Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-15, drawn to a method for coating a component classified in C23C 24/103.
II. Claims 16-20, drawn to a coated component, classified in F01D 5/288.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions II and I are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product, for example, the product of II can be used in a process that does not require, “applying a slurry aluminide to the plurality of outlet passageways;
coupling the one or more inlets to a suction source;
applying an external gas flow to the component, the suction source drawing the external gas in through the outlet passageways and out through the one or more inlet ports, the external gas flow comprising at least 50% by volume combined one to all of Ar, He, and H2; and
while the suction source is drawing the external gas, heating the component to aluminize the cooling passageway system” as required by the process of I.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The Groups have a different field of search, for example:
Group I would require a search in at least C23C 24/103 along with a unique text search.
Group II would require a search in at least F01D 5/288 along with a unique text search.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
During a telephone conversation with William B. Slate on July 7th, 2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group II. Applicant further filed a preliminary amendment on 7/8/2026 affirming the election, canceling Claims 1-15, and adding new claims 21-29. The restriction requirement is now made FINAL with Claims 16-29 now being examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 20, 22, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 20, 22, and 28, the respective recitations of, “the ceramic” in Line 2 lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of prior art examination, the recitation is considered to mean, “the ceramic coating” and Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation accordingly.
**Any and all claims rejected above under 112(b), if rejected with art below under sections 102 and/or 103, is/are rejected as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 16-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Craig et al. (US 2023/0052105 A1) hereinafter referred to as Craig.
PNG
media_image1.png
490
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
408
676
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16, Craig discloses a coated component (60, figure 3 also reproduced above) comprising:
a metallic substrate (see metallic substrate 84, figure 3 and Para 15 Lines 1-2);
a metallic bondcoat (see inner coating 76, figure 3 and Para 50 Lines 1-2);
a ceramic coating (see ceramic outer coating 78, figure 3 and Para 54 Lines 1-5) having one or more ceramic coating layers atop the bondcoat (see figure 3); and
a cooling passageway system comprising a plurality of feed passageways extending from one or more inlet ports and a plurality of outlet passageways (best seen from figure 2 also reproduced above), the outlet passageways having:
an inlet opening (98, figure 3);
an outlet opening (100, figure 3) in the coating (see figure 3);
a metering section (102, figure 3); and
a diffuser section (118, figure 3) between the metering section and the outlet opening (see figure 3),
wherein:
the outlet passageways further comprise an aluminization along the metering section and diffuser section (see internal coating 138 being an aluminide coating, Para 70, wherein the internal/aluminde coating 138 is on the metering section 102 and on or all of the diffuser section 104, Para 69 Lines 1-5).
Regarding Claim 17, Craig discloses an airfoil (Para 45 Lines 1-4) having a pressure side and a suction side (inherent) and wherein: the outlet passageways are along the pressure side or suction side (implicit from figure 2 and Para 45).
Regarding Claim 18, Craig discloses that the aluminization is on the substrate and the bondcoat (see figure 3 and internal coating 138 being an aluminide coating, Para 70, wherein the internal/aluminide coating 138 is on the metering section 102 and on or all of the diffuser section 104, Para 69 Lines 1-5).
Regarding Claim 19, Craig discloses that the bondcoat is an MCrAlY (see Para 51 Lines 1-6).
Regarding Claim 20, Craig discloses that the ceramic does not penetrate the bondcoat (see figure 3).
Regarding Claim 21, Craig discloses that the metallic substrate is a nickel-based alloy (see para 49).
Regarding Claim 22, Craig discloses that the ceramic does not penetrate the bondcoat (see figure 3).
Regarding Claim 23, Craig discloses that that the metallic substrate is a nickel-based alloy (see para 49).
Regarding Claim 24, Craig discloses that the aluminization is on the substrate and the bondcoat (see figure 3 and internal coating 138 being an aluminide coating, Para 70, wherein the internal/aluminide coating 138 is on the metering section 102 and on or all of the diffuser section 104, Para 69 Lines 1-5).
Regarding Claim 25, Craig discloses that the bondcoat is an MCrAlY (see Para 51 Lines 1-6).
Regarding Claim 26, Craig discloses that that the metallic substrate is a nickel-based alloy (see Para 49).
Regarding Claim 27, Craig discloses that the ceramic coating is a yttria-stabilized zirconia or gadolinium zirconate (see Para 54).
Regarding Claim 28, Craig discloses that the ceramic does not penetrate the bondcoat (see figure 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craig.
Regarding Claim 29, Craig discloses all of the limitations of Claim 16 as discussed above and additionally discloses that the component is a blade (Para 45, Lines 1-6). Craig does not explicitly disclose the blade having:
a root having one or more inlet ports;
an airfoil having internal passageways for receiving air flow from the one or more inlet ports; and
said outlet passageways being along the airfoil.
It is well known and conventional for a blade to have a root having one or more inlet ports;
an airfoil having internal passageways for receiving air flow from the one or more inlet ports; and
said outlet passageways being along the airfoil.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blade of Craig to include a root having one or more inlet ports;
an airfoil having internal passageways for receiving air flow from the one or more inlet ports; and
said outlet passageways being along the airfoil. Doing so allows for having a cooling arrangement within the blade.
Internet/E-mail Communication
In order to permit communication regarding the instant application via email, Applicant is invited to file form PTO/SB/439 (Authorization for Internet Communications) or include the following statement in a filed document or remarks of a filed response (see MPEP 502.03 Il): Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file. If such authorization is provided, please include an email address in the remarks of a filed response. The examiner’s e-mail address is sabbir.hasan@uspto.gov.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11,105,220 B2 discloses a turbine blade with a cooling arrangement (see figure 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sabbir Hasan whose telephone number is (571)270-7651. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 11am-7pm.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at 571- 272-8648. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Sabbir Hasan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights