DETAILED ACTION1
REJECTIONS UNDER 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious2 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1, 18-19, 21-26, 28-29, and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2016/0160661 to Balbach in view of U.S. 2015/0290771 to Li and U.S. 2011/0164963 to Taylor.
Claim 1 recites a method for producing a layer. Balbach relates to such a method. See Balbach [0001]. Balbach teaches producing this coating layer (5) from a matrix material (6) with abrasive particles (7) mixed in. See Balbach [0032]. The matrix material being a nickel…or cobalt-based…metallic matrix material. See Balbach [0015]. Balbach further teaches having a titanium carbide protective coating (17) on the abrasive particle. See Balbach [0010] & [0033].
Balbach further teaches producing a layer [of] the composite material on a substrate via laser buildup. See Balbach [0036] and Fig. 5.
Balbach does not teach coating particles of cubic boron nitride (cBN) with titanium carbide. Rather, Balbach teaches a primary embodiment in which the abrasive particles are Al2O3 which are then coated in titanium carbide. But it would have been obvious to modify Balbach to use cubic boron nitride in view of Li. First, Balbach teaches that cubic Boron Nitride (cBN) is an industry standard abrasive particle. See Balbach [0003]. Balbach then teaches that cBN oxidizes too fast and degrades. See Balbach [0003]-[0005]. Balbach solves this by coating the Al2O3 particles in oxidation resistant coatings. Id. Yet it would have been obvious that one could also coat the cBN particles in oxidation resistant coatings as well, in view of Li.
Li relates to abrasive particles for rotary saws and the like. See Li [0002]. Li teaches abrasive grains of cBN or diamond are mixed into a matrix. See Li [0052]-[0053]. This is highly similar to Balbach, making Li analogous art. Li further teaches coating the abrasive grains in, among other options, titanium carbide. See Li [0055]. Thus, Li teaches that cBN abrasive grains can be coated in titanium carbide.
It is obvious to apply a known technique to a known product or method, ready for improvement, to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(D). In this case, Balbach teaches that cBN particles are a known abrasive particle in turbine blade applications. See Balbach [0003]. Balbach also teaches coating abrasive particle to prevent oxidation damage, and that the first layer of this coating may be titanium carbide. See Balbach [0005] & [0010]. Separately, Li teaches that cBN particles can be coated in titanium carbide, the same coating used as part of the anti-oxidation coating of Balbach. Thus, it would have been obvious and predictable to perform the coating method of Balbach on a cBN grain, rather than an Al2O3 grain. As such, it would have been obvious to modify Balbach to perform its coating method on the cubic boron nitride particles in a matrix.
Finally, Balbach teaches that the metallic matrix material comprises NiCoCrAIY-X (X = Re, Ta). Balbach teaches the matrix material may be NiCoCrAlY with the addition of some Silicon (Si). See Balbach [0015]. Balbach does not explicitly teach having the X element be either Re or Ta. Yet it would have been obvious to modify Balbach to have such a matrix alloy in view of Taylor. Taylor also relates to forming abrasive tips for turbine blade seals. See Taylor [0002]. Thus, Taylor is analogous art. Taylor teaches the abrasive coating comprises MCrAyY (just like Balbach) with embedded abrasive particles of either cBN or alumina (Al2O3). See Taylor [0019]-[0020]. (This also constitutes further evidence that cBN and Al2O3 are known substitutes for purposes of the earlier portion of the rejection.) Taylor teaches that bond coating of the matrix material can be in the form of MCrAlY+X, with X being Ta or Re. See Taylor [0026]. Thus, Taylor teaches that Ta and Re are known extra alloying elements for the matrix material. Since Balbach is already teaching the addition of an X element (silicon) it would have been obvious to use other known X elements in the matrix material, as taught in the art. It further would have specifically been obvious to use Rhenium or Tantalum as suggested by Taylor because it is obvious to apply a known technique to a known product or method, ready for improvement, to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(D). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Balbach to use NiCoCrAlY with the addition of either Rhenium or Tantalum.
Claim 18 recites that the metallic matrix material comprises the cobalt…material, while claim 19 recites it consists of the cobalt…material. The former requires that a cobalt material be a part of the matrix material, while the latter requires it be the sole component. Balbach teaches the matrix material may be in the form of MCrAlY, with . See Balbach [0005].
Regarding claim 21, As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 it would have been obvious to modify Balbach to use Ta or Re as the X element.
Claim 22 recites that the titanium carbide protective coating consists of titanium carbide, thus requiring that it only contain this material. Balbach teaches that the second coating on the particles is optional and thus anticipates only one coating of hard material compound is present around the abrasive particle and that material may be the titanium carbide. This also therefore teaches claim 25 (addressed out of order) because without the optional second coating the particles are free of any other coatings. Claim 23 recites using laser buildup welding while claim 24 recites using selective laser melting or selective laser sintering. Balbach teaches using a “laser metal forming method.” See Balbach [0036] and Fig. 5. It does not specifically identify which one. But it would have been obvious to use any known laser metal forming method because it is obvious to apply a known technique to a known product or method, ready for improvement, to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(D). Examiner takes Official Notice that laser buildup welding, selective laser melting, and selective laser sintering are all known laser metal forming methods. As such, it would have been obvious to modify Balbach to use any of the three. Regarding claim 26, Balbach teaches the matrix material is in the form of a powder and...the modified particles are mixed in. See Balbach [0036].
Claim 28 recites that some of the modified particles project from the…matrix material of the layer. Balbach teaches the powdered material and coated particles are mixed together and then laser melted/fused into a layer. See Balbach [0036]. One of ordinary skill would infer that some particles would be at the surface and project based on such a fabrication method. (If not, this feature is not enabled, as no specific mechanism for ensuring projection is presented.) Regarding claim 29, figures 1-2 of Balbach show the layer applied only to a tip of the rotor blade. Regarding claims 31-34, Taylor specifically teaches using either Re or Ta.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2016/0160661 to Balbach in view of U.S. 2015/0290771 to Li and U.S. 2011/0164963 to Taylor, and further in view of U.S. 2023/0271248 to Myrick.
Claim 27 recites the matrix material and particles are incorporated into [a] wire. Balbach only teaches suppling the matrix material as a powder. Yet it is known in the relevant art that raw materials for additive manufacturing may be supplied either in wire or powder form. See Myrick [0084]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Balbach to substitute wire in place of powder because it is obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B).
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant's arguments filed November 11, 2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. New grounds of rejection, using the additional reference Taylor, have been presented to address application’s arguments.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Moshe Wilensky whose telephone number is 571-270-3257. Mr. Wilensky’s supervisor, Sunil Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant may also use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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. 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.
/MOSHE WILENSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct claim quotations are presented in italics. All non-italic reference numerals presented with italicized claim language are from the cited prior art reference. All citations to “specification” are to the applicant’s published specification unless otherwise indicated. The use of the phrase “et al.” following a reference is used solely to refer to subsequent modifying references, and not to other listed inventors of the cited reference.
2 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.”