DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 6/25/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 10, and 15 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of over Tablaeu et al. (US 2021/0189895; hereinafter Tablaeu), Chamberlain et al. (US 9,527,777; hereinafter Chamberlain), and Kirby et al. (US 9,212,100; hereinafter Kirby).
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 22 be found allowable, claim 24 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). In this specific case, since independent claim 1 recites that the coating is a mullite-based coating, mullite is already part of the coating and so claims 22 and 24 both only introduce the limitation of hafnon to the coating.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 10-12, 15, 17, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tablaeu et al. (US 2021/0189895; hereinafter Tablaeu) in view of Chamberlain et al. (US 9,527,777; hereinafter Chamberlain) and Kirby et al. (US 9,212,100; hereinafter Kirby).
Regarding claim 1, Tablaeu (Fig. 1) discloses a section (1) of a gas turbine engine (2), comprising: a ceramic component (28 of 4: Paragraph 0037 discloses that the turbine state is made of a ceramic matrix composite); a metallic component (29 of 12: Paragraph 0040 discloses that the support 12 is metallic) situated adjacent the ceramic component (28), wherein the ceramic component (28) and the metallic component (29) are situated outside of a core flow path of the gas turbine engine (2); an interface between the ceramic component (28) and a metallic component (29).
Tablaeu fails to disclose a mullite-based coating disposed at the interface, the coating providing thermal protection to the ceramic component and the metallic component, and the coating providing thermochemical protection against interaction between the ceramic component and the metallic component, wherein the coating has a porosity of less than 5%.
Chamberlain (Abstract; Fig. 1-7) teaches a ceramic matrix composite component which includes an interface coating. Chamberlain (Col. 2, lines 30-46) teaches that the coating may function as a barrier to elemental diffusion and/or reaction between the CMC component and the metallic structure to which the CMC component is attached. Chamberlain (Col. 4, lines 41-52; Col. 6, lines 9-18) teaches that the coating includes a bond coat (18) and an outer coating (24) that both can include mullite. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tablaeu, by adding an interface coating that includes mullite to the ceramic matrix component, as taught by Chamberlain, in order to prevent elemental diffusions and/or reactions between the ceramic and metallic components.
Kirby (Col. 2, lines 10-35: the outer layer comprising a porosity of from 0% to about 15%) teaches an environmental barrier coating that can include mullite and where the outer layer has a porosity of from 0% to 15%. Kirby (Col. 4, lines 9-16) teaches that the environmental barrier coating can include a sintering aid, which can lower the sintering temperature which promotes the formation of a dense environmental barrier coating that can act as a hermetic seal to protect the underlying component from corrosion from hot gases generated during high temperature combustion without damaging the component through exposure to high sintering temperatures. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tablaeu by forming the outer coating with a porosity from 0% to 15%, as taught by Kirby, in order to form a hermetic seal to protect the underlying component.
Regarding the claimed limitation “the coating has a porosity of less than 5%”, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP 2144.05 II. In this case that the porosity of the coating can be between 0% and 15%. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tablaeu, Chamberlain, and Kirby such that the porosity is less than 5%, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design optimization which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, Tablaeu, as modified, discloses the section of claim 1, wherein Tablaeu, as modified, further discloses that the coating is capable of being machined by at least one of grinding, ultrasonic machining, water guided laser, milling, and reaming.
Regarding claim 3, Tablaeu, as modified, discloses the section of claim 1, wherein Tablaeu (Chamberlain: Fig. 1-7), as modified, further discloses that the coating (14) includes at least one of rare earth silicates (Col. 6, lines 9-19: Rare Earth Silicates), alkaline earth silicates, alkaline earth aluminosilicates, yttria-stabilized zirconia, alumina- stabilized zirconia, hafnon, zircon, yttria, titania, chromia, silicon, silicon oxides, silicon carbides, silicon oxycarbides, barium-magnesium aluminosilicate, hafnium oxides, hafnium silicon oxides, alumina-stabilized zirconia, zirconium oxides, yttrium oxides, and combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 6, Tablaeu, as modified, discloses the section of claim 1, wherein Tablaeu (Fig. 1), as modified, further discloses that the metallic component (29) is an engine casing structure (29) of the gas turbine engine (2).
Regarding claim 7, Tablaeu, as modified, discloses the section of claim 6, wherein Tablaeu, as modified, further discloses that the ceramic component (28) is a hook (28) of a vane (4), the hook (28) being attached to the engine casing structure (28), and wherein the section is a compressor section or a turbine section (1) of the gas turbine engine (2).
Regarding claim 10, Tablaeu (Fig. 1) discloses a gas turbine engine (2), comprising: a metallic engine casing structure (29 of 12: Paragraph 0040 discloses that the support 12 is metallic); a ceramic component (28 of 4: Paragraph 0037 discloses that the turbine state is made of a ceramic matrix composite) attached to the metallic engine casing structure (29).
Tablaeu fails to disclose a mullite-based coating disposed on at least one of the metallic engine casing structure and the ceramic component, the coating providing thermal protection to at least one of the ceramic component and the metallic casing structure, and providing thermochemical protection against interaction between the ceramic component and the metallic engine causing structure, wherein the coating has a porosity of less than 5%.
Chamberlain (Abstract; Fig. 1-7) teaches a ceramic matrix composite component which includes an interface coating. Chamberlain (Col. 2, lines 30-46) teaches that the coating may function as a barrier to elemental diffusion and/or reaction between the CMC component and the metallic structure to which the CMC component is attached. Chamberlain (Col. 4, lines 41-52; Col. 6, lines 9-18) teaches that the coating includes a bond coat (18) and an outer coating (24) that both can include mullite. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tablaeu, by adding an interface coating that includes mullite to the ceramic matrix component, as taught by Chamberlain, in order to prevent elemental diffusions and/or reactions between the ceramic and metallic components.
Kirby (Col. 2, lines 10-35: the outer layer comprising a porosity of from 0% to about 15%) teaches an environmental barrier coating that can include mullite and where the outer layer has a porosity of from 0% to 15%. Kirby (Col. 4, lines 9-16) teaches that the environmental barrier coating can include a sintering aid, which can lower the sintering temperature which promotes the formation of a dense environmental barrier coating that can act as a hermetic seal to protect the underlying component from corrosion from hot gases generated during high temperature combustion without damaging the component through exposure to high sintering temperatures. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tablaeu by forming the outer coating with a porosity from 0% to 15%, as taught by Kirby, in order to form a hermetic seal to protect the underlying component.
Regarding the claimed limitation “the coating has a porosity of less than 5%”, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP 2144.05 II. In this case that the porosity of the coating can be between 0% and 15%. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tablaeu, Chamberlain, and Kirby such that the porosity is less than 5%, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design optimization which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 11, Tablaeu, as modified, discloses the engine of claim 1, wherein Tablaeu (Chamberlain: Fig. 1-7), as modified, further discloses that the coating (14) is capable of being machined by at least one of grinding, ultrasonic machining, water guided laser, milling, and reaming.
Regarding claim 12, Tablaeu, as modified, discloses the engine of claim 1, wherein Tablaeu (Chamberlain: Fig. 1-7), as modified, further discloses that the coating (14) includes at least one of rare earth silicates (Col. 6, lines 9-19: Rare Earth Silicates), alkaline earth silicates, alkaline earth aluminosilicates, yttria-stabilized zirconia, alumina- stabilized zirconia, hafnon, zircon, yttria, titania, chromia, silicon, silicon oxides, silicon carbides, silicon oxycarbides, barium-magnesium aluminosilicate, hafnium oxides, hafnium silicon oxides, alumina-stabilized zirconia, zirconium oxides, yttrium oxides, and combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 15, Tablaeu (Fig. 1) discloses an interface between a metallic component (29 of 12: Paragraph 0040 discloses that the support 12 is metallic) and a ceramic component (28 of 4: Paragraph 0037 discloses that the turbine state is made of a ceramic matrix composite) in a gas turbine engine (2), wherein the ceramic component (28) and the metallic component (29) are situated outside of a core flow path of the gas turbine engine (2).
Tablaeu fails to disclose a method of protecting components in a gas turbine engine, comprising: disposing a mullite-based coating at an interface between a metallic component and a ceramic component in a gas turbine engine, and that the coating providing thermal protection to the ceramic component and the metallic component, and providing thermochemical protection against interaction between the ceramic component and the metallic component, wherein the coating has a porosity of less than 5%.
Chamberlain (Abstract; Fig. 1-7) teaches a ceramic matrix composite component which includes an interface coating. Chamberlain (Col. 2, lines 30-46) teaches that the coating may function as a barrier to elemental diffusion and/or reaction between the CMC component and the metallic structure to which the CMC component is attached. Chamberlain (Col. 4, lines 41-52; Col. 6, lines 9-18) teaches that the coating includes a bond coat (18) and an outer coating (24) that both can include mullite. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tablaeu, by adding the step of applying an interface coating that includes mullite to the ceramic matrix component at the interface between the ceramic matrix component and the metallic component, as taught by Chamberlain, in order to prevent elemental diffusions and/or reactions between the ceramic and metallic components.
Kirby (Col. 2, lines 10-35: the outer layer comprising a porosity of from 0% to about 15%) teaches an environmental barrier coating that can include mullite and where the outer layer has a porosity of from 0% to 15%. Kirby (Col. 4, lines 9-16) teaches that the environmental barrier coating can include a sintering aid, which can lower the sintering temperature which promotes the formation of a dense environmental barrier coating that can act as a hermetic seal to protect the underlying component from corrosion from hot gases generated during high temperature combustion without damaging the component through exposure to high sintering temperatures. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tablaeu by forming the outer coating with a porosity from 0% to 15%, as taught by Kirby, in order to form a hermetic seal to protect the underlying component.
Regarding the claimed limitation “the coating has a porosity of less than 5%”, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP 2144.05 II. In this case that the porosity of the coating can be between 0% and 15%. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tablaeu, Chamberlain, and Kirby such that the porosity is less than 5%, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design optimization which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 17, Tablaeu, as modified, discloses the method of claim 15, wherein Tablaeu (Chamberlain: Fig. 1-7), as modified, further discloses that the coating (14) includes at least one of rare earth silicates (Col. 6, lines 9-19: Rare Earth Silicates), alkaline earth silicates, alkaline earth aluminosilicates, yttria-stabilized zirconia, alumina- stabilized zirconia, hafnon, zircon, yttria, titania, chromia, silicon, silicon oxides, silicon carbides, silicon oxycarbides, barium-magnesium aluminosilicate, hafnium oxides, hafnium silicon oxides, alumina-stabilized zirconia, zirconium oxides, yttrium oxides, and combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 21, Tablaeu, as modified, discloses the section of claim 1, wherein Tablaeu (Fig. 1), as modified, further discloses that the coating is disposed in a loaded attachment region (Chamberlain: Fig. 1-7) of at least one of the ceramic component (28) and the metallic component (29).
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman et al. (US 11,092,027; hereinafter Freeman) in view of Chamberlain et al. (US 9,527,777; hereinafter Chamberlain) and Kirby et al. (US 9,212,100; hereinafter Kirby).
Regarding claim 1, Freeman (Fig. 1-2) discloses a section (18) of a gas turbine engine (10), comprising: a ceramic component (38); a metallic component (28: Col. 4, lines 63-65) situated adjacent the ceramic component (38: Col. 4, line 67- Col. 8, lines 1-2), wherein the ceramic component (38) and the metallic component (28) are situated outside of a core flow path (15) of the gas turbine engine (10); an interface between the ceramic component (38) and a metallic component (28).
Freeman fails to disclose a mullite-based coating disposed at the interface, the coating providing thermal protection to the ceramic component and the metallic component, and providing thermochemical protection against interaction between the ceramic component and the metallic component, wherein the coating has a porosity of less than 5%.
Chamberlain (Abstract; Fig. 1-7) teaches a ceramic matrix composite component which includes an interface coating. Chamberlain (Col. 2, lines 30-46) teaches that the coating may function as a barrier to elemental diffusion and/or reaction between the CMC component and the metallic structure to which the CMC component is attached. Chamberlain (Col. 4, lines 41-52; Col. 6, lines 9-18) teaches that the coating includes a bond coat (18) and an outer coating (24) that both can include mullite. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Freeman, by adding an interface coating that includes mullite to the ceramic matrix component, as taught by Chamberlain, in order to prevent elemental diffusions and/or reactions between the ceramic and metallic components.
Kirby (Col. 2, lines 10-35: the outer layer comprising a porosity of from 0% to about 15%) teaches an environmental barrier coating that can include mullite and where the outer layer has a porosity of from 0% to 15%. Kirby (Col. 4, lines 9-16) teaches that the environmental barrier coating can include a sintering aid, which can lower the sintering temperature which promotes the formation of a dense environmental barrier coating that can act as a hermetic seal to protect the underlying component from corrosion from hot gases generated during high temperature combustion without damaging the component through exposure to high sintering temperatures. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Freeman by forming the outer coating with a porosity from 0% to 15%, as taught by Kirby, in order to form a hermetic seal to protect the underlying component.
Regarding the claimed limitation “the coating has a porosity of less than 5%”, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP 2144.05 II. In this case that the porosity of the coating can be between 0% and 15%. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Freeman, Chamberlain, and Kirby such that the porosity is less than 5%, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design optimization which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 6, Freeman, as modified, discloses the section of claim 1, wherein Freeman (Fig. 1-2), as modified, further discloses that the metallic component (28) is an engine casing structure (28) of the gas turbine engine (10).
Regarding claim 8, Freeman, as modified, discloses the section of claim 6, wherein Freeman (Fig. 2), as modified, further discloses that the ceramic component (38) is a flange (38) of a blade outer air seal (26), the flange (38) being attached to the engine casing structure (28).
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett et al. (US 10,738,707; hereinafter Bennett) in view of Chamberlain et al. (US 9,527,777; hereinafter Chamberlain), and Kirby et al. (US 9,212,100; hereinafter Kirby).
Regarding claim 1, Bennett (Fig. 1-2) discloses a section (26) of a gas turbine engine (10), comprising: a ceramic component (82 and 84: Col. 5, lines 12-15); a metallic component (Fig. 2: structures supporting 82 and 84; Col. 5, lines 30-38) situated adjacent the ceramic component (82 and 84), wherein the ceramic component (82 and 84) and the metallic component are situated outside of a core flow path of the gas turbine engine (10); an interface between the ceramic component (82 and 84) and a metallic component. Refer to Fig. I below.
PNG
media_image1.png
480
534
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. I. Bennett, Fig. 2 (Annotated)
Bennett fails to disclose a mullite-based coating disposed at the interface, the coating providing thermal protection to the ceramic component and the metallic component, and providing thermochemical protection against interaction between the ceramic component and the metallic component, wherein the coating has a porosity of less than 5%.
Chamberlain (Abstract; Fig. 1-7) teaches a ceramic matrix composite component which includes an interface coating. Chamberlain (Col. 2, lines 30-46) teaches that the coating may function as a barrier to elemental diffusion and/or reaction between the CMC component and the metallic structure to which the CMC component is attached. Chamberlain (Col. 4, lines 41-52; Col. 6, lines 9-18) teaches that the coating (14) includes a bond coat (18) and an outer coating (24) that both can include mullite. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bennett, by adding an interface coating that includes mullite to the ceramic matrix component, as taught by Chamberlain, in order to prevent elemental diffusions and/or reactions between the ceramic and metallic components.
Kirby (Col. 2, lines 10-35: the outer layer comprising a porosity of from 0% to about 15%) teaches an environmental barrier coating that can include mullite and where the outer layer has a porosity of from 0% to 15%. Kirby (Col. 4, lines 9-16) teaches that the environmental barrier coating can include a sintering aid, which can lower the sintering temperature which promotes the formation of a dense environmental barrier coating that can act as a hermetic seal to protect the underlying component from corrosion from hot gases generated during high temperature combustion without damaging the component through exposure to high sintering temperatures. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bennett by forming the outer coating with a porosity from 0% to 15%, as taught by Kirby, in order to form a hermetic seal to protect the underlying component.
Regarding the claimed limitation “the coating has a porosity of less than 5%”, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP 2144.05 II. In this case that the porosity of the coating can be between 0% and 15%. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bennett, Chamberlain, and Kirby such that the porosity is less than 5%, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design optimization which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 6, Bennett, as modified, discloses the section of claim 1, wherein Bennett (Fig. 12), as modified, further discloses that the metallic component is an engine casing structure of the gas turbine engine (10). Refer to Fig. I above.
Regarding claim 9, Bennett, as modified, discloses the section of claim 6, wherein Bennett (Fig. 2), as modified, further discloses that the ceramic component (82 and 84) is a nozzle liner (82 and 84), the nozzle liner being attached to the engine casing structure. Refer to Fig. I above.
Claim(s) 4, 13, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tablaeu et al. (US 2021/0189895; hereinafter Tablaeu) in view of Chamberlain et al. (US 9,527,777; hereinafter Chamberlain), Kirby et al. (US 9,212,100; hereinafter Kirby), and further in view of Jackson et al. (US 8,153,052).
Regarding claim 4, Tablaeu, as modified, discloses the section of claim 3, but fails to disclose that the coating includes at least one of hafnon and zircon.
Chamberlain (Col. 6, lines 57-67) teaches that the coating can include a thermal barrier layer applied over the environmental coating. Jackson (Col. 5, lines 66-67; Col. 6, lines 1-11) teaches that a thermal barrier coating can be applied over an environmental barrier coating. Jackson (Col. 5, lines 66-67; Col. 6, lines 1-11) teaches that the thermal barrier coating can include both mullite and zircon. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tablaeu by adding a thermal barrier layer which includes mullite and zircon, as taught by Jackson, in order to help protect against high temperatures. The thermal barrier was interpreted as a layer of the interface coating.
Regarding claim 13, Tablaeu, as modified, discloses the engine of claim 12, but fails to disclose that the coating includes at least one of hafnon and zircon.
Chamberlain (Col. 6, lines 57-67) teaches that the coating can include a thermal barrier layer applied over the environmental coating. Jackson (Col. 5, lines 66-67; Col. 6, lines 1-11) teaches that a thermal barrier coating can be applied over an environmental barrier coating. Jackson (Col. 5, lines 66-67; Col. 6, lines 1-11) teaches that the thermal barrier coating can include both mullite and zircon. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tablaeu by adding a thermal barrier layer which includes mullite and zircon, as taught by Jackson, in order to help protect against high temperatures. The thermal barrier was interpreted as a layer of the interface coating.
Regarding claim 18, Tablaeu, as modified, discloses the method of claim 17, but fails to disclose that the coating includes at least one of hafnon and zircon.
Chamberlain (Col. 6, lines 57-67) teaches that the coating can include a thermal barrier layer applied over the environmental coating. Jackson (Col. 5, lines 66-67; Col. 6, lines 1-11) teaches that a thermal barrier coating can be applied over an environmental barrier coating. Jackson (Col. 5, lines 66-67; Col. 6, lines 1-11) teaches that the thermal barrier coating can include both mullite and zircon. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tablaeu by adding a thermal barrier layer which includes mullite and zircon, as taught by Jackson, in order to help protect against high temperatures. The thermal barrier was interpreted as a layer of the interface coating.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tablaeu et al. (US 2021/0189895; hereinafter Tablaeu) in view of Chamberlain et al. (US 9,527,777; hereinafter Chamberlain) and Kirby et al. (US 9,212,100; hereinafter Kirby) and further in view of Morrison et al. (US 9,297,269; hereinafter Morrison).
Regarding claim 16, Tablaeu, as modified, discloses the method of claim 15, wherein Tablaeu (Chamberlain: Fig. 1, Col. 2, lines 35-37), as modified, further discloses machining the coating (14).
Tablaeu, as modified fails to disclose that the coating is machined by at least one of grinding, ultrasonic machining, water guided laser, milling, and reaming.
Morrison (Col. 1, lines 66-67, Col. 2, lines 1-2) teaches machining a thermal barrier coating using either end milling or ultrasonic machining. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tablaeu by machining the coating using either end milling or ultrasonic machining, as taught by Morrison, as it is well known in the art to use either an end mill or ultrasonic machining to machine a coating.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 22:
Closest prior art: Tablaeu et al. (US 2021/0189895; hereinafter Tablaeu), Chamberlain et al. (US 9,527,777; hereinafter Chamberlain), and Kirby et al. (US 9,212,100; hereinafter Kirby)
Tablaeu, Chamberlain, and Kirby disclose the section of claim 1.
The closest prior art fails to disclose or suggest that that coating comprises hafnon.
Regarding claim 23:
Closest prior art: Tablaeu et al. (US 2021/0189895; hereinafter Tablaeu), Chamberlain et al. (US 9,527,777; hereinafter Chamberlain), and Kirby et al. (US 9,212,100; hereinafter Kirby)
Tablaeu, Chamberlain, and Kirby disclose the section of claim 1.
The closest prior art fails to disclose or suggest that coating comprises hafnon and zircon.
Regarding claim 24:
Closest prior art: Tablaeu et al. (US 2021/0189895; hereinafter Tablaeu), Chamberlain et al. (US 9,527,777; hereinafter Chamberlain), and Kirby et al. (US 9,212,100; hereinafter Kirby)
Tablaeu, Chamberlain, and Kirby disclose the section of claim 1.
The closest prior art fails to disclose or suggest that coating comprises mullite and hafnon.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE M CHRISTENSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3275. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Courtney 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.
/DMC/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights