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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/07/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 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, 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 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MERRILL et al. (US 2013/0333855 A1), in view of Tang et al. (US 2016/0332922 A1, “Tang”).
Regarding claim 1 and claim 8, Merrill et al. teaches a coating system comprising:
a mold (16) having a flexible wall (e.g., 16a; [0016, 0036, 0038-0039, 0042, 0048, 0052]) defining a mold cavity (18, see FIG. 2B);
the flexible wall (e.g., 16a) defining a mold cavity (18; e.g., [0005] “then joining the mold halves to define an injection volume”) that is configured in geometry to receive a component (10) therein such that there is a coating gap defined between the component and the flexible wall of the mold cavity (see FIG. 2B gap between surface 24 and the surface of the core 10) and capable of receiving a molding slurry (as claimed in Claim 8; e.g., [0005] “vacuum injecting a ceramic molding material into the injection volume”);
a component (core 10) disposed in the mold cavity (18), there being a coating gap defined between the component (10) and the flexible wall (16a) of the mold cavity (e.g., see FIG. 2B).
Merrill et al. does not specifically disclose, “either a molding slurry or a solidified molding slurry filling the coating gap”.
Merrill et al., however, discloses at [0005] “vacuum injecting a ceramic molding material into the injection volume”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the “ceramic molding material” being injected into the injection volume is analogous to the claimed “molding slurry” filling the coating gap. Merrill et al. discloses injecting a material into the injection cavity 18, that will solidify in the gap in the injection cavity 18 (see FIG. 2B, and [0038]).
In the same field of endeavor of methods for ceramic-based coating [0004-0017], Tang et al. teaches a ceramic-based substrate [0004, 0011] (20; i.e., a gas turbine engine component, such as but not limited to, an airfoil, a combustor liner panel, a blade outer air seal, among others) that includes a composite material (22) that is used as an environmental barrier layer to protect an underlying substrate 24 ([0032] “the substrate 24 can be a ceramic-based substrate, such as a silicon-containing ceramic material.”) from environmental conditions, as well as thermal conditions [0028];
[0036-0037] “The barrier layer and/or intermediate layer 234 can be fabricated using a slurry coating method. The appropriate slurries can be prepared by mixing components, such as silicon oxycarbide, barium-magnesium alumino-silicate, and powder of silicon dioxide or colloidal silica (Ludox) in a carrier fluid, such as water.” [0034] “The relatively small intermediate layer silicon oxycarbide particles 238 provide a relatively low roughness for enhanced bonding with the underlying substrate 24.” [analogous to the claimed a coating surface roughness that is less than the component surface roughness”].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a molding slurry, as suggested by the prior art of Tang et al., as the coating material in the coating system of Merrill et al., for the purpose of fabricating a barrier layer, as suggested and taught by Tang et al. [0036-0037], using a slurry coating method in the coating system of Merrill et al., with good expectations of predictably and successfully fabricating a ceramic-based barrier layer over a core surface with the molding slurry (MPEP 2143(I)(D)), since it have held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP 2144.07 Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.” "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See MPEP 2141 (I).
"It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable." In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We conclude that this is true whether an intended use recitation is recited in the preamble or, as in the present case, in a wherein clause. See Griffin v. Bertina, 283 F.3d 1029, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Regarding claim 2 and claim 9, Merrill/Tang teaches the coating system as recited in claim 1 and claim 8, respectively, wherein the mold is formed of silicone (see Merrill et al. [0016, 0036, 0038]).
Regarding claim 3 and claim 10, Merrill/Tang teaches the coating system as recited in claim 1 and claim 8, respectively, wherein the mold includes one or more bumpers (“flexible positioning pins” 22) spacing the component (10) from the flexible wall (16a), and projecting in the mold cavity (18) (as claimed in Claim 10) (see Merrill et al. FIG. 2B).
Regarding claim 4, Merrill/Tang teaches the coating system as recited in claim 3, wherein the component (10) includes one or more cooling holes (cooperating opening 86), and the one or more bumpers (e.g., 81, Merrill et al. [0047]) plug the one or more cooling holes (see FIGs. 10A-B).
Regarding claim 5, Merrill/Tang teaches the coating system as recited in claim 1, except for specifically disclosing, wherein the component is a gas turbine engine component formed of ceramic (e.g., see Tang et al. [0004-0017, 0028, 0032-0036]).
Regarding claim 6, Merrill/Tang teaches the coating system as recited in claim 1, except for specifically disclosing, wherein the molding slurry and the solidified molding slurry contain silica.
Tang at [0036] discloses, “The barrier layer and/or intermediate layer 234 can be fabricated using a slurry coating method. The appropriate slurries can be prepared by mixing components, such as silicon oxycarbide, barium-magnesium alumino-silicate, and powder of silicon dioxide or colloidal silica (Ludox) in a carrier fluid, such as water.” [0034] “The relatively small intermediate layer silicon oxycarbide particles 238 provide a relatively low roughness for enhanced bonding with the underlying substrate 24.” [analogous to the claimed a coating surface roughness that is less than the component surface roughness”].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a molding slurry containing silica, as suggested by the prior art of Tang [0036], such that the molding slurry and the solidified molding slurry contain silica, and the final coating having a coating surface roughness that is less than the component surface roughness, as taught by Tang [0034], for the purpose of enhancing the bonding with the component surface, as taught by Tang (MPEP 2143 (I) (G)), since it have held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP 2144.07 Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.”
Regarding claim 7, Merrill et al. teaches the coating system as recited in claim 1, wherein the molding slurry and the solidified molding slurry contain siliconoxycarbide (Tang [0036]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bedzyk (US Pat. No. 7,913,743): See FIG. 4, Col. 2 lines 50 – 67.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742