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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on May 26, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 26, 2026.
Claims 1-19 are pending, claim 1 is independent.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. Specifically, “is provided” is language that can be implied.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it is indefinite what a “strengthening” phase refers to. Indefiniteness concerns include to what degree does it have to be strengthening, and does it strengthen the phase or the bondcoat or the coated component?
Regarding claims 2-19, these claims are rejected for their incorporation of the above, due to their respective dependencies on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brennan et al. (US20240254060A1), hereinafter Brennan.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 19, Brennan teaches a coated component comprising a substrate having a surface, a bondcoat over the surface of the substrate, where the bondcoat comprises a metalloid-based material matrix with a plurality of oxide sintering aid phases dispersed within it ([0054]), further comprising an environmental barrier coating over the bond coat ([0073]), the metalloid-based material comprises silicon and silicon oxide (claim 2; silicon based matrix), the oxide-sintering aid phase is a mullite-based material (aluminum silicate; [0058]), and the substrate is a silicon containing substrate ([0029]) that is a silicon-based CMC ([0030]). Regarding “strengthening phase”, as the prior art teaches the element taught to be a strengthening phase (claims 2 and 3), the strengthening phase is considered to be met by Brennan.
Regarding claim 8, Brennan teaches each limitation of claim 1, as discussed above and further teaches the silicon-based matrix includes elemental silicon ([0033]).
Regarding claim 8, Brennan teaches each limitation of claim 1, as discussed above and further teaches a thermally grown oxide layer present over the bondcoat and the EBC is over the thermally grown oxide layer ([0029]), where the thermally grown layer comprises silica
Claim(s) 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brennan in view of Boullion et al. (WO 2024200966A1 herein referring to the Google Patents August 26, 2026 machine translation), hereinafter Boullion (copies provided herewith).
Regarding clams 4-7, Brennan teaches each limitation of claim 1, as discussed above and further teaches one or more layers may be doped as desired ([0024]), the bondcoat comprises a metalloid-based material matrix ([0054]), silicon in the metalloid-based matrix of at least 50wt% in a silicon-based matrix ([0033]), and the oxide-sintering aid phase is a mullite-based material (aluminum silicate; [0058]). Regarding “strengthening phase”, as the prior art teaches the element taught to be a strengthening phase (claims 2 and 3), the strengthening phase is considered to be met by Brennan.
Brennan does not specifically teach the silicon of the bondcoat is a boron-doped silicon of 0.01-10 wt% boron and 90-99.9wt% silicon. Boullion is in the similar field of endeavor of a coated ceramic composite having a silicon substrate, a bonding coat covering the substrate and a barrier coating covering the bonding coating ([0010]), where the barrier coating is an EBC ([00005]). Boullion teaches the doping rate of the doped silicon of the bonding coating is 0.05-0.5 atomic% ([0014]; one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably understands the rest of the atomic% to be silicon). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Brennan to incorporate the boron doping of Boullion. The motivation for doing so would have been Brennan allows for layer doping, and this amount of boron doping makes it possible to obtain better properties for the bonding coating.
Where the amount of silicon in the bond coat matrix is that of Brennan, and the silicon is the type of Boullion, the amount of boron-doped silicon in the bondcoat overlaps claim 5. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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: the closest prior art to the instant claims is Brennan et al. (US20240254060A1), hereinafter Brennan, as applied to claims 1-3, 8 and 19 above. Brennan further teaches a thermally grown oxide layer present over the bondcoat and the EBC is over the thermally grown oxide layer ([0029]), where the thermally grown layer comprises silica. Brennan does not teach alone or in combination with the prior art, the TGO comprises a dispersion of aluminum silicate based crystals (within the taught silicate-based oxide matrix), nor the strengthening phases comprises boromullite.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE CHRISTY whose telephone number is (303)297-4363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-4pm MT.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/KATHERINE A CHRISTY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights