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 .
Applicant's submission filed on 6/30/26 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 has been amended to recite: “the metal powder has a minimum powder particle size equal to eighteen micrometers”; while claim 3 recites “the metal powder has a powder particle size equal to or greater than eighteen micrometers”. Thus claim 3 would fail to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depend. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anand et al (US 2016/0108509; hereafter Anand). {Channel et al (US 2016/0258298; hereafter Channel) applied only as evidence (particularly claim 2)}
Claim 20: Anand teaches a method of manufacture (see, for example, abstract), comprising: providing a component body of an engine component for a turbine engine (such as a turbine blade) (see, for example, [0002-0004], [0020]);
and applying a coating onto the component body using a cold spray process (see, for example, [0074]),
the applying of the coating comprising impinging coating feedstock material against the component body to form the coating, the feedstock material comprising a mixture of metal powder (metallic binder particles) and grit particles (hard particles), and the grit particles comprising at least one of solid metal oxide particles or solid carbide particles (such as SiC, Aluminum oxide, zirconium oxide, etc) (See, for example, abstract, [0034], [0056] claims 1-4).
wherein a weight ratio of the grit particles (70 wt% to 99.5 wt %) is higher than a weight ratio of the metal powder (30 wt% to 0.5 wt %) in the mixture (See, for example, [0053-0055]),
and the component body and the metal powder comprising a common metal (such as Nickel) (see, for example, [0034] wherein the powder is taught as comprising Ni (Nickel 20%/ Al alloy) and at [0028], [0068] wherein the substrate is taught as Stainless Steel 403Cb+ {Channel evidences (last column of [0024]) 403Cb+ comprises Ni}).
Claim(s) 1-4, and 6-16 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilson et al (US 2018/0258539; hereafter Wilson). {Channel applied only as evidence (particularly claims 13-14)}
Claim 1: Wilson teaches a method of manufacture (see, for example, abstract), comprising: providing a component body of an engine component for a turbine engine (gas turbine / aircraft engine) (see, for example, [0002-4], [0035]);
and applying a coating onto the component body using a cold spray process (see, for example, abstract, [0004], [0036]),
the applying of the coating comprising impinging coating feedstock material against the component body to form the coating, the feedstock material comprising a mixture of metal powder (such as primary phase metal powder and / or secondary phase metal powder)) and grit particles (ceramic particles), and the grit particles comprising at least one of solid metal oxide particles or solid carbide particles (such as SiC, Aluminum oxide etc) (See, for example, abstract, [0005] [0036], [0041]).
Wilson further teaches wherein the metal powder (such as Inconel 718) has a minimum powder particle size (such as minimum average powder particle size) of 25 micrometers (see, for example, [0033], alternatively any portion, or all the Inconel 718 possessing a minimum powder particle size of 18 micrometers is interpreted as “the metal powder”).
Claim 2: Wilson further teaches wherein the component body and the metal powder comprises a common metal (such as wherein the substrate and base metal powder are both Inconel 718, alternatively both comprising Ni (as such a metal is a common component of the alloy) (see, for example, [0005], [0036], Fig 14, Example 2, Table 2, Table 4, [0068])).
Claims 3-4: Wilson further teaches wherein the metal powder (such as Inconel 718) has a powder particle size of 25 micrometers (see, for example, [0033]).
Claim 6: Wilson further teaches wherein the grit particles (ceramic) have a grit particle size of 3-120 micrometers (See, for example, [0054]).
Claims 7-10 Wilson further teaches wherein the metal powder comprises aluminum, nickel, titanium, and / or stainless steel (See, for example, [0005]).
Claims 11-13: Wilson further teaches wherein the grit particles comprise an aluminum oxide (alumina), zirconium oxide (such as YSZ), or silicon carbide (See, for example, [0005]).
Claims 14-15: Wilson further teaches wherein the component body comprises aluminum / titanium (See, for example, [0068], wherein the component body is Inconel 718, {Channel evidences (bottom of second column of [0024]) that Inconel 718 comprises Al and Ti}).
Claim 16: Wilson further teaches wherein the coating comprises an abrasive coating (see, for example, [0035] wherein dense, protective metal matrix coatings are produced, thus intended to be retained and relative to a softer material, the coating would be considered as abrasive).
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson.
Claim 5: Wilson teaches the method of claim 1 above and further teaches wherein the grit particles (ceramic) have a grit particle size of 3-120 micrometers (See, for example, [0054]). Although such a range is not explicitly greater than 74 micrometers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a size within the claimed range (such as >74 to the upper disclosed endpoint of 120 microns of Wilson) since 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 19: refer to the rejections of claims 1, 3-6 over Wilson above. Further / alternatively the portion of the grit particles possessing a maximum size of 125 microns can be interpreted as “the grit particles”.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 13, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eaton et al (US 4,386,112; hereafter Eaton) in view of Seth et al (US 2003/0126800; hereafter Seth). {conversion chart from : https://www.vaniman.com/abrasive-sandblasting-media-grit-to-micron-conversion-chart/ ; hereafter Vaniman; relied upon as evidence only, particularly for claims 5-6 and 19}.
Claim 1: Eaton teaches a method of manufacture (see, for example, abstract), comprising: providing a component body of an engine component for a turbine engine (gas turbine / aircraft engine) (see, for example, Figures 1-4, col 3 lines 27);
and applying a coating onto the component body using a spray process (see, for example, abstract, Fig 5-7, col 3 lines 45-68).
the applying of the coating comprising impinging coating feedstock material against the component body to form the coating, the feedstock material comprising a mixture of metal powder (such as matrix metal powder) and grit particles (grit particles, further comprising SiC), (See, for example, Fig 5-7 and col 3 lines 45-68). example I-II]).
Eaton has taught spraying via plasma spraying, so it does not teach cold spraying. Seth similarly teaches a method of providing a component of a turbine engine with an abrasive coating by spraying a feedstock material comprising a mixture of metal powder (matrix metal powder) and grit particles (hard particles), (See, for example, abstract, [0003-14] [0023]). Seth further teaches wherein application of such coating via thermal spraying processes like plasma spraying result in a significant amount of porosity and the formation of oxygen stringers in the metallic bond coat layer due to the inherent nature of a high temperature process; where such elevated temperatures result in localized stresses in the superalloy material upon the cooling of the coating layer, which may have an adverse effect on the performance specifications of the superalloy component (see, for example, [0004-0008]). Seth teaches wherein application via cold spray overcomes the deficiencies of thermal spraying and results in an improved process that will entrap the abrasive particles, sufficiently bond to a substrate, resist oxidation and possess sufficient mechanical properties to maintain its shape on the substrate (See, for example, [0009-0012] [0018]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have incorporated application of the feedstock via cold spraying since such spraying would predictably overcome the deficiencies of thermal spraying processes / plasma spraying and provide an improved process that will entrap the abrasive particles, sufficiently bond to a substrate, resist oxidation and possess sufficient mechanical properties to maintain its shape on the substrate.
Eaton further teaches wherein the metal powder (matrix material powder) has powder particle size of 38 micron(see, for example, Example 1 col 5); thus reading on the metal powder having a minimum powder particle size of 18 micrometers. Alternatively, any portion, or all the matrix metal powder possessing a minimum powder particle size of 18 micrometers is interpreted as “the metal powder”).
Claims 3-4: Eaton further teaches wherein the metal powder (matrix material powder) has a powder particle size of 38 micron (see, for example, Example 1 col 5).
Claims 5-6: Eaton further teaches wherein the grit particles (SIC) have a particle size of greater than 106 micron (as that would be 150 grit) and less than 125 micron (as that would be 120 grit) (See, for example, Example 1 col 5; and {Vaniman} conversion from grit to micron chart).
Claims 7-8: Eaton further teaches wherein the metal powder comprises aluminum and nickel, (See, for example, Example I, Metco 443 nickel chrome alloy plus aluminum).
Claim 13: Eaton further teaches wherein the grit particles comprise SIC (see, for example, Example I).
Claim 15: Eaton further teaches wherein the component body comprises titanium (Titanium alloy) (See, for Example, Example I).
Claim 16: Eaton and Seth each further teaches wherein the coating comprises an abrasive coating (see, for example, abstract of Eaton and abstract of Seth).
Claim 17: Eaton further teaches wherein the engine component comprises a rotor blade and the coating is applied onto the component body at a tip of the rotor blade (See, for example, Fig 1-2, 8, Background art section, and col 3 lines 1-36).
Claim 18: Eaton further teaches wherein the engine component comprises a knife edge seal element, and the coating is applied onto the component body at a tip of the knife edge seal element (See, for example Fig 1, fig 4, Fig 9, Background art section, and col 3 lines 1-36).
Claim 19: refer to the rejections of claims 1, and 3-6 over Eaton in view of Seth above. Further / alternatively the portion of the grit particles possessing a maximum grit particle size of 125 microns can be interpreted as “the grit particles”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument (pg 5 or remarks, filed 6/30/26) that Anand does not disclose the amended portion of claim 1 is convincing with respect to the 35 USC 102 rejection of claim 1 (and dependent claims 2, 7, 8, 11-13, and 16-17) over Anand therefore these rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining argument directed to the 35 USC 102 rejection of independent claim 20 over Anand (pg 6-7 of remarks) has been fully considered but it is not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “Anand discloses the sacrificial material would be a different material from the substrate material…Thus…teaching away from using a common material”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The examiner notes that the claim explicitly states that “the component body and the coating comprising a common metal”, it does not prevent that said body and coating are overall different materials. In this case, Anand has explicitly identified the metal powder (Nickel 20%/ Al alloy) and the substrate as Stainless Steel 403Cb+ {Channel evidences (last column of [0024]) 403Cb+ comprises Ni}), thus as a whole they are different, and provide the requisite different in EC potential. But each of them “compris(es) a common metal”, namely Nickel, so although there are other different materials therein respectively (comprising is open claim language allowing for the claimed component and any additional components), the claim only requires that they each comprise a common metal; thus the limitation as recited is met.
Applicant's argument directed to the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections over Wilson have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Apply has only cited [0033] of Wilson and generically stated it does not disclose the amended matter. Applicant has not further articulated or limited particularly what a powder particle size is measuring. The closest support for this recent amendment is from dependent claim 3 which recites: “the metal powder has a powder particle size equal to or greater than eighteen micrometers.” and Applicant’s original disclosure which at [0050] recites: “One, some or all of these powder particles 68 may have a powder particle size 70 (e.g., a width, a diameter, etc.) between, for example, eighteen micrometers (18pm) and fifty-six micrometers (56pm), inclusive. The examiner further notes that “a minimum” by definition is “the smallest amount or number allowed or possible”, thus signifying the lower threshold of a range wherein values there-above satisfy the condition. Wilson has explicitly taught a powder particle size, such as a powder particle size designation as the average particle size. Wilson further teaches such a powder particle size as 25 micron, thus the minimum of this the powder particle size designation is 25 micron, which satisfies the claimed range as it is in excess of the smallest amount possible of 18 micron. Alternately, as noted in the rejection above any portion, or all the matrix metal powder possessing a minimum powder particle size (whether it be an average, a width, a diameter, etc) of 18 micrometers (or greater, such as 25 micrometers, is interpreted as “the metal powder”). For claim 19, the examiner echoes the above, and similarly notes that “a maximum” by definition is “the largest amount or number allowed or possible”, thus signifying an upper threshold of a range wherein values there-below satisfy the condition. As Wilson has taught a grit particle size of 3-120 micrometers (See, for example, [0054]), the grit particles would anticipate the claimed range as the largest amount of 125 micrometers allowed is not breached. Further / alternatively any portion or all the grit powder possessing a maximum powder particle size (whether it be an average, a width, a diameter, etc) of 125 micrometers (such as those at 120 micrometers) is interpreted as “the grit particles”.
Applicant's argument directed to the 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 1, 3-8, 13, and 15-19 over Eaton in view of Seth have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments again do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Apply has only generically stated that Eaton does not disclose the amended matter. Applicant has not further articulated or limited particularly what a powder particle size is measuring. The closest support for this recent amendment is from dependent claim 3 which recites: “the metal powder has a powder particle size equal to or greater than eighteen micrometers.” and Applicant’s original disclosure which at [0050] recites: “One, some or all of these powder particles 68 may have a powder particle size 70 (e.g., a width, a diameter, etc.) between, for example, eighteen micrometers (18pm) and fifty-six micrometers (56pm), inclusive. The examiner further notes that “a minimum” by definition is “the smallest amount or number allowed or possible”, thus signifying the lower threshold of a range wherein values there-above satisfy the condition. Eaton has explicitly taught a powder particle size of 38 micron, which satisfies the claimed range as it is in excess of the smallest amount possible of 18 micron. Alternately, as noted in the rejection above, any portion or all the matrix metal powder possessing a minimum powder particle size (whether it be an average, a width, a diameter, etc) of 18 micrometers (or above, such as 38 micrometers) is interpreted as “the metal powder”). For claim 19, the examiner echoes the above, and similarly notes that “a maximum” by definition is “the largest amount or number allowed or possible”, thus signifying an upper threshold of a range wherein values there-below satisfy the condition. As Eaton teaches the grit particles (SIC) have a particle size of greater than 106 micron (150 grit) and less than 125 micron (120 grit) (See, for example, Example 1 col 5; and {Vaniman} conversion from grit to micron chart); the grit particles therefore would anticipate the claimed range as the largest amount of 125 micrometers allowed is not breached. Further / alternatively any portion or all the grit powder possessing a maximum powder particle size (whether it be an average, a width, a diameter, etc) of 125 micrometers (or at values below) is interpreted as “the grit particles”.
As to the remaining dependent claims they remain rejected as no additional separate arguments are provided.
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 H EMPIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30AM - 4 PM.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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 H EMPIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights