Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/030,953

METHOD OF RESTORING ALLOY DEPLETION IN AN AIRFOIL AROUND COOLING HOLES

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Jan 17, 2025
Examiner
BROCKMAN, ELDON T
Art Unit
3799
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Rtx Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
587 granted / 690 resolved
+15.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
711
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
35.9%
-4.1% vs TC avg
§102
41.4%
+1.4% vs TC avg
§112
19.8%
-20.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 690 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to the claims filed 1/17/2025. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/17/2025 and 2/26/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12203384. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Regarding claims 1-20, these claims are merely broader than the allowed claims of application 18/468,404, now US Patent 12203384. Instant claim 1 is identical to claim 1 of the ‘384 patent, except lacks recitation of disposition of a top coat on the bond coat. The other instant independent claims broaden scope of the claims of the ‘384 patent by expanding the claimed method to fan blade, a turbine vane, or a blade outer air seal instead of just an airfoil, as well as the apparatus having the particularly claimed depletion and diffusion regions. In essence, once the applicant has received a patent for a species or a more specific embodiment, he is not entitled to a patent for the generic or broader invention without maintaining common ownership and ensuring that the term of the latter issued patent will expire at the end of the original term of the earlier issued patent. This is because the more specific “anticipates” the broader. Drawing a helpful analogy, if an Examiner has a broad claim to examine, and finds a reference, which discloses every element of the claim, that reference anticipates. The same is true in an obviousness-type double patenting analysis where the claim being examined is merely broader than the claim patented before. The patented claim “anticipates” the application claim. That is, in a nutshell, the rationale for why the two claims are not patentably distinct. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 would be allowed upon the filing of a terminal disclaimer. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, is silent to each and every limitation required of claim 1. The prior art of record demonstrates various analogous airfoil coating and cooling hole machining methods for cooling holes in gas turbine airfoils, but not the method having every limitation set forth in claim 1. US2018/0297156 discloses a method of forming a coating system on a surface of a superalloy component having film holes defined therein. The method may include applying NiCoCrAlY on the surface of the superalloy component to form a NiCoCrAlY layer while keeping the film holes open (e.g., wherein the NiCoCrAlY layer has a chromium content that is higher than the superalloy component), then heating the NiCoCrAlY layer to a treatment temperature of about 900° C. to about 1200° C., then forming a platinum-group metal layer on the NiCoCrAlY layer, and then forming an aluminide coating over platinum-group metal layer. The NiCoCrAlY may be applied onto an existing coating system on the surface of the superalloy component, wherein the existing coating system is a Co-based coating system that is substantially free from Ni. However, the reference lacks the particularly claimed machining and depletion and diffusion steps of claim 1. US2024/0133040 to Nagarajet al. discloses methods of forming a coating system on a surface of a cobalt-based superalloy component. The method includes forming a nickel-based primer layer on the surface of the cobalt-based superalloy component; forming an intermediate nickel-containing layer on the nickel-based primer layer; and heat treating the cobalt-based superalloy component to form a diffusion coating on the surface of the cobalt-based superalloy component. Nagaraj, however, is silent to the specifically laid out method of instant claim 1. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELDON T BROCKMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3263. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm EST. 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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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. /ELDON T BROCKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 17, 2025
Application Filed
Dec 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600433
TENDER WITH HYBRID CATAMARAN HULL CONFIGURATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595029
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR CLEANING THE HULL OF A VESSEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594703
CYLINDRICAL BRUSH AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595745
SEAL SUPPORT ASSEMBLY FOR A TURBINE ENGINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12576472
MATERIAL CUTTING AND GRINDING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+6.0%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 690 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month