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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application Nos. 17/978,629 and 18/481,515, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The prior-filed applications fail to disclose a coated component including a substrate and a corrosion resistant coating thereon. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior applications.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 15-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, line 2 recites “Mal particles” and should recite “MAl particles”.
Claim 15, line 3 recites “wherein the corrected specific thrust is greater than or equal to 45” and should recite “wherein the corrected specific thrust is greater than or equal to 45 and less than or equal to 90”.
Claim 16, line 3 recites “wherein the corrected specific thrust is greater than or equal to 50” and should recite “wherein the corrected specific thrust is greater than or equal to 50 and less than or equal to 90”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 claim 1 of US Patent 12,410,753 (‘753) in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of ‘753 teaches a gas turbine engine comprising:
a turbomachine comprising a compressor section, a combustion section, and a turbine section arranged in serial flow order, the compressor section having a high pressure compressor defining a high pressure compressor exit area (AHPCExit) in square inches; and
wherein the gas turbine engine defines a redline exhaust gas temperature (EGT) in degrees Celsius, a total sea level static thrust output (FnTotal) in pounds, and a corrected specific thrust, wherein the corrected specific thrust is greater than or equal to 42 and less than or equal to 90, the corrected specific thrust determined as follows: FnTotal x EGT / (AHPCExit2 x 1000).
Claim 1 of ‘753 is silent on a coated component within the turbomachine, wherein the coated component includes a substrate and a corrosion resistant coating thereon.
Nagesh teaches a coated component (Figure 3) within the turbomachine (paragraph 29), wherein the coated component includes a substrate (60) and a corrosion resistant coating (64) thereon (paragraph 29).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘753s invention to include a coated component within the turbomachine, wherein the coated component includes a substrate and a corrosion resistant coating thereon in order to prevent hot corrosion as suggested and taught by Nagesh in paragraph 2.
Regarding claim 2, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Nagesh teach the invention as claimed and described above. Nagesh further teaches wherein the corrosion resistant coating comprises a matrix (paragraph 28), corrosion resistant particles (paragraph 28) dispersed throughout the matrix, and a glass-forming additive (paragraph 28), wherein the glass-forming additive and one or more materials in the matrix form a glassy-phase (paragraph 46) when heat treated (paragraph 46).
Regarding claim 3, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Nagesh teach the invention as claimed and described above. Nagesh further teaches wherein the corrosion resistant particles comprise Al2O3, Y2O3, ZrO2, TiO2, or a combination thereof (paragraph 32).
Regarding claim 4, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Nagesh teach the invention as claimed and described above. Nagesh further teaches wherein the corrosion resistant particles comprise Mal particles, MAlX particles, MCr particles, MCrX particles, MCrAlX particles, or a combination thereof (paragraph 32), where M is an element selected from nickel, iron, cobalt or a combination thereof (paragraph 32) and X is an element selected from La, Ta, Re, Y, Zr, Hf, Si, B, C, or a combination thereof (paragraph 32).
Regarding claim 5, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Nagesh teach the invention as claimed and described above. Nagesh further teaches wherein the matrix comprises a silicon-based matrix, a silicone-based matrix, or a combination thereof (paragraph 30).
Regarding claim 6, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Nagesh teach the invention as claimed and described above. Nagesh further teaches wherein the glass-forming additive comprises one or more metals or oxides of iron, one or more metals or oxides of aluminum, one or more metals or oxides of boron, one or more metals or oxides of nickel, or a combination thereof (paragraph 50).
Regarding claim 7, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Nagesh teach the invention as claimed and described above. Nagesh further teaches wherein the corrosion resistant coating further comprises a nucleating agent (paragraph 51).
Regarding claim 8, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Nagesh teach the invention as claimed and described above. Nagesh further teaches wherein the corrosion resistant particles comprise a plurality of small particles having a median particle size of less than 1 micron, a plurality of medium particles having a particle size of between 2 microns and 8 microns, and a plurality of large particles having a particle size of between 9 microns and 60 microns, wherein the plurality of small particles is present in an amount of from about 10 volume % to about 30 volume %, the plurality of medium particles is present in an amount of from about 30 volume % to about 50 volume %, and the plurality of large particles is present in an amount of from about 30 volume % to about 50 volume% (paragraph 54).
Regarding claim 9, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Nagesh teach the invention as claimed and described above. Nagesh further teaches wherein the coating is substantially free of hexavalent chromium (paragraph 37).
Regarding claim 10, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Nagesh teach the invention as claimed and described above. Nagesh further teaches wherein the gas turbine engine component comprises a nickel-based alloy, a cobalt-based alloy, or a combination thereof (paragraph 63).
Regarding claim 11, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Nagesh teach the invention as claimed and described above. Nagesh further teaches wherein the gas turbine engine component comprises a compressor spool, turbine disk, seal, or shaft (paragraph 64).
Regarding claim 12, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Nagesh teach the invention as claimed and described above. Claim 2 of ‘753 further teaches wherein the EGT is greater than 1000 degrees Celsius and less than 1300 degrees Celsius.
Regarding claim 13, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Nagesh teach the invention as claimed and described above. Claim 3 of ‘753 further teaches wherein the EGT is greater than 1100 degree Celsius and less than 1250 degrees Celsius.
Regarding claim 14, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Nagesh teach the invention as claimed and described above. Claim 4 of ‘753 further teaches wherein the EGT is greater than 1150 degree Celsius and less than 1250 degrees Celsius.
Regarding claim 15, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Nagesh teach the invention as claimed and described above. Claim 5 of ‘753 further teaches wherein the EGT is greater than 1000 degree Celsius and less than 1300 degrees Celsius, and wherein the corrected specific thrust is greater than or equal to 45.
Regarding claim 16, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Nagesh teach the invention as claimed and described above. Claim 6 of ‘753 further teaches wherein the EGT is greater than 1000 degree Celsius and less than 1300 degrees Celsius, and wherein the corrected specific thrust is greater than or equal to 50.
Regarding claim 17, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Nagesh teach the invention as claimed and described above. Claim 7 of ‘753 further teaches wherein the turbine section comprises a high pressure turbine having a first stage of high pressure turbine rotor blades, and wherein the gas turbine engine further comprises:
a cooled cooling air system in fluid communication with the first stage of high pressure turbine rotor blades.
Regarding claim 18, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Nagesh teach the invention as claimed and described above. Claim 11 of ‘753 further teaches further comprising a primary fan driven by the turbomachine.
Regarding claim 19, claim 15 of ‘753 in view of Nagesh teaches a method of operating a gas turbine engine, comprising:
operating the gas turbine engine at a takeoff power level, the gas turbine engine having a turbomachine with a high pressure compressor defining a high pressure compressor exit area (AHPCExit) in square inches, the gas turbine engine defining a redline exhaust gas temperature (EGT) in degrees Celsius, a total sea level static thrust output (FnTotal) in pounds, and a corrected specific thrust; and
wherein the corrected specific thrust is greater than or equal to 42 and less than or equal to 90, the corrected specific thrust determined as follows: FnTotal x EGT / (AHPCExit2 x 1000).
Claim 15 of ‘753 is silent on wherein the gas turbine engine comprises a coated component within the turbomachine, wherein the coated component includes a substrate and a corrosion resistant coating thereon.
Nagesh teaches wherein the gas turbine engine comprises a coated component (Figure 3) within the turbomachine (paragraph 29), wherein the coated component includes a substrate (60) and a corrosion resistant coating (64) thereon (paragraph 29).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘753s invention to include wherein the gas turbine engine comprises a coated component within the turbomachine, wherein the coated component includes a substrate and a corrosion resistant coating thereon in order to prevent hot corrosion as suggested and taught by Nagesh in paragraph 2.
Regarding claim 20, claim 15 of ‘753 in view of Nagesh teach the invention as claimed and described above. Nagesh further teaches wherein the corrosion resistant coating comprises a matrix (paragraph 28), corrosion resistant particles (paragraph 28) dispersed throughout the matrix, and a glass-forming additive (paragraph 28), wherein the glass-forming additive and one or more materials in the matrix form a glassy-phase (paragraph 46) when heat treated (paragraph 46).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,078,107 (‘107) in view of in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,428,992 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/033,042 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,503,980 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/045,244 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/045,124 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/045,152 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/045,134 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/055,645 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/055,619 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/055,668 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/055,637 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/055,734 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/069,982 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/070,161 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/083,161 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/210,793 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/210,808 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/221,722 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/221,777 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/221,742 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/235,827 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/235,801 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/235,903 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/250,221 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/250,310 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/254,227 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/265,761 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/265,709 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/265,747 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/279,574 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/279,587 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/279,541 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/293,636 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/293,588 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/293,611 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/305,856 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/305,970 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/305,850 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/333,833 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/348,974 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/333,727 in view of Nagesh et al. (US 2023/0101282) in the same manner as described above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katheryn Malatek whose telephone number is (571)272-5689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9 am - 6 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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/KATHERYN A MALATEK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741