DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to the above application filed on 06/05/2025 which is a Continuation of U.S. Application No. 16/057,047 filed on 08/07/2018, now U.S. Patent No. 12,345,219. Claims 1 – 19 are examined.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,219. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 1 of the instant application are generic to all that is recited in of Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,219. As shown in Table 1 below, Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,219 falls entirely within the scope of Claim 1 of the instant application or, in other words, Claim 1 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,234,792 because specific anticipates generic.
Table 1
Patent No. 12,345,219
Instant Application
1. An engine component having a surface in direct contact with engine combustion gases during engine operation, the engine component comprising:
1. An engine component comprising
a substrate formed from a substrate material comprising a refractory metal as the primary constituent; and
a coating system comprising a diffusion aluminide coating formed on the substrate, the diffusion aluminide coating comprising aluminum interdiffused with the substrate material,
the coating system defining at least a portion of the surface in direct contact with engine combustion gases during engine operation,
wherein the diffusion aluminide coating includes at least two of the following intermetallic compounds: RAl, RAl2 and RAl3, where R is the refractory metal.
a diffusion aluminide coating including at least two of: RAl, RAl2 and RAl3, where R is a refractory metal.
Claims 2 – 4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,219. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 2 – 4 of the instant application are generic to all that is recited in of Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,219. As shown in Table 2 below, Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,219 falls entirely within the scope of Claims 2 – 4 of the instant application or, in other words, Claims 2 – 4 of the instant application are anticipated by Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,234,792 because specific anticipates generic.
Table 2
Patent No. 12,345,219
Instant Application
1. An engine component having a surface in direct contact with engine combustion gases during engine operation, the engine component comprising:
1. An engine component comprising
a substrate formed from
a substrate material comprising a refractory metal as the primary constituent; and
4. …wherein the diffusion aluminide coating is formed on a substrate having the refractory metal as the primary constituent
a coating system comprising a diffusion aluminide coating formed on the substrate, the diffusion aluminide coating comprising aluminum interdiffused with the substrate material,
3. …wherein the diffusion aluminide coating is formed on a substrate comprising the refractory metal
the coating system
defining at least a portion of the surface in direct contact with engine combustion gases during engine operation,
2. …wherein the diffusion aluminide coating
defines at least a portion of a surface in direct contact with engine combustion gases during engine operation
wherein the diffusion aluminide coating includes at least two of the following intermetallic compounds: RAl, RAl2 and RAl3, where R is the refractory metal.
1. a diffusion aluminide coating including at least two of: RAl, RAl2 and RAl3, where R is a refractory metal.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,219. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 5 of the instant application are generic to all that is recited in of Claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,219. As shown in Table 3 below, Claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,219 falls entirely within the scope of Claim 5 of the instant application or, in other words, Claim 5 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,234,792 because specific anticipates generic.
Table 3
Patent No. 12,345,219
Instant Application
2. An engine component as defined in claim 1,
wherein the refractory metal is niobium.
5. The engine component of claim 1,
wherein the refractory metal is niobium.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,219. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 6 of the instant application are generic to all that is recited in of Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,219. As shown in Table 4 below, Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,219 falls entirely within the scope of Claim 6 of the instant application or, in other words, Claim 6 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,234,792 because specific anticipates generic.
Table 4
Patent No. 12,345,219
Instant Application
4. An engine component as defined in claim 1, wherein the diffusion aluminide coating has a thickness of 50 micrometers or greater.
6. The engine component of claim 1,
wherein the diffusion aluminide coating has a thickness of 50 micrometers or greater.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,219. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 7 of the instant application are generic to all that is recited in of Claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,219. As shown in Table 5 below, Claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,219 falls entirely within the scope of Claim 7 of the instant application or, in other words, Claim 7 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,234,792 because specific anticipates generic.
Table 5
Patent No. 12,345,219
Instant Application
9. The engine component of claim 1, further comprising a ceramic-based thermal barrier coating disposed over the diffusion aluminide coating,
the thermal barrier coating defining said at least a portion of the surface in direct contact with engine combustion gases during engine operation.
7. The engine component of claim 1, further comprising a ceramic-based thermal barrier coating disposed over the aluminide coating.
Claims 8 – 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 9 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,219. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 8 – 10 of the instant application are generic to all that is recited in of Claims 9 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,219. As shown in Table 6 below, Claims 9 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,219 falls entirely within the scope of Claims 8 – 10 of the instant application or, in other words, Claims 8 – 10 of the instant application are anticipated by Claims 9 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,234,792 because specific anticipates generic.
Table 6
Patent No. 12,345,219
Instant Application
9. A rocket engine comprising the engine component of claim 1, wherein said at least a portion of the surface in direct contact with engine combustion gases during engine operation is a surface of at least one of the following:
a nozzle of the rocket engine, a combustion chamber of the rocket engine, or a throat of the rocket engine.
8. A rocket engine comprising the engine component of claim 1.
9. The rocket engine of claim 8, wherein
a nozzle, a combustion chamber, or a throat of the rocket engine comprises the diffusion aluminide coating.
10. The rocket engine of claim 9, wherein said at least a portion of the surface in direct contact with engine combustion gases during engine operation is a surface of at least two of: the nozzle, the combustion chamber, or the throat.
10. The rocket engine of claim 8, wherein
at least two of a nozzle, a combustion chamber, or a throat of the rocket engine comprise the diffusion aluminide coating.
Claims 11 - 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,219. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 11 - 13 of the instant application are generic to all that is recited in of Claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,219. As shown in Table 7 below, Claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,219 falls entirely within the scope of Claims 11 - 13 of the instant application or, in other words, Claims 11 - 13 of the instant application are anticipated by Claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,234,792 because specific anticipates generic.
Table 7
Patent No. 12,345,219
Instant Application
12. A method of forming a protective coating on a substrate material, the method comprising the steps of:
11. A method comprising the step of
providing a bed of solid particulate material comprising a combination of solid aluminum metal and
a solid aluminum halide activator;
12. The method of claim 11, wherein the metal is aluminum.
13. The method of claim 11, wherein the activator is an aluminum halide.
bringing a coating chamber to a diffusion temperature with the substrate material and the bed of particulate material inside the chamber, wherein the aluminum halide activator sublimes and reacts with the aluminum metal in the bed of particulate material to form a vapor comprising aluminum from the aluminum metal in addition to aluminum from the aluminum halide activator,
11 - exposing a substrate to a vapor formed by heating a mixture of a metal and an activator comprising a compound of the metal
whereby aluminum from said vapor diffuses into the substrate material to form an aluminide diffusion coating,
11 - to form a diffusion coating comprising the metal on a surface of the substrate,
wherein the method is a non-contact vapor phase aluminide process in which the substrate material does not contact the solid aluminum metal or the solid aluminum halide activator in the bed of particulate material.
11 - wherein the substrate is not in contact with the mixture during the step of exposing.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,219. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 14 of the instant application are generic to all that is recited in of Claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,219. As shown in Table 8 below, Claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,219 falls entirely within the scope of Claim 14 of the instant application or, in other words, Claim 14 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,234,792 because specific anticipates generic.
Table 8
Patent No. 12,345,219
Instant Application
15. The method of claim 12, wherein the aluminum halide is aluminum trifluoride.
14. The method of claim 11, wherein the activator is aluminum trifluoride.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 13 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,219. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 15 and 16 of the instant application are generic to all that is recited in of Claims 13 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,219. As shown in Table 9 below, Claims 13 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,219 falls entirely within the scope of Claims 15 and 16 of the instant application or, in other words, Claims 15 and 16 of the instant application are anticipated by Claims 13 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,234,792 because specific anticipates generic.
Table 9
Patent No. 12,345,219
Instant Application
13. The method of claim 12, wherein the substrate material comprises a refractory metal as the primary constituent.
15. The method of claim 11, wherein the substrate comprises a refractory metal.
14. The method of claim 13, wherein the refractory metal is niobium.
16. The method of claim 11, wherein the substrate comprises niobium.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,219. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 19 of the instant application are generic to all that is recited in of Claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,219. As shown in Table 10 below, Claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,219 falls entirely within the scope of Claim 19 of the instant application or, in other words, Claim 19 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,234,792 because specific anticipates generic.
Table 10
Patent No. 12,345,219
Instant Application
17. The method of claim 12, further comprising the steps: forming a layer of alumina on the aluminide diffusion coating; and disposing a ceramic-based thermal barrier coating on the layer of alumina.
19. The method of claim 11, further comprising
disposing a ceramic-based thermal barrier coating over the substrate after the substrate is exposed to the vapor.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,219 in view of Myers et al. (6,164,060) in view of Majumdar et al., Deposition of aluminide and silicide based protective coatings on niobium”, Applied Surface Science, Vol. 257, July 24, 2010 hereinafter “Majumdar”. Claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,219 does not teach wherein the substrate is an (Claim 17) engine component or (Claim 18) a rocket engine component. Myers teaches, in Fig. 1, a rocket engine component (rocket engine nozzle) having an inner surface in direct contact with engine combustion gases during engine operation [function of rocket engine nozzle], the rocket engine nozzle comprising: a refractory metal substrate (10 - Abstract and Col. 3, ll. 3 – 10 ‘refractory niobium such as C-129Y’) and a coating system (Col. 3, ll. 3 – 6 teaches ‘protective inner layer 12 which acts as an oxidation as well as a thermal barrier’.) applied on said inner surface. Majumdar taught, on Pg. 635, first column, that Niobium based alloys (such as C-103) were suitable structural materials for high temperature space applications, i.e., rocket engines, but they required a diffusion aluminide coating to protect the Niobium substrate from embrittlement by oxygen contamination due to Niobium’s low oxidation resistance at high temperatures.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,219 with the substrate is an (Claim 17) engine component or (Claim 18) a rocket engine component, taught by Myers and Majumdar, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the method comprising the step of exposing a substrate to a vapor formed by heating a mixture of a metal and an activator comprising a compound of the metal to form a diffusion coating comprising the metal on a surface of the substrate, wherein the substrate is not in contact with the mixture during the step of exposing, and rocket engine components manufactured form Niobium based alloys that required a diffusion aluminide coating to protect the Niobium substrate from embrittlement by oxygen contamination due to Niobium’s low oxidation resistance at high temperatures, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the rocket engine component, taught by Myers and Majumdar, for the substrate of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,219, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the method would have facilitated forming an diffusion aluminide coating on the rocket engine component made from a Niobium alloy substrate to protect said rocket engine component from embrittlement by oxygen contamination. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11 – 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Graham et al. (2004/0109948).
Regarding Claim 11, Graham discloses, in Para. [0004] and Para. [0006], all the claimed limitations including a method [vapor phase aluminizing (VPA) techniques] comprising the step of exposing a substrate (engine component to be protected from oxidation by the diffusion aluminide coatings) to a vapor formed by heating (Para. [0006] “…heated to a temperature sufficient to vaporize the activator, which reacts with the source material to form the volatile aluminum halide, which then reacts at the component surface to form the aluminide coating.”) a mixture of a metal [aluminum-containing source (donor) material] and an activator (aluminum halide) comprising a compound of the metal [aluminum-containing source (donor) material] to form a diffusion coating comprising the metal on a surface of the substrate (Para. [0004] “Aluminum-containing coatings, particularly diffusion aluminide coatings, have found widespread use as environmental coatings on gas turbine engine components. Aluminide coatings are generally formed by a diffusion process such as pack cementation or vapor phase aluminizing (VPA) techniques, or by diffusing aluminum deposited by chemical vapor deposition (CVD) or slurry coating”.), wherein the substrate is not in contact with the mixture during the step of exposing (Para. [0006] “VPA processes are carried out with the source material placed out of contact with the surface to be aluminized.”).
Re Claim 12, Graham discloses the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the metal is aluminum, refer to the Claim 11 rejection above.
Re Claim 13, Graham discloses the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the activator is an aluminum halide, refer to the Claim 11 rejection above.
Re Claim 17, Graham discloses the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the substrate is an engine component (Para. [0004] “Aluminum-containing coatings, particularly diffusion aluminide coatings, have found widespread use as environmental coatings on gas turbine engine components”).
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.
Claims 1 – 3 and 5 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ring et al. (5,613,299) in view of Bewlay et al. (8,039,116) in view of Tachikawa et al. (4,664,933).
Regarding Claim 1, Ring teaches, in Fig. 1, the invention as claimed, including an engine component (Fig. 1) comprising a refractory metal (Col. 2, ll. 15 – 20 and Col. 3, ll. 29 – 50).
Ring is silent on said engine component comprising a diffusion aluminide coating including at least two of: RAl, RAl2, or RAl3, where R is a refractory metal.
Bewlay teaches, in Col. 1, ll. 30 – 50, Col. 3, ll. 55 – 67, Col. 4, ll. 50 – 67, and Col. 5, ll. 50 – 67, a refractory metal component (in this case Nb = Niobium) having a diffusion aluminide coating (Col. 4, ll. 50 – 67) including at least two of: RAl, RAl2, or RAl3, where R is a refractory metal (Col. 3, ll. 55 – 67 teaches NbAl2 and NbAl3). Tachikawa, in Col. 1, ll. 30 – 40 and Col. 5, ll. 15 – 22, refractory metal component (in this case Nb = Niobium tape) having a diffusion aluminide coating (Col. 1, ll. 30 – 40) including at least two of: RAl, RAl2, or RAl3, where R is a refractory metal (Col. 5, ll. 15 – 22 teaches NbAl2 and NbAl3).
Thus, improving a particular device (refractory metal engine component), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Bewlay and Tachikawa, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying this known improvement technique in the same manner to the refractory metal engine component of Ring, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that forming a diffusion aluminide coating including at least NbAl2 and NbAl3 would have facilitated improving the oxidation resistance of the refractory metal engine component. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Re Claim 2, Ring, i.v., Bewlay and Tachikawa, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above including wherein the diffusion aluminide coating defines at least a portion of a surface in direct contact with engine combustion gases during engine operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that in the engine component of Ring, i.v., Bewlay and Tachikawa, the diffusion aluminide coating would have defined at least a portion of a surface in direct contact with engine combustion gases [interior surfaces of the nozzle (16), a combustion chamber (11), and a throat (15) of the rocket engine] during operation of the rocket engine because during rocket engine operation the interior surfaces of the nozzle, combustion chamber, and throat required the improved oxidation resistance from the diffusion aluminide coating since combustion inside the combustion chamber is a type of high temperature oxidation reaction where a fuel combined with an oxidizer to release heat and generate combustion gases.
Re Claim 3, Ring, i.v., Bewlay and Tachikawa, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above including wherein the diffusion aluminide coating is formed on a substrate [interior surfaces of the nozzle (16), a combustion chamber (11), and a throat (15) of the rocket engine] comprising the refractory metal (in this case Nb = Niobium).
Re Claim 5, Ring, i.v., Bewlay and Tachikawa, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Ring further teaches, in Col. 1, ll. 35 – 45, Col. 2, ll. 15 – 20 and Col. 3, ll. 29 – 50, including wherein the refractory metal is niobium (originally named ‘Columbium’ then renamed as ‘Niobium’).
Re Claim 6, Ring, i.v., Bewlay and Tachikawa, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the diffusion aluminide coating has a thickness of 50 micrometers or greater.
Bewlay further teaches, in Col. 3, ll. 40 – 55, the diffusion aluminide coating has a thickness of 50 micrometers or greater, in this case 5 to 250 micrometers which encompasses and/or overlaps the claimed range.
Thus, improving a particular device (refractory metal engine component), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Bewlay, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying this known improvement technique in the same manner to the refractory metal engine component of Ring, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that forming a diffusion aluminide coating with a thickness of 50 micrometers or greater would have facilitated improving the oxidation resistance of the refractory metal engine component. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Re Claim 7, Ring, i.v., Bewlay and Tachikawa, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, further comprising a ceramic-based thermal barrier coating disposed over the aluminide coating.
Bewlay further teaches, in Col. 8, ll. 40 – 55, a ceramic-based thermal barrier coating disposed over the aluminide coating.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ring, i.v., Bewlay and Tachikawa, with the ceramic-based thermal barrier coating disposed over the aluminide coating, taught by Bewlay, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the engine component comprising a diffusion aluminide coating including at least two of: RAl, RAl2, or RAl3, where R is a refractory metal and a ceramic-based thermal barrier coating disposed over the aluminide coating, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the ceramic-based thermal barrier coating disposed over the aluminide coating would have facilitated protecting the diffusion aluminide coating from high temperatures such as those generated by combustion of a fuel and an oxidizer. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Re Claim 8, Ring, i.v., Bewlay and Tachikawa, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above a rocket engine (Ring – Fig. 1 – Col. 1, ll. 1 - 15) comprising the engine component of claim 1.
Re Claims 9 and 10, Ring, i.v., Bewlay and Tachikawa, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, (Claim 9) wherein a nozzle, a combustion chamber, or a throat of the rocket engine comprises the diffusion aluminide coating and (Claim 10) wherein at least two of a nozzle, a combustion chamber, or a throat of the rocket engine comprise the diffusion aluminide coating.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that in the engine component of Ring, i.v., Bewlay and Tachikawa, the diffusion aluminide coating would have defined the surfaces in direct contact with engine combustion gases such as the interior surfaces of the nozzle (16), combustion chamber (11), and throat (15) of the rocket engine during operation of the rocket engine because during rocket engine operation the interior surfaces of the nozzle, combustion chamber, and throat required the improved oxidation resistance from the diffusion aluminide coating since combustion inside the combustion chamber is a type of high temperature oxidation reaction where a fuel combined with an oxidizer to release heat and generate combustion gases.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ring et al. (5,613,299) in view of Bewlay et al. (8,039,116) in view of Tachikawa et al. (4,664,933) in view of Hebda, John, and Wah Chang. "Niobium alloys and high temperature applications." Niobium science & technology: proceedings of the International Symposium Niobium. Vol. 2001 [//web.archive.org/web/20081217080513/http://www.cbmm.com.br/portug/sources/techlib/science_techno/table_content/sub_3/images/pdfs/016.pdf] hereinafter “Hebda”.
Re Claim 4, Ring, i.v., Bewlay and Tachikawa, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the diffusion aluminide coating is formed on a substrate having the refractory metal as the primary constituent.
Hebda teaches, on Pg. 5, second paragraph and last paragraph, the C-103 Niobium alloy that was about 89% Niobium, 10% Hafnium, and 1% Titanium.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ring, i.v., Bewlay and Tachikawa, with the substrate having the refractory metal as the primary constituent, taught by Hebda, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the engine component comprising a diffusion aluminide coating including at least two of: RAl, RAl2, or RAl3, where R is a refractory metal and a substrate having the refractory metal as the primary constituent, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the C-103 Niobium alloy, taught by Hebda, for the non-disclosed refractory metal percentage of Ring, i.v., Bewlay and Tachikawa, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the diffusion aluminide coating would have been formed on a substrate (engine component made out of C-103 Niobium alloy) having the refractory metal as the primary constituent, in this case 89% Nb. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Claims 1 – 4 and 7 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ring et al. (5,613,299) in view of Sato, Y. and Hara, M., "Reducing Effect of a Slight Amount of NaCI Vapor on Pest Oxidation of Ta-75%AI at High Temperature", Oxidation of Metals, Springer, 2016, hereinafter “Sato”.
Regarding Claim 1, Ring teaches, in Fig. 1, the invention as claimed, including an engine component (Fig. 1) comprising a refractory metal (Col. 2, ll. 15 – 20 and Col. 3, ll. 29 – 50, in this case Tantalum).
Ring is silent on said engine component comprising a diffusion aluminide coating including at least two of: RAl, RAl2, or RAl3, where R is a refractory metal.
Sato teaches, on Pg. 44, bottom continuing to Pg. 47, a refractory metal component (in this case Ta = Tantalum) having a diffusion aluminide coating including at least two of: RAl, RAl2, or RAl3, where R is a refractory metal (Pg. 44, bottom continuing to Pg. 47 teaches TaAl, TaAl2, and TaAl3).
Thus, improving a particular device (refractory metal engine component), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Sata, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying this known improvement technique in the same manner to the refractory metal engine component of Ring, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that forming a diffusion aluminide coating including at least two of TaAl, TaAl2, and TaAl3 would have facilitated improving the oxidation resistance of the refractory metal engine component. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Re Claim 2, Ring, i.v., Sato, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above including wherein the diffusion aluminide coating defines at least a portion of a surface in direct contact with engine combustion gases during engine operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that in the engine component of Ring, i.v., Sato, the diffusion aluminide coating would have defined at least a portion of a surface in direct contact with engine combustion gases [interior surfaces of the nozzle (16), a combustion chamber (11), and a throat (15) of the rocket engine] during operation of the rocket engine because during rocket engine operation the interior surfaces of the nozzle, combustion chamber, and throat required the improved oxidation resistance from the diffusion aluminide coating since combustion inside the combustion chamber is a type of high temperature oxidation reaction where a fuel combined with an oxidizer to release heat and generate combustion gases.
Re Claim 3, Ring, i.v., Sato, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above including wherein the diffusion aluminide coating is formed on a substrate [interior surfaces of the nozzle (16), a combustion chamber (11), and a throat (15) of the rocket engine] comprising the refractory metal (in this case Ta = Tantalum).
Re Claim 4, Ring, i.v., Sato, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above including wherein the diffusion aluminide coating is formed on a substrate having the refractory metal (in this case Ta = Tantalum) as the primary constituent. Ring teaches, in Col. 2, ll. 15 – 20 and Col. 3, ll. 29 – 50, either 100% Tantalum or a 90% Tantalum 10% Tungsten alloy.
Re Claim 7, Ring, i.v., Sato, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, further comprising a ceramic-based thermal barrier coating disposed over the aluminide coating.
Sato further teaches, on Pg. 46, formation of a ceramic-based thermal barrier coating (Al2O3) disposed over the aluminide coating, i.e., top surface of the component with the diffusion aluminide coating.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ring, i.v., Sato, with the ceramic-based thermal barrier coating disposed over the aluminide coating, further taught by Sato, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the engine component comprising a diffusion aluminide coating including at least two of: RAl, RAl2, or RAl3, where R is a refractory metal and a ceramic-based thermal barrier coating disposed over the aluminide coating, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the ceramic-based thermal barrier coating disposed over the aluminide coating would have facilitated protecting the diffusion aluminide coating from high temperatures such as those generated by combustion of a fuel and an oxidizer. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Re Claim 8, Ring, i.v., Sato, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above a rocket engine (Ring – Fig. 1 – Col. 1, ll. 1 - 15) comprising the engine component of claim 1.
Re Claims 9 and 10, Ring, i.v., Sato, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, (Claim 9) wherein a nozzle, a combustion chamber, or a throat of the rocket engine comprises the diffusion aluminide coating and (Claim 10) wherein at least two of a nozzle, a combustion chamber, or a throat of the rocket engine comprise the diffusion aluminide coating.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that in the engine component of Ring, i.v., Sato, the diffusion aluminide coating would have defined the surfaces in direct contact with engine combustion gases such as the interior surfaces of the nozzle (16), combustion chamber (11), and throat (15) of the rocket engine during operation of the rocket engine because during rocket engine operation the interior surfaces of the nozzle, combustion chamber, and throat required the improved oxidation resistance from the diffusion aluminide coating since combustion inside the combustion chamber is a type of high temperature oxidation reaction where a fuel combined with an oxidizer to release heat and generate combustion gases.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ring et al. (5,613,299) in view of Sato, Y. and Hara, M., "Reducing Effect of a Slight Amount of NaCI Vapor on Pest Oxidation of Ta-75%AI at High Temperature", Oxidation of Metals, Springer, 2016, hereinafter “Sato” in view of Bewlay et al. (8,039,116).
Re Claim 6, Ring, i.v., Sato, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the diffusion aluminide coating has a thickness of 50 micrometers or greater.
Bewlay teaches, in Col. 3, ll. 40 – 55, a similar diffusion aluminide coating has a thickness of 50 micrometers or greater, in this case 5 to 250 micrometers which encompasses and/or overlaps the claimed range.
Thus, improving a particular device (refractory metal engine component), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Bewlay, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying this known improvement technique in the same manner to the refractory metal engine component of Ring, i.v., Sato, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that forming a diffusion aluminide coating with a thickness of 50 micrometers or greater would have facilitated improving the oxidation resistance of the refractory metal engine component. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham et al. (2004/0109948) in view of Wheat et al. (6,339,879).
Re Claim 14, Graham teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the activator is aluminum trifluoride.
Wheat teaches, in Col. 1, ll. 45 – 65, Col. 4, ll. 1 – 5, and Col. 5, ll. 1 – 10, a similar vapor phase aluminizing (VPA) technique where the activator was aluminum trifluoride.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Graham, with the activator was aluminum trifluoride, taught by Wheat, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the vapor phase aluminizing (VPA) method comprising the step of exposing a substrate to a vapor formed by heating a mixture of a metal and an activator comprising a compound of the metal to form a diffusion coating comprising the metal on a surface of the substrate, wherein the substrate is not in contact with the mixture during the step of exposing and the vapor phase aluminizing (VPA) technique using aluminum trifluoride as the activator, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the aluminum trifluoride activator, taught by Wheat, for the aluminum halide activator of Graham, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the aluminum trifluoride activator would have functioned as the medium that transported aluminum atoms from the aluminum metal (source) to the surface of the substrate where the transported aluminum atoms would accumulate and slowly diffuse into the substrate to form the diffusion aluminide coating. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Claims 15, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham et al. (2004/0109948) in view of Ring et al. (5,613,299) in view of Bewlay et al. (8,039,116).
Re Claims 15, 16, and 18, Graham teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the substrate (Claim 15) comprises a refractory metal, (Claim 16) comprises niobium, and (Claim 18) is a rocket engine component.
Ring teaches, in Fig. 1, Col. 1, ll. 35 – 45, Col. 2, ll. 15 – 20, and Col. 3, ll. 29 – 50, a rocket engine component (Ring – Fig. 1 – Col. 1, ll. 1 - 15) comprising a refractory metal substrate (Col. 2, ll. 15 – 20 and Col. 3, ll. 29 – 50), wherein the refractory metal was niobium (originally named ‘Columbium’ then renamed as ‘Niobium’). Bewlay teaches, in Col. 1, ll. 30 – 50, Col. 3, ll. 55 – 67, Col. 4, ll. 50 – 67, and Col. 5, ll. 50 – 67, that a diffusion aluminide coating (Col. 4, ll. 50 – 67) improved the oxidation resistance of Niobium (Nb) refractory metal components.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Graham, with the substrate (Claim 15) comprises a refractory metal, (Claim 16) comprises niobium, and (Claim 18) is a rocket engine component, taught by Ring, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the vapor phase aluminizing (VPA) method comprising the step of exposing a substrate to a vapor formed by heating a mixture of a metal and an activator comprising a compound of the metal to form a diffusion coating comprising the metal on a surface of the substrate, wherein the substrate is not in contact with the mixture during the step of exposing and the rocket engine component comprising a refractory metal substrate, wherein the refractory metal was Niobium, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the rocket engine component comprising a Niobium refractory metal substrate, taught by Ring, for the engine component substrate of Graham, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the rocket engine component comprising Niobium refractory metal substrate surfaces with the diffusion aluminide coating would have had improved resistance to oxidation at high temperatures. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham et al. (2004/0109948) in view of Bewlay et al. (8,039,116).
Re Claim 19, Graham teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, further comprising disposing a ceramic-based thermal barrier coating over the substrate after the substrate is exposed to the vapor.
Bewlay teaches, in Col. 1, ll. 30 – 50, Col. 3, ll. 55 – 67, Col. 4, ll. 50 – 67, and Col. 5, ll. 50 – 67, a substrate having a diffusion aluminide coating (Col. 4, ll. 50 – 67). Bewlay further teaches, in Col. 8, ll. 40 – 55, disposing a ceramic-based thermal barrier coating over the substrate after the substrate is exposed to the vapor, in other words, a ceramic-based thermal barrier coating disposed over the diffusion aluminide coating.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Graham, with the further step of disposing a ceramic-based thermal barrier coating over the substrate after the substrate is exposed to the vapor, taught by Bewlay, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the vapor phase aluminizing (VPA) method comprising the step of exposing a substrate to a vapor formed by heating a mixture of a metal and an activator comprising a compound of the metal to form a diffusion coating comprising the metal on a surface of the substrate, wherein the substrate is not in contact with the mixture during the step of exposing and a ceramic-based thermal barrier coating disposed over the aluminide coating, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the ceramic-based thermal barrier coating disposed over the aluminide coating would have facilitated protecting the diffusion aluminide coating from high temperatures such as those generated by combustion of a fuel and an oxidizer. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNE E MEADE whose telephone number is (571)270-7570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 EST.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
/LORNE E MEADE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights