GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 27, 2022

2021001186 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/830,062 12/04/2017 Theodore Robert Grossman 316090-US-1/GECV-476 4336 122218 7590 01/27/2022 Dority & Manning, P.A. and GEC-Aviation Post Office Box 1449 Greenville, SC 29602-1449 EXAMINER BAREFORD, KATHERINE A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1718 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/27/2022 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): oc.prosecution@ge.com usdocketing@dority-manning.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte THEODORE ROBERT GROSSMAN and JOSHUA LEE MARGOLIES Appeal 2021-001186 Application 15/830,062 Technology Center 1700 Before TERRY J. OWENS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15, and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies General Electric Company as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed August 3, 2020, at 3. Appeal 2021-001186 Application 15/830,062 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The invention recited in the claims on appeal relates to methods for forming porous thermal barrier coatings, in particular, including controlling a porosity parameter of the coatings. Specification (“Spec.”) filed December 4, 2017 ¶ 1.2 Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. The limitation at issue is italicized. 1. A method of forming a porous thermal barrier coating, comprising: pre-heating a substrate to a pre-determined temperature to create a preheated substrate; melting and spraying a feedstock material on the preheated substrate using air plasma spraying to form the porous thermal barrier coating, wherein the feedstock material comprises a gas-forming additive and a thermal barrier coating material, and wherein at least one of a feedstock material feed rate, an amount of the gas-forming additive in the feedstock material, a temperature of the feedstock material on the substrate, or combinations thereof are controlled such that the coating has a spheroidal porosity; and forming gas using the gas-forming material such that at least 90% of the gas formed is entrapped in the thermal barrier coating. Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.). 2 This Decision also cites to the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) dated February 28, 2020, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated October 5, 2020, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed December 7, 2020. Appeal 2021-001186 Application 15/830,062 3 Independent claim 20 recites a method of forming a porous thermal barrier coating similar to that of claim 1, wherein the coating has a graded porosity. Claim 20, like claim 1, recites that “at least 90% of the gas formed is entrapped in the thermal barrier coating.” REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art: Name Reference Date Movchan et al. (“Movchan”) US 6,998,172 B2 Feb. 14, 2006 Morrison et al. (“Morrison”) US 2003/0207155 A1 Nov. 6, 2003 Ulion et al. (“Ulion”) US 2005/0208337 A1 Sept. 22, 2005 H.D. Steffens, et al., Some Aspects of Thick Thermal Barrier Coating Lifetime Prolongation, 8 J. THERMAL SPRAY TECH. 4, 517-22 (Dec. 1999) (“Steffens”). Mohamed S. Morsi, et al., Effect of Air Plasma Sprays Parameters on Coating Performance in Zirconia-Based Thermal Barrier Coatings, INT’L. J. ELECTROCHEM. SCI. 7, 2811-31 (2012) (“Morsi”). REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains, and Appellant requests our review of, the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103: 1. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9, 11, and 12 as unpatentable over Movchan in view of Morrison, and either Steffens or Morsi; and 2. Claims 3, 4, 11, 15, and 20 as unpatentable over Movchan in view of Morrison, and either Steffens or Morsi, and further in view of Ulion. OPINION We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced Appeal 2021-001186 Application 15/830,062 4 thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). After considering Appellant’s arguments and the evidence of record, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejections for substantially findings, reasoning, and conclusions the reasons set forth in the Final Office Action and the Examiner’s Answer, which we adopt as our own. We offer the following for emphasis. Appellant argues claims 1 and 20 together, and does not present separate substantive arguments against any of the remaining claims and does not substantively argue Rejection 2 separately from Rejection 1. We, therefore, select claim 1 as representative and restrict our discussion to the merits of Appellant’s arguments with regard to this claim. The Examiner finds, in relevant part, that Movchan discloses a method of forming a porous thermal barrier coating by disposing a feedstock material on a substrate, wherein the feedstock material may include a gas forming additive (e.g., carbon or a carbon compound) and a thermal barrier coating material (e.g., thermal insulating material). Final Act. 27-28. The Examiner further finds that Movchan teaches control of a porosity parameter, such as pore volume, of the thermal barrier coating can be achieved by controlling the amount of gas forming additive in the feedstock material. Id. at 28. The Examiner also finds that Movchan discloses that, at high heat, a carbon/carbide gas forming material gives porosity by the reaction of the carbon/carbide material with oxygen forming a carbon containing gas which is entrapped within the thermal barrier coating. Id. The Appeal 2021-001186 Application 15/830,062 5 Examiner determines that Movchan teaches this entrapment occurs during sintering by closing some of the open porosity. Id. at 28-29. Similarly, the Examiner finds that Morrison teaches forming a thermal barrier coating through co-deposition of fugitive and non-fugitive material to produce an insulating layer with closed or open or mixed porosity. Id. at 29. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Movchan’s process to control the coating deposition to optimize the amount of entrapped gas in the thermal barrier coating when forming gas using a gas forming material such as by controlling the amount of open and closed porosity, in order to form a thermal barrier coating with reduced density and thermal conductivity and with improved thermal stability. Id. at 29-30 Appellant argues that the Examiner fails to provide a single reference that defines “at least 90% of the gas formed is entrapped in the thermal barrier coating.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant contends that the Examiner simply states that this limitation would have been obvious without anything more than an assumption. Id. According to Appellant, there is nothing in the applied prior art to suggest optimization of at least 90% entrapment of the gas formed in the thermal barrier coating.3 Id. at 10. 3 Appellant contends that the use of fugitive materials like those of Ulion decompose or oxidize, resulting in the gases being expelled from the coatings. Appeal Br. 9-10. The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ulion in view of Movchan, Morrison, and Steffens or Morsi, optionally further in view of Neirinck (US 2008/0159899, pub. 2008). Ans. 3-4. As such Ulion is no longer relied on to reject claim 1. However, Appellant contends that the removal of Ulion does not change the fact that none of the cited references disclose at least 90% of the gas formed is entrapped in the thermal barrier coating. Appeal Br. 10. Appeal 2021-001186 Application 15/830,062 6 Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. Initially, we note that Appellant fails to dispute or otherwise address with any particularity the Examiner’s findings and reasoning in support of the obviousness conclusion. Indeed, Movchan specifically teaches a method substantially as recited in claim 1 by incorporating a gas forming additive in the deposited coating, followed by forming gas by heating the coating such that the gas becomes entrapped in the coating. Movchan 5:43-51, 6:24-63, 7:1-22. And Movchan supports the Examiner’s finding that closed porosity results in gas entrapment such that greater closed porosity means greater gas entrapment. Id. Further, Morrison teaches that the closed or open porosity can be formed using a fugitive phase which burns out during sintering or firing to form essentially spherical pores, wherein such porosity may be tailored through control/modification of particle size distributions and deposition control. Morrison ¶ 43. Given both Movchan’s and Morrison’s teachings regarding controlling porosity by controlling the amount and distribution of gas forming additive, there is a reasonable basis for the Examiner’s determination that optimizing porosity to achieve closed porosity such that at least 90% of the formed gas is entrapped within the coating would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Although Appellant describes fugitive materials employed to form porous coatings decompose or oxidize and the resulting gases are expelled from the coatings (Spec. ¶ 26), Appellant does not clearly distinguish such fugitive materials from other gas forming materials. For example, Appellant identifies carbon as a suitable gas forming material, wherein the carbon oxidizes to produce the entrapped gas. Id. Nor does Appellant argue or establish that Appellant’s disclosed Appeal 2021-001186 Application 15/830,062 7 “fugitive materials” are the same as Morrison’s “fugitive phase,” or that an ordinary artisan would have reasonably expected Morrison’s processes of burning out this fugitive phase (e.g., sintering, firing, or annealing) would expel any gases formed. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15, and 20, over Movchan in view of Morrison, and Steffens or Morsi, alone or further in view of Ulion. CONCLUSION Upon consideration of the record and for the reasons set forth above and in the Final Office Action and the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Movchan in view of Morrison and either of Steffens or Morsi, alone or further in view of Ulion, is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3-5, 7, 9, 11, 12 103 Movchan, Morrison, Steffens, Morsi 1, 3-5, 7, 9, 11, 12 3, 4, 11, 15, 20 103 Movchan, Morrison, Steffens, Morsi, Ulion 3, 4, 11, 15, 20 Overall Outcome 1, 3-5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15, 20 Appeal 2021-001186 Application 15/830,062 8 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) (2019). AFFIRMED