DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the claims set filed 06/16/2026 following the Non-Final Rejection of 03/16/2026. Claims 1, 4 and 8 were amended; claims 2-3 were cancelled. Claims 1 and 4-20 are currently pending with claims 16-20 withdrawn from consideration as being party to nonelected Group II.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC § 102 and/or 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections as previously presented have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of amendments made to the claim.
Applicant's point on page 6-7 of Remarks that “by the present response, independent claim 1 is amended to recite subject matter from dependent claims 2 and 3, which have been cancelled, and also to recite the additional subject matter that the fan blade is rotated around its axis (X in FIG. 3). See reprint of FIG. 3 of the application set forth below. This rotation is different from what is disclosed in Bruce. In the office action the examiner has pointed to a passage in Bruce that states refers to cammed rotation of the airfoils in Bruce, but this cammed rotation does not refer to rotation of the airfoils themselves, but rather the rotation as illustrated in FIG. 20 of Bruce wherein arrays of airfoils are fixed to a rotating table” was not found persuasive by Examiner.
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that for the method, the fan blade is rotated about its axis) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As presented, the claim requires that the method comprises the steps of “rotating the part relative to the source of coating material at variable rates of rotation within a single rotation” and “the blade or vane having a suction side and a pressure side and an axis, and wherein the rotating comprises rotating the airfoil around the axis”; which is different from what Applicant is arguing. The claim requires that the rotating comprises (i.e. includes) rotating the airfoil around the axis of the blade/vane; not that the step of rotating is only around/about the axis of the blade/vane. As such, Bruce still discloses this limitation. Bruce states that “each blade 10 is oriented with its longitudinal (span-wise) axis perpendicular to a linear path between the blade 10 and a source 36 of the coating material, such as sputter targets. Each blade is mounted on a planetary 38 for rotation about its longitudinal axis, while also being rotated on a carousel 40 relative to the coating material sources 36” in pr. 47 which explicitly discloses that the rotating step comprises/includes rotating the airfoil around its longitudinal axis.
Applicant's point on page 7 of Remarks that “arrows are shown for rotation of carousel 40 and also for planetaries 38 with arrays of airfoils 16, but there are no arrows disclosing or suggesting rotation of the airfoils themselves around their own axes. […] But nothing in Bruce clearly refers to rotation of the airfoil around its axis as is called for in claim 1 as amended. The cammed rotation of planetaries called for in Bruce would not make sense to mean rotation as called for in claim 1 as amended as the intent of the cammed rotation is to prevent deposition on the surfaces of the airfoils that already face away from the coating source. Rotation of the airfoils themselves relative to the planetaries would not help to provide this outcome.” was not found pervasive by the Examiner.
While referencing fig. 20, Bruce states that that “each blade 10 is oriented with its longitudinal (span-wise) axis perpendicular to a linear path between the blade 10 and a source 36 of the coating material, such as sputter targets. Each blade is mounted on a planetary 38 for rotation about its longitudinal axis, while also being rotated on a carousel 40 relative to the coating material sources 36” in pr. 47. This discloses the rotation called for in claim 1 which requires that “the rotating comprises rotating the airfoil around the axis”. As evident by the section of pr. 47 above, the rotating step comprises/includes rotation of the blade about its longitudinal axis as is required by claim 1 as currently presented.
Applicant's point on page 8 of Remarks related to the prior art combinations previously used in the prior Office Action of 03/16/2026 were not found persuasive by the Examiner.
The prior art combination read onto the current claims since Applicant's points against Bruce were not found persuasive as detailed in the paragraphs above.
Examiner Note: prior art references previously cited, US 2017/0268095 and EP1762634A1, also disclose coating an airfoil where the airfoil is rotated at a variable rotation rate during coating, and an axis of the airfoil for the coating process is defined by the center of rotation shown in figures of each respective reference.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2011/0052406, herein referenced as Bruce.
PNG
media_image1.png
619
726
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 20 of Bruce
Regarding Claim 1, Bruce discloses a method for coating a part, comprising the steps of:
mounting a part (see blade 10 mounted on a planetary 38 for rotation about its longitudinal axis in fig. 20) for rotation relative to a source of coating material (coating material sources 36 fig. 20); and
rotating the part (10 fig. 20) relative to the source of coating material at variable rates of rotation within a single rotation (“the planetary unit 34 could provide cammed rotation of the airfoils 12 during coating to provide slow rotation when the concave surfaces 20 are exposed for coated, and fast rotation when the convex surfaces and noses of the airfoils 12 are exposed to the coating material sources 36” pr. 48, providing a fast rotation for the convex surfaces and noses and a slow rotation when the concave surfaces are exposed for coating would occur within a single rotation of the airfoil, this is further established by the cammed rotation), whereby different portions of the part are coated at a different thickness (shown in some of figs. 9-18 where the convex or suction side has a lower thickness than the concave or pressure side of the blade; “a suitable thickness for a PVD erosion-resistant coating on the concave surface of a compressor airfoil is at least 16 micrometers, for example, 25 to 100 micrometers. […] and a preferred coating thickness for the convex surface 18 of the airfoil 12 is less than 10 micrometers or less than 20% of the coating thickness on the concave surface 20 of the airfoil 12” pr. 46), wherein the part is an airfoil of a blade or vane of a gas turbine engine (see airfoil 12 of blade 10 in fig. 3; “such as a compressor blade of a gas turbine engine” abstract), the blade or vane having a suction side and a pressure side (see suction side 18 and pressure side 20 in fig. 2) and an axis (longitudinal axis of blade 10 fig. 3; “Each blade is mounted on a planetary 38 for rotation about its longitudinal axis), and wherein the rotating comprises rotating the airfoil around the axis (see longitudinal (span-wise axis) axis perpendicular to the linear path between the blade 10 and a source 36 in figs. 1-2 and 20; “each blade 10 is oriented with its longitudinal (span-wise) axis perpendicular to a linear path between the blade 10 and a source 36 of the coating material, such as sputter targets. Each blade is mounted on a planetary 38 for rotation about its longitudinal axis, while also being rotated on a carousel 40 relative to the coating material sources 36” pr. 47; this section supports that the step of rotating comprises/includes rotating the airfoil about the axis of the blade).
Regarding Claim 6, Bruce discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a single rotation of the part comprises at least a first and a second rotation segment (“the planetary unit 34 could provide cammed rotation of the airfoils 12 during coating to provide slow rotation when the concave surfaces 20 are exposed for coated, and fast rotation when the convex surfaces and noses of the airfoils 12 are exposed to the coating material sources 36” pr. 48, a first rotation segment being when the concave surface(s) is exposed for coating and a second rotation segment being when the convex surface(s) and nose is exposed to the source 36 in fig. 20, the cammed rotation establishes that this occurs in a single rotation), and wherein the variable rates of rotation comprise a first rate of rotation when the first rotation segment faces the source of coating material (“provide slow rotation when the concave surfaces 20 are exposed for coated” pr. 48), and a second rate of rotation (“fast rotation when the convex surfaces and noses of the airfoils 12 are exposed to the coating material sources 36” pr. 48), different from the first rate of rotation, when the second rotation segment faces the source of coating material (see pr. 48).
Regarding Claim 14, Bruce discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the source of coating material is a confined source of coating material (see coating material sources 36 fig. 20; “Coatings of this invention are preferably deposited by a physical vapor deposition (PVD) technique” and “Particularly suitable PVD processes include EB-PVD” from pr. 33, EB-PVD or electron beam physical vapor deposition having a confined source of coating material) whereby coating material is deposited on a surface of the part facing the source of coating material (pr. 48 discusses exposing different surfaces of the airfoil to the coating material source 36, exposing these surfaces would be analogous to them facing the source 36 in fig. 20).
Regarding Claim 15, Bruce discloses method of claim 14, wherein the source of coating material comprises an electron beam physical vapor deposition (EBPVD) source of coating material (“Particularly suitable PVD processes include EB-PVD” pr. 33).
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruce as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2018/0251881, herein referenced as Hazel.
PNG
media_image2.png
218
401
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Hazel
Regarding Claim 7, Bruce discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to anticipate wherein the coating comprises a first layer and a second layer, wherein the rotating step rotates the part relative to the source of coating material at a first variable rate within a single rotation to apply the first layer, and a second variable rate within a single rotation to apply the second layer, whereby the first layer has first different relative thickness around the part, and the second layer has second different relative thickness around the part, different from the first different relative thickness.
Bruce and Hazel are analogous art since they both relate to the field of endeavor of parts of gas turbine engines.
Hazel teaches of wherein the coating comprises a first layer (first layer 22 fig. 1; “can include the application of a single layer of YSZ (7-8 wt % yttria stabilized zirconia) which is applied directly to the surface 18 of the substrate 12, alternatively applied to the bondcoat 20 to form the first layer 22” pr. 36) and a second layer (second layer 24 fig. 1; “a single layer of GdZ (gadolinium zirconate) is applied as a second layer 24 over the first layer 22” pr. 36), whereby the first layer has first different relative thickness around the part (see first different relative thickness of first layer 22 around substrate 12 in fig. 1), and the second layer has second different relative thickness around the part (see second different relative thickness of second layer 24 around substrate 12 in fig. 1), different from the first different relative thickness (“the first layer 22, can be twice the thickness as the second layer 24, vice versa and other combinations of ratios of thickness can be accomplished” pr. 38, this establishes that each layer can have a different relative thickness that is different from each other). Hazel further teaches that “The use of YSZ and a higher Gd content GdZ or Gd2O3 material as the second phase and the use of sufficient YSZ to make a continuous matrix will increase the total toughness of the coating while the high Gd second material will provide the beneficial reaction with the CMAS” in pr. 53.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of forming a coating from Bruce with the bi-layer coating disclosed by Hazel to obtain a benefit of ‘increasing the total toughness of the coating while the second layer/material will provide the beneficial reaction with the CMAS’ as taught by Hazel.
The combination above would comprise wherein the rotating step rotates the part relative to the source of coating material at a first variable rate within a single rotation to apply the first layer (a slow rotation when the concave surface faces the coating source and a fast rotation when the convex surface faces the coating source, as stated in pr. 48 of Bruce, as modified by Hazel; the first layer 22 in fig. 1 of Hazel, as used to modify Bruce, would be applied similarly and therefore have a first variable rate within a single rotation), and a second variable rate within a single rotation to apply the second layer (a slow rotation when the concave surface faces the coating source and a fast rotation when the convex surface faces the coating source, as stated in pr. 48 of Bruce, as modified by Hazel; the second layer 24 in fig. 1 of Hazel, as used to modify Bruce, would be applied similarly and therefore have a second variable rate within a single rotation).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Bruce and Hazel comprises the method of claim 7, wherein the first layer comprises a material (first layer 22 fig. 1 of Hazel, as used to modify Bruce; “can include the application of a single layer of YSZ (7-8 wt % yttria stabilized zirconia) which is applied directly to the surface 18 of the substrate 12, alternatively applied to the bondcoat 20 to form the first layer 22” pr. 36 of Hazel, as used to modify Bruce) having a first thermal conductivity and the second layer comprises a material (“a single layer of GdZ (gadolinium zirconate) is applied as a second layer 24 over the first layer 22” pr. 36 of Hazel, as used to modify Bruce) having a second thermal conductivity that is less than the first conductivity layer (the thermal conductivity of gadolinium zirconate is less than the thermal conductivity of 7-8 wt % yttria stabilized zirconia).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Bruce and Hazel comprises the method of claim 10, wherein the second thermal conductivity is between 25 and 80% of the first thermal conductivity (as stated in pr. 36 of Hazel, as used to modify Bruce, the first layer 22 can be formed of 7YSZ and the second layer 24 can be formed of gadolinium zirconate, these materials are examples provided as fitting within the claimed range of the second thermal conductivity being between 25% and 80% of the first thermal conductivity).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Bruce and Hazel comprises the method of claim 10, wherein the second thermal conductivity is between 50 and 80 % of the first thermal conductivity (as stated in pr. 36 of Hazel, as used to modify Bruce, the first layer 22 can be formed of 7YSZ and the second layer 24 can be formed of gadolinium zirconate, these materials are examples provided as fitting within the claimed range of the second thermal conductivity being between 50% and 80% of the first thermal conductivity).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Bruce and Hazel comprises the method of claim 7, wherein the first layer comprises yttria stabilized zirconia (YSZ) (first layer 22 fig. 1; “can include the application of a single layer of YSZ (7-8 wt % yttria stabilized zirconia) which is applied directly to the surface 18 of the substrate 12, alternatively applied to the bondcoat 20 to form the first layer 22” pr. of Hazel, as used to modify Bruce) and the second layer comprises gadolinium zirconate (GZO) (“a single layer of GdZ (gadolinium zirconate) is applied as a second layer 24 over the first layer 22” pr. of Hazel, as used to modify Bruce).
Claim(s) 1 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2008/0317585, herein referenced as Lee, in view of Bruce.
PNG
media_image3.png
1019
852
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of Lee
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses a method for coating a part (see thermal barrier coating 87 on vane 36 in fig. 4), comprising the steps of:
whereby different portions of the part are coated at a different thickness (see vane 36 with less coating 78 on pressure side 50 and more coating 78 on suction side 52 in fig. 4; “thickness of the TBC 78 may be suitably varied to vary its thermal insulating effect and effective cooling capability to preferentially protect and cool the outboard sides of the vanes 36,38 relative to the inboard sides thereof” pr. 82);
wherein the part is an airfoil of a blade or vane of a gas turbine engine (shown in fig. 4), the blade or vane having a suction side and a pressure side and an axis (shown suction side and pressure side in fig. 4, the vane would also possess a longitudinal or spanwise axis).
However, Lee fails to anticipate the method comprising the steps of mounting a part for rotation relative to a source of coating material; and
rotating the part relative to the source of coating material at variable rates of rotation within a single rotation, and
wherein the rotating comprises rotating the airfoil around the axis [of the blade or vane].
Lee and Bruce are analogous art since they both relate to the field of endeavor of airfoils for gas turbine engines.
Bruce teaches of mounting a part (see blade 10 mounted on a planetary 38 for rotation about its longitudinal axis in fig. 20) for rotation relative to a source of coating material (coating material sources 36 fig. 20); and
rotating the part (10 fig. 20) relative to the source of coating material at variable rates of rotation within a single rotation (“the planetary unit 34 could provide cammed rotation of the airfoils 12 during coating to provide slow rotation when the concave surfaces 20 are exposed for coated, and fast rotation when the convex surfaces and noses of the airfoils 12 are exposed to the coating material sources 36” pr. 48, providing a fast rotation for the convex surfaces and noses and a slow rotation when the concave surfaces are exposed for coating would occur within a single rotation of the airfoil, this is further established by the cammed rotation), whereby different portions of the part are coated at a different thickness (shown in some of figs. 9-18 where the convex or suction side has a lower thickness than the concave or pressure side of the blade; “a suitable thickness for a PVD erosion-resistant coating on the concave surface of a compressor airfoil is at least 16 micrometers, for example, 25 to 100 micrometers. […] and a preferred coating thickness for the convex surface 18 of the airfoil 12 is less than 10 micrometers or less than 20% of the coating thickness on the concave surface 20 of the airfoil 12” pr. 46). wherein the part is an airfoil of a blade or vane of a gas turbine engine (see airfoil 12 of blade 10 in fig. 3; “such as a compressor blade of a gas turbine engine” abstract), the blade or vane having a suction side and a pressure side (see suction side 18 and pressure side 20 in fig. 2) and an axis (longitudinal axis of blade 10 fig. 3; “Each blade is mounted on a planetary 38 for rotation about its longitudinal axis), and wherein the rotating comprises rotating the airfoil around the axis (see longitudinal (span-wise axis) axis perpendicular to the linear path between the blade 10 and a source 36 in figs. 1-2 and 20; “each blade 10 is oriented with its longitudinal (span-wise) axis perpendicular to a linear path between the blade 10 and a source 36 of the coating material, such as sputter targets. Each blade is mounted on a planetary 38 for rotation about its longitudinal axis, while also being rotated on a carousel 40 relative to the coating material sources 36” pr. 47; this section supports that the step of rotating comprises/includes rotating the airfoil about the axis of the blade). Bruce teaches of “a process for depositing erosion-resistant coatings on gas turbine engine blade components having airfoil surfaces” pr. 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the airfoil/vane 36 in fig. 4 of Lee with the process of forming a variable thickness coating on a part, as disclosed by Bruce to obtain the benefit of having a means/method for producing a coating on an airfoil, as taught by Bruce.
This combination would have a fast rotation on thin sections (such as on the pressure side 50 of vane 36 in fig. 4 of Bruce) and a slow rotation on thick section (such as on the suction side 52 of vane 36 in fig. 4 of Bruce).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Lee and Bruce comprises the method of claim 1, wherein the rotating step rotates the pressure side past the source of coating material at a faster rate of rotation than the suction side, whereby coating applied to the suction side is thicker than coating applied to the pressure side (“the TBC 78 may be relatively thick and uniform along the outboard suction side 52 of the first vane 36 from the leading edge 54 to the trailing edge 56” pr. 83 of Lee, “the TBC 78 may be relatively uniform and thin along the inboard pressure side 50 of the first vane 36 between the leading and trailing edges” pr. 84 of Lee; this would mean that the rotation step would rotate the thin-coated pressure side past the source at a faster rate than the thick-coated suction side for the combination of Lee and Bruce).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Lee and Bruce comprises the method of claim 4, wherein the coating applied to the suction side (see thick TBC 78 on the suction side 52 of vane 36 in fig. 4 of Lee) is between 1.5 and 5 times as thick as the coating applied to the pressure side (see think TBC 78 on the pressure side 50 of vane 36 in fig. 4 of Lee; “The thick TBC 78 may be about 15-20 mils (0.38-0.51 mm) which is slightly thicker than conventionally applied TBC. The relatively thin TBC may be about 5-10 mils (0.13-0.25 mm) thick” pr. 85 of Lee; since for vane 56 in fig. 4 of Lee, the suction side 52 can be 15-20mils and the pressure side 50 can be 5-10 mils, these values anticipate the coating on the suction side being between 1.5 to 5 times as thick as on the pressure side).
Claim(s) 1 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0301670, herein referenced as Jasper, in view of Bruce.
PNG
media_image4.png
954
677
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 5 of Jasper
Regarding Claim 1, Jasper discloses a method for coating a part (see substrate 106 of airfoil 100 with the thermal barrier coating 108 applied in fig. 5), comprising the steps of:
whereby different portions of the part are coated at a different thickness (see different thicknesses of the coating in figs. 5 and 9);
wherein the part is an airfoil of a blade or vane of a gas turbine engine (airfoil 100 fig. 5; “an exemplary airfoil 100, which may be incorporated into the rotor blade 30 and/or stator vane 29 of the turbine section 18 of the gas turbine 10” pr. 31), the blade or have having a suction side and a pressure side and an axis (see suction side surface 122 and pressure side 120 in figs. 2-3 and 5; a longitudinal or spanwise axis can be defined for airfoil 100 in fig. 2).
However, Jasper fails to anticipate the method comprising the steps of mounting a part for rotation relative to a source of coating material; and
rotating the part relative to the source of coating material at variable rates of rotation within a single rotation; and
wherein the rotating comprises rotating the airfoil around the axis [of the blade or vane].
Jasper and Bruce are analogous art since they both relate to the field of endeavor of airfoils for gas turbine engines.
Bruce teaches of mounting a part (see blade 10 mounted on a planetary 38 for rotation about its longitudinal axis in fig. 20) for rotation relative to a source of coating material (coating material sources 36 fig. 20); and
rotating the part (10 fig. 20) relative to the source of coating material at variable rates of rotation within a single rotation (“the planetary unit 34 could provide cammed rotation of the airfoils 12 during coating to provide slow rotation when the concave surfaces 20 are exposed for coated, and fast rotation when the convex surfaces and noses of the airfoils 12 are exposed to the coating material sources 36” pr. 48, providing a fast rotation for the convex surfaces and noses and a slow rotation when the concave surfaces are exposed for coating would occur within a single rotation of the airfoil, this is further established by the cammed rotation), whereby different portions of the part are coated at a different thickness (shown in some of figs. 9-18 where the convex or suction side has a lower thickness than the concave or pressure side of the blade; “a suitable thickness for a PVD erosion-resistant coating on the concave surface of a compressor airfoil is at least 16 micrometers, for example, 25 to 100 micrometers. […] and a preferred coating thickness for the convex surface 18 of the airfoil 12 is less than 10 micrometers or less than 20% of the coating thickness on the concave surface 20 of the airfoil 12” pr. 46). wherein the part is an airfoil of a blade or vane of a gas turbine engine (see airfoil 12 of blade 10 in fig. 3; “such as a compressor blade of a gas turbine engine” abstract), the blade or vane having a suction side and a pressure side (see suction side 18 and pressure side 20 in fig. 2) and an axis (longitudinal axis of blade 10 fig. 3; “Each blade is mounted on a planetary 38 for rotation about its longitudinal axis), and wherein the rotating comprises rotating the airfoil around the axis (see longitudinal (span-wise axis) axis perpendicular to the linear path between the blade 10 and a source 36 in figs. 1-2 and 20; “each blade 10 is oriented with its longitudinal (span-wise) axis perpendicular to a linear path between the blade 10 and a source 36 of the coating material, such as sputter targets. Each blade is mounted on a planetary 38 for rotation about its longitudinal axis, while also being rotated on a carousel 40 relative to the coating material sources 36” pr. 47; this section supports that the step of rotating comprises/includes rotating the airfoil about the axis of the blade). Bruce teaches of “a process for depositing erosion-resistant coatings on gas turbine engine blade components having airfoil surfaces” pr. 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the airfoil 100 of Jasper with the process of forming a variable thickness coating/layer on a part, as disclosed by Bruce to obtain the benefit of having a means/method for producing a coating on an airfoil, as taught by Bruce.
This combination would have a faster rotation at sections with a thinner thickness for a given layer/coat (such as near the leading edge for the top coat 112 and the trailing edge for the base layer 110 in fig. 5 of Jasper) and a slower rotation at section with a thicker thickness for a given layer/coat (such as near the leading edge for the base layer 110 and near the trailing edge for the top coat 112 in fig. 5 of Jasper).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Jasper and Bruce comprises the method of claim 1, wherein the coating comprises a first layer (see 110 fig. 5 of Jasper) and a second layer (112 fig. 5 of Jasper), wherein the rotating step rotates the part relative to the source of coating material at a first variable rate within a single rotation to apply the first layer (a variable rate to applied the base layer 110 in fig. 5 of Jasper, as modified by Bruce), and a second variable rate within a single rotation to apply the second layer (a variable rate to applied the top coat 112 in fig. 5 of Jasper, as modified by Bruce), whereby the first layer has first different relative thickness around the part (see thickness of base layer 110 in fig. 55 of Jasper), and the second layer has second different relative thickness around the part (see relative thickness of top coat 112 in fig. 5 of Jasper), different from the first different relative thickness (the different relative thicknesses of base layer 110 and top coat 112 are shown to be different in fig. 5 of Jasper).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Jasper and Bruce comprises the method of claim wherein the rotating step rotates faster when the suction side faces the source of coating material and slower when the pressure side faces the source of coating material for the first layer (in forming the base layer 110 in fig. 5 of Jasper, as modified by Bruce, there would be a faster rotation when the suction side adjacent the trailing edge faces the source and a slower rotation when the pressure side adjacent the leading edge faces the source; this is because for the base layer 110, its thickness on the suction side adjacent the trailing edge is less than its thickness on the pressure side adjacent the leading edge in fig. 5 of Jasper, as modified by Bruce; “the thickness of the base layer 110 may taper continuously from the leading edge 124 to the trailing edge 126 across each of the pressure side surface 120 and the suction side surface 122” pr. 39 of Jasper), and
wherein the rotating step rotates slower when the suction side faces the source of coating material and faster when the pressure side faces the source of coating material for the second layer (in forming the topcoat 112 in fig. 5 of Jasper, as modified by Bruce, there would be a slower rotation when the suction side nearer to the trailing edge faces the source and a faster rotation when the pressure side nearer to the leading edge faces the source; this is because for the topcoat, its thickness on the suction side nearer to the trailing edge is greater than its thickness on the pressure side adjacent the leading edge in fig. 5 of Jasper, as modified by Bruce.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Jasper and Bruce comprises the method of claim 8, wherein the rotating step is carried out so that the first layer is between 1.5 and 5 times thicker at the pressure side than at the suction side (for the base layer 110, the thickness of the pressure side nearer to the leading edge is shown to be between 1.5 to 5 times the thickness of the suction side nearer to the trailing edge for the first layer in fig. 5 of Jasper; “the thickness of the base layer 110 may taper continuously from the leading edge 124 to the trailing edge 126 across each of the pressure side surface 120 and the suction side surface 122” pr. 39 of Jasper), and wherein the second layer is between 1.5 and 5 times thicker at the suction side than at the pressure side (for the topcoat 112, the thickness of the suction side nearer to the trailing edge is shown to be 1.5 to 5 times thicker than at the pressure side nearer to the leading edge in fig. 5 of Jasper; “the thickness of the base layer 110 at the trailing edge 126 may be less than the thickness of the top coat 112 at the trailing edge 126” pr. 39, “thermal barrier coating 108 may include mostly base layer 110 at and around the leading edge, such as a ratio of base layer 110 to top coat 112 of about 90:10, such as about 80:20” pr. 40 and “total thickness of the thermal barrier coating 108 may be constant over the entire length of the airfoil 100 from the leading edge 124 to the trailing edge 126” pr. 50 of Jasper, these section together establish that the suction side nearer to the trailing edge can be 1.5 to 5 times thicker than the pressure side nearer to the leading edge for top coat 112 fig. 5 of Jasper, as modified by Bruce).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wesley Fisher whose telephone number is (469)295-9146. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM to 5:30PM, Monday - Friday.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/W.L.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights