 0 to about 2 wt% hafnium oxide, about 6 to about 25 wt% yttrium oxide or about 10 to about 36 wt% ytterbium oxide, and the rest being zirconium oxide; and wherein steel plates are coated with the zirconium oxide powder by a bond coating of MCrAlY+X disposed therebetween, wherein M can be Ni, Co, Fe, or any combination of the three, and wherein X can be Ta or Re-- ([0002], [0009], [0012]-[0022], and [0065] of Appleby). However, Appleby is silent with respect to the presence of --(8.0 - x) wt% of Y2O3 and 2*x wt% to 4*x wt% of Yb2O3 and/or Er2O3--. Therefore, the claims as written overcome the prior art of record. Furthermore, no combination of Appleby with any other prior art of record would have provided sufficient motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Appleby in such a way as to meet the claimed invention. It is these teachings that makes the claim(s) allowable over the prior art of record.
With regards to the closest prior art of record Doesburg et al. (US 2007/0082131 A1): Doesburg teaches --a ceramic material--, wherein Doesburg's ceramic material further comprises the structure -- a ceramic material for a thermal barrier coating comprising a first material and a second material, wherein the first material is essentially about 4 to 20 weight percent of a stabilizer of one or more rare earth oxides (e.g., yttria and/or ytterbia) and a balance of at least one of zirconia, hafnia, and combinations thereof, wherein the zirconia and/or hafnia is partially stabilized by the stabilizer, and wherein the second material is of a different composition that the first material and essentially about 4 to 20 weight percent of a stabilizer of one or more rare earth oxides, and a balance of at least one of zirconia, hafnia, and combinations thereof, wherein the zirconia and/or hafnia is partially stabilized by the stabilizer, wherein the first material and the second material are blended together; wherein the first material can have about 4 to 12 weight percent yttria stabilizer with the remainder being zirconia, hafnia, or combinations thereof, that the second material can have about 4 to 16 weight percent ytterbia stabilizer with the remainder being zirconia, hafnia, or combinations thereof, and that the combination of the first material and the second material can comprise 5 to 50 weight percent of the second material and 50 to 95 weight percent of the first material; and wherein the thermal barrier coating can be bonded by a MCrAlY bonding layer to a turbine blade surface-- ([0008], [0015], [0039], and [0076] of Doesburg). However, Doesburg is silent with respect to the presence of --(8.0 - x) wt% of Y2O3 and 2*x wt% to 4*x wt% of Yb2O3 and/or Er2O3--. Therefore, the claims as written overcome the prior art of record. Furthermore, no combination of Doesburg with any other prior art of record would have provided sufficient motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Doesburg in such a way as to meet the claimed invention. It is these teachings that makes the claim(s) allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Donald M. Flores, Jr. whose telephone number is (571)270-1466. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 to 17:00 M-F; Alternate Fridays off.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/DONALD M FLORES JR/
Donald M. Flores, Jr.Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights