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, claims 1-3 and 5-11 in the reply filed on 12/08/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanevery [WO 2016089452] in view of Sun [US 20170291856].
Claim 1: Vanevery teaches a thermal spray method [title] where the method comprises spraying feedstock particles [0016], by arranging a spray unit from a base material [e.g. Fig. 4]; subjecting the feedstock powder to atmospheric plasma spraying to form a thermal spray film on the base material [0004; 0013] and supplying a liquid together with the feedstock particles [e.g. Fig. 4], wherein the liquid can be water [claim 11], and the water supply location is a distance between a plasma forming nozzle and base material [e.g. Fig. 4]. However, Vanevery appears to be silent about teaching the distance between the spray unit and the base. Sun is provided.
Sun teaches a solution precursor plasma spray of ceramic coating [title], wherein the distance between a nozzle and base is about 25-500 mm [0036]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide this distance range since Sun teaches this distance is operable for plasma spray of ceramic coatings, wherein the spray distance can affect the coating characteristic, such as thickness, density, and roughness [0043]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the distance between the nozzle and the base as result effective variable to optimize the coating characteristics.
Sun further teaches ceramic particles can includes yttria [0021]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art provide yttria as feedstock particles since Sun teaches it is already known in the art to provide yttria in solution based plasma spray deposition.
As for the location of the water supply, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the ratio of the location through routine experimentation since Vanevery teaches how water is deliver to the feedstock impacts the characteristics of the coating [0017; 0032].
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the rate the amount of water is supplied to the feedstock particle through routine experimentation since Vanevery teaches how water is deliver to the feedstock impacts the characteristics of the coating [0017; 0032].
Claim 2: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05.I).
Claim 3: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the rate the amount of water is supplied to the feedstock particle through routine experimentation since Vanevery teaches how water is deliver to the feedstock impacts the characteristics of the coating [0017; 0032].
Claims 5-6: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the ratio and distance of the water supply location through routine experimentation since Vanevery teaches how water is deliver to the feedstock impacts the characteristics of the coating [0017; 0032].
Claim 7: Vanevery teaches there is at least four water supply nozzle which is arranged at intervals and opposing from each other water is supplied from four direction [Fig. 6]. As for the angle of the nozzles being 90 degrees intervals, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to design variety of different arrangements of the water supply to the plasma nozzle so as to optimize the amount of water supplied to the fed feedstock particles to the base.
Claim 8: Vanevery teaches that six nozzles can be provided [Fig. 6], although Vanevery does not explicitly teach eight nozzles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the arrangement of the nozzles in order to adjust the rate of liquid supplied to the fed feedstock particles.
Claim 9: Vanevery teaches the water supply nozzles is fed from a line [Fig. 5], which it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that outlets of lines are generally provide in circular shape. As for the size of the orifice, Vanevery teaches adjusting the size of the injector affects the speed of the liquid injector [0032], therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the size of the orifice as result effective variable through routine experimentation to achieve a desired speed of the liquid.
Claim 10: Vanevery teaches the particle size is a result effective variable that can be optimize through routine experimentation [0032].
Claim 11: Sun teaches a thickness of a yttria spray coating can be up to 500 micrometers (um) [claim 8], where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05.I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDY C LOUIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 1:00PM to 4:00PM PT.
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, Timothy Meeks can be reached at (571)272-1423. 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.
/MANDY C LOUIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718