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 Amendment and Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed September 10, 2025, are acknowledged. Claims 13, 16, 25 and 30 are amended, and Claims 31-32 is newly added. No new matter has been added.
Claims 1-2, 4-9 and 11-32 are pending and currently considered in this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 11, 2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on June 10, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein zirconium alloy comprises” should “wherein the zirconium alloy comprises”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sattari (previously cited, “Aging response and characterization of precipitates in Zr alloy Excel pressure tube material”) in view of Sun (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed October 29, 2021, “Fabrication and Characterization of a Low Magnetic Zr-1Mo Alloy by Powder Bed Fusion Using a Fiber Laser”) and Foster976 (previously cited, US 20150307976 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Sattari discloses manufacturing a component for use in a nuclear reactor (Introduction; Abstract), the method comprising:
manufacturing the component for use in the nuclear reactor utilizing a feedstock comprising a metal, wherein the metal comprises a zirconium alloy (Introduction, para. 2; Experimental procedure, para. 2, pressure tube reads on feedstock component); and
annealing at a first annealing temperature within the alpha phase temperature range of the metal, the alpha+beta phase temperature range of the metal, or a combination thereof (Abstract; Experimental procedure, para. 1, wherein Sattari discloses a combination of annealing within the alpha+beta region (890C) and annealing within the alpha region (450C reads on the alpha region – i.e., below 600C, see also Introduction, Para. 2)).
Sattari does not disclose wherein the component is additively manufactured utilizing a feedstock comprising a metal.
Sun discloses additively manufacturing a zirconium alloy by powder bed fusion, wherein additive manufacturing allows for reduced raw material usage, near-net-shape production without expensive molds, and design freedom using 3D CAD data (Abstract; Introduction, para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have manufactured the component of Sattari by additive manufacturing using a feedstock powder, as taught by Sun, in order to produce near-net-shape products without expensive molds while reducing raw material usage (see teaching by Sun).
Sattari fails to disclose wherein the annealing fully recrystallizes a microstructure of the additively manufactured component.
Foster976 teaches that for Zr-Nb-Sn-Fe type alloys, recrystallization occurs for temperatures of 900F (482C) and above, and reaches full recrystallization (100%) at 1085F (585C) and above (para. [0082]; para. [0076]; para. [0080]). Foster976 teaches wherein 100% recrystallization improves in-reactor creep resistance (para. [0087]). Because the solution (alpha+beta) annealing temperature of Sattari is 890C and above 585C (1085F), one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that this annealing would produce recrystallization and further be capable of obtaining 100% recrystallization, as taught by Foster976.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the annealing temperature of Sattari (890C) would recrystallize the microstructure, as taught by Foster976, for the additively manufactured component of Sattari and Sun. One would be motivated to fully recrystallize the microstructure of the additively manufactured part in order to improve in-reactor creep resistance (see teaching by Foster976 above).
Regarding Claim 2, Sattari discloses wherein the first annealing temperature is within the alpha phase temperature range of the metal and the method further comprises annealing for a second time at a second annealing temperature within the alpha+beta phase temperature range of the metal (Abstract and Experimental Procedure, Para. 1, wherein aging treatment occurs in the alpha region (below 600C, see also Introduction, Para. 2) and reads on the first annealing temperature and solution heat treatment occurs in the alpha+beta region, and reads on the second annealing temperature). Examiner notes that the claims do not currently specify the order of the first annealing and the second annealing, and that the two-step annealing process of Sattari reads on the claimed limitations.
Regarding Claim 4, Sattari discloses wherein the metal comprises Zircaloy-2, Zircaloy-4, HiFiTM, a binary zirconium alloy, or a non-binary zirconium alloy comprising tin and another alloying element, or a combination thereof (Abstract, the Excel alloy reads on a non-binary zirconium alloy comprising tin and another alloying element).
Regarding Claim 5, Sattari discloses wherein the metal comprises ZIRLO, Optimized ZIRLO, AXIOM, a binary zirconium alloy comprising niobium, or a non-binary zirconium alloy comprising niobium and another alloying element, or a combination thereof (Abstract, the Excel alloy reads on a non-binary zirconium alloy comprising niobium and another alloying element)..
Regarding Claim 6, Sattari discloses annealing for a second time at a second annealing temperature that is lower than the first annealing temperature (Abstract, wherein solution treatment in the alpha + beta region reads on the first annealing, and aging reads on annealing at a second time at a second annealing temperature that is lower than the first annealing temperature).
Regarding Claim 7, Sun discloses wherein the feedstock comprises powder, a sheet, or a wire, or combinations thereof (Sun, Experimental procedure, 2.1).
Regarding Claim 8, Sattari discloses wherein the metal comprises a zirconium alloy comprising niobium (Abstract, Excel alloy comprises Nb), and wherein the first annealing temperature is in a range of alpha+beta region and the second annealing temperature is in a range of 450C to 600C (Experimental Procedure, para. 1 and para. 4, wherein solution treatment temperatures are chosen based on the alpha+beta region; aging temperatures from 400-500C).
While Sattari does not expressly disclose using a temperature of 600-800C by example for the solution heat treatment, Sattari teaches wherein the solution heat treatment temperature choices are based on the alpha+beta temperature region of about 600-690 to 970C (section 3, Experimental procedure, wherein αZr+βZr -> βZr equates to a range of 600-690 (αZr+βZr) to 970C (βZr)).
Therefore, it would be obvious to use a temperature within the desired alpha+beta solution heat treatment region, such as between 600-800C as claimed, because these temperatures are within the alpha+beta temperature region for the Excel alloy, as taught by Sattari, and would solutionize the alloy as desired by Sattari. One of ordinary skill in the art would also appreciate that the solution temperature range of 600-800C, which is above 585C (see teaching above by Foster976 in Claim 1), would fully recrystallize the microstructure.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 9, Sattari discloses wherein the second annealing temperature is in a range of up to 500C (Experimental Procedure, para. 4, wherein aging takes place at 500C), but does not expressly disclose wherein aging may take place at 530-580C. However, Sattari teaches wherein the aging temperature is a results-effective variable, the results being precipitate size and distribution, and thereby hardness values (Fig. 3; Discussion, para. 1), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aging temperature to the claimed range in order to tailor the precipitate response and therefore hardness values from aging. It has been held that discovering an optimum value or a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.1.
Regarding Claim 11, Sattari discloses wherein the metal comprises an alloy comprising a matrix of a primary phase metal and a second-phase metal, and the second annealing temperature achieves a composition and size distribution for the second-phase metal suitable for use in a nuclear reactor (Abstract; Introduction, Para. 2, wherein aging produces second phase metal (precipitates) from primary phase metal (super-saturated solution) suitable for CANDU reactors; see also Conclusions, precipitates of 10-20nm distributed in martensitic phase, wherein hardness is tailored based on heat treatments).
Regarding Claim 12, Sun discloses wherein the additive manufacturing process comprises powder bed fusion (Sun, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 13, Sattari discloses manufacturing a component for us in a nuclear reactor (Introduction; Abstract), the method comprising:
manufacturing the component for use in the nuclear reactor utilizing a feedstock comprising a zirconium alloy (Introduction, para. 2; Experimental procedure, para. 2, pressure tube reads on feedstock component); and
annealing at an annealing temperature within the alpha phase temperature range of the metal, the alpha+beta phase temperature range of the metal, or a combination thereof (Abstract; Experimental procedure, para. 1, wherein Sattari discloses a combination of annealing within the alpha+beta region (890C) and annealing within the alpha region (450C reads on the alpha region – i.e., below 600C, see also Introduction, Para. 2)).
Sattari does not disclose wherein the component is additively manufactured utilizing a feedstock comprising the zirconium alloy.
Sun discloses additively manufacturing a zirconium alloy by powder bed fusion, wherein additive manufacturing allows for reduced raw material usage, near-net-shape production without expensive molds, and design freedom using 3D CAD data (Abstract; Introduction, para. 2).
Sun teaches wherein the powder bed fusion process includes:
depositing a layer of a powder feedstock comprising a zirconium alloy across a build plate (Experimental Procedure, 2.1., wherein powder is used; Table 2, layer thickness and substrate; one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a powder layer is made on the substrate)
affixing at least a selected region of the layer together in the selected region, the affixing comprising:
rastering a laser across the layer of powder feedstock along a path guided by previously input computer-aided design files for a three- dimensional component to be built (Introduction, para. 3, wherein laser is used and aided by 3D CAD; see Table 2, laser power and scanning speed);
melting the powder feedstock within the layer with the laser; solidifying the melted powder; repeating the depositing and the affixing to provide an additively manufactured component (Introduction, para. 3, wherein powder is melted and then solidified, and the process is layer by layer (i.e., repeated); see also Discussion, wherein laser has produced a melt track); and
removing the additively manufactured component from the build plate (Experimental Procedure, 2.2., wherein cylinders are made; one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the cylinders would be removed from the substrate after conclusion of building – see also Results, wherein cylinders have been characterized in various testing equipment, i.e., removed from the substrate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have manufactured the component of Sattari by additive manufacturing method using a feedstock powder, as taught by Sun, in order to produce near-net-shape products without expensive molds while reducing raw material usage (see teaching by Sun).
Sattari fails to disclose wherein the annealing fully recrystallizes a microstructure of the additively manufactured component.
Foster976 teaches that for Zr-Nb-Sn-Fe type alloys, recrystallization occurs for temperatures of 900F (482C) and above, and reaches full recrystallization (100%) at 1085F (585C) and above (para. [0082]; para. [0076]; para. [0080]). Foster976 teaches wherein 100% recrystallization improves in-reactor creep resistance (para. [0087]). Because the solution (alpha+beta) annealing temperature of Sattari is 890C and above 585C (1085F), one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that this annealing would produce recrystallization and further be capable of obtaining 100% recrystallization, as taught by Foster976.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the annealing temperature of Sattari (890C) would recrystallize the microstructure, as taught by Foster976, for the additively manufactured component of Sattari and Sun. One would be motivated to fully recrystallize the microstructure of the additively manufactured part in order to improve in-reactor creep resistance (see teaching by Foster976 above).
Regarding Claim 14, Sattari discloses wherein the metal comprises Zircaloy-2, Zircaloy-4, HiFiTM, a binary zirconium alloy comprising niobium, a non-binary zirconium alloy comprising tin and another alloying element, ZIRLO, Optimized ZIRLO, AXIOM, a binary zirconium alloy comprising niobium, or a non-binary zirconium alloy comprising niobium and another alloying element, or a combination thereof (Abstract, the Excel alloy reads on a non-binary zirconium alloy comprising niobium and another alloying element and a non-binary zirconium alloy comprising tin and another alloying element).
Regarding Claim 15, Sattari disclose wherein the annealing temperature is within the range of 450-800C (Abstract, aging treatment is at 450C).
Additionally, Sattari teaches wherein the solution heat treatment temperature choices are based on the alpha+beta temperature region of about 600-690 to 970C (section 3, Experimental procedure, wherein αZr+βZr -> βZr equates to a range of 600-690 (αZr+βZr) to 970C (βZr)). Therefore, it would be obvious to anneal the component within the range of 600-690C up to 970C, because these temperatures are within the alpha+beta temperature region for the Excel alloy and would solutionize the alloy as desired by Sattari. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that this range (600 to 690C up to 970C) also overlaps the claimed range of 450-800C, and is further above 585C (see teaching above by Foster976 in Claim 1), and therefore would still fully recrystallize the microstructure.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 16, Sattari discloses wherein the alloy comprises a zirconium alloy comprising niobium and the annealing temperature is within the range of 450- 620C (Abstract, Excel alloy comprises Nb, and aging treatment is at 450C).
Regarding Claim 17, Sattari discloses wherein the annealing occurs for a time period ranging from 0.1 hour to 100 hours (Abstract, aging occurs for 1-2 hours).
Regarding Claim 19, Sun discloses wherein the powder feedstock comprises a mean average particle size in a range of 10 micrometers to 100 micrometers (Experimental Procedure, 2.1, Powder Material).
Regarding Claim 21 and Claim 26, Sattari discloses annealing at 890C, and Foster976 teaches that annealing at temperatures above 585C achieve full recrystallization for Zr-Nb-Sn-Fe type alloys (see teaching in Claim 1 above). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the annealing of Foster976 is an annealing which, on its own, achieves full recrystallization because no other processing features besides annealing are attributed to achieving the full recrystallization (see Foster976, para. [0082]; [0076]; [0080] and [0087], wherein recrystallization is attributed to heat treatment only). One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore appreciate that the solution (alpha+beta) annealing of Sattari at 890C, on its own, would achieve 100% recrystallization, as claimed, in order to maximize improved creep resistance (see teaching in Claim 1 by Foster976; see para. [0087]).
Regarding Claim 22 and Claim 27, Sun discloses wherein the additively manufactured component is not mechanically deformed prior to the annealing (Sun, 2.2. Preparation of Zr-1Mo Alloy Builds, wherein mechanical deformation is not used in the formation of the additively manufactured product). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the annealing of Sattari would be performed on the additively manufactured after shape completion, and the as-built and finally shaped component of Sun would comprise no mechanical deformation prior to annealing of Sattari.
Regarding Claim 23 and Claim 28, Sun discloses wherein the microstructure of the additively manufactured component comprises a random texture (see Fig. 8, wherein acicular microstructures comprise random orientations of alpha phase). While one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the invention of Sattari and Sun (additively manufactured component by Sun and annealing of Sattari) would produce a fully recrystallized microstructure (see teaching by Foster976), it is not disclosed wherein the fully recrystallized and annealed additively manufacture component comprises a random texture. However, the process of Sattari and Sun (annealing of an additively manufactured Zr alloy within the alpha+beta range) is the same as claimed, and it would be obvious that the process of Sattari and Sun therefore result in the claimed structure and one comprising a random texture after additive manufacture and annealing.
When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 24 and Claim 29, Sun discloses wherein the microstructure of the additively manufactured component comprises a random texture prior to annealing (see Fig. 8, wherein acicular microstructures comprise random orientations of alpha phase, and therefore comprises random texture). Additionally, the process prior to annealing (teaching by Sun of an additively manufactured Zr alloy – see also Claim 13 limitations) is the same as claimed, and it would be obvious that the process of Sun therefore result in the claimed structure and one comprising a random texture after additive manufacture and prior to annealing.
When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 25 and Claim 30, Sun discloses wherein the microstructure of the additively manufactured component comprises a random texture prior to annealing and therefore a microstructure which is isotropic (see Fig. 8, wherein acicular microstructures comprise random orientations of alpha phase, and therefore comprises random texture). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a component with random texture would be considered isotropic (no preferred orientation/properties in a specific direction). Additionally, the process prior to annealing (teaching by Sun of an additively manufactured Zr alloy – see also Claim 13 limitations) is the same as claimed, and it would be obvious that the process of Sun therefore result in the claimed structure and one comprising a random texture after additive manufacture and prior to annealing.
When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sattari (previously cited, “Aging response and characterization of precipitates in Zr alloy Excel pressure tube material”) in view of Sun (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed October 29, 2021, “Fabrication and Characterization of a Low Magnetic Zr-1Mo Alloy by Powder Bed Fusion Using a Fiber Laser”) and Foster976 (previously cited, US 20150307976 A1), as applied to Claim 13 above, in further view of Choi (previously cited, US 20160304991 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Sattari discloses cladding, structure materials, and pressure tubes for a nuclear reactor (Introduction, para. 1), but fails to disclose wherein the component comprises a debris filter, an intermediate flow mixer, a spacer grid, or a combination thereof.
Choi teaches wherein it is well-known in the art that zirconium alloys are used, not only for nuclear fuel cladding tubes and internal structures in nuclear reactors, but also as nuclear fuel assembly spacer grides (para. [0004]; see also para. [0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have manufactured a spacer grid, as taught by Choi, for the invention disclosed by Sattari and Sun. One would be motivated to do this because Choi teaches that zirconium alloys are suitable and known materials for a spacer grid in a nuclear reactor, and wherein the materials which are suitable for tubes and other internal structures in a nuclear reactor (components disclosed by Sattari) are also suitable for a spacer grid (see teaching by Choi above).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sattari (previously cited, “Aging response and characterization of precipitates in Zr alloy Excel pressure tube material”) in view of Sun (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed October 29, 2021, “Fabrication and Characterization of a Low Magnetic Zr-1Mo Alloy by Powder Bed Fusion Using a Fiber Laser”) and Foster976 (previously cited, US 20150307976 A1), as applied to Claim 13 above, in further view of Sattari2013 (previously cited, “Phase transformation temperatures of Zr alloy Excel”).
Regarding Claim 20, Sattari discloses wherein the first annealing temperature is in a range of alpha+beta region (Abstract; Experimental Procedure, para. 1, wherein solution treatment temperatures are chosen based on the alpha+beta region).
While Sattari does not expressly disclose using a temperature of 740-780C by example for the solution heat treatment, Sattari teaches wherein the solution heat treatment temperature choices are based on the alpha+beta temperature region of about 600-690 to 970C. It would be obvious to use a temperature within the desired alpha+beta solution heat treatment region, such as between 740-780C as claimed, because these temperatures are within the alpha+beta temperature region for the Excel alloy, as taught by Sattari, and suitable for solution heat treatment, as desired by Sattari.
Sattari fails to disclose the duration of the solution heat treatment, and does not disclose wherein the annealing occurs for a time period of in a range of 1 hour to 3 hours.
Sattari2013 teaches wherein solution treatment temperatures for the Excel alloy comprise a temperature of 752C and 763C, and a duration of 2 hours, in order to achieve a homogenized distribution of solute elements in the matrix (Experimental Procedures, Para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a solution heat treatment of 2 hours at temperatures of 740-780C, such as 752C and 763C, as taught by Sattari2013, for the invention disclosed by Sattari and Sun. One would be motivated to do this in order to achieve a homogenized distribution of solute elements in the matrix (see teaching by Sattari2013 above), thereby successfully preparing the component for the subsequent aging process.
Claim 9 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sattari (previously cited, “Aging response and characterization of precipitates in Zr alloy Excel pressure tube material”) in view of Sun (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed October 29, 2021, “Fabrication and Characterization of a Low Magnetic Zr-1Mo Alloy by Powder Bed Fusion Using a Fiber Laser”) and Foster976 (previously cited, US 20150307976 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Takase (previously cited, US 4842814 A).
Regarding Claim 9, Sattari discloses wherein the second annealing temperature is in a range of up to 500C (Experimental Procedure, para. 4, wherein aging takes place at 500C), but does not expressly disclose wherein aging may take place at 530-580C. However, Sattari teaches wherein the aging temperature is a results-effective variable, the results being precipitate size and distribution, and thereby hardness values (Fig. 3; Discussion, para. 1).
Further, Takase teaches aging a Zr-Nb-Sn alloy (Excel alloy is a Zr-Nb-Sn alloy) at temperatures of 610C or less in order to successfully precipitate a second phase and decompose an nonequilibrium phase, thereby increasing corrosion resistance (Col. 7, lines 43-57). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the high cooling rates effected by welding conditions are comparable to cooling rates effected by quenching after solution heat treatment (see explanation by Takase, Col. 5, lines 24-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aging temperature to be 610C or less, and within the claimed range of 530-580C, as taught by Takase, in order to tailor the precipitate response and therefore hardness values from aging (see teaching by Sattari) and further in order to successfully precipitate a second phase and decompose an nonequilibrium phase, thereby increasing corrosion resistance (see teaching by Takase). Additionally, it has been held that discovering an optimum value or a result effective variable (see demonstration by Sattari above) involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.1.
Claims 23-25 and 28-30 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sattari (previously cited, “Aging response and characterization of precipitates in Zr alloy Excel pressure tube material”) in view of Sun (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed October 29, 2021, “Fabrication and Characterization of a Low Magnetic Zr-1Mo Alloy by Powder Bed Fusion Using a Fiber Laser”) and Foster976 (previously cited, US 20150307976 A1), as applied to Claim 1 and Claim 13 above, respectively, in further view of Harooni (“Mechanical properties and microstructures in zirconium deposited by injected powder laser additive manufacturing”) and Barberis (previously cited, US 20060215806 A1).
Regarding Claims 23-Claim 25 and Claims 28-30, Sun discloses wherein the microstructure of the additively manufactured component comprises a (Claim 23 and Claim 28) random texture and further (Claim 24 and Claim 29) random texture prior to annealing, and therefore a microstructure which is also (Claim 25 and Claim 30) isotropic prior to annealing (see Sun, Fig. 8, wherein as-built acicular microstructures comprise random orientations of alpha phase, and therefore comprises random texture). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a component with random texture would be considered isotropic (no preferred orientation/properties in a specific direction).
Sun however, does not use the term ‘random texture’ and similarly does not expressly describe the microstructure of the additively manufactured component as ‘isotropic’.
Harooni teaches wherein additively manufactured Zr components comprise negligible anisotropy (is isotropic) and therefore comprises similar properties in both directions, and wherein the texture is random with only pockets of some preferred orientations (pg. 543, Col. 1, para. 1; see Fig. 6, with random orientations as indicated by color in EBSD map; Pg. 540, Col. 2, Para. 2).
Further, Barberis teaches wherein random texture and isotropy for Zr components enable properties which are good in terms of reducing irradiation growth while being advantageous for mechanical properties in nuclear components (para. [0038]; para. [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have comprised (Claim 23-24 and Claim 28-29) random texture, and also (Claim 25 and Claim 30) a microstructure which is isotropic, in the as-built additively manufactured part and therefore prior to annealing (see Claim 24-25 and 29-30 for structure prior to annealing), as taught by Harooni an Barberis, for the invention disclosed by Sattari and Sun, in order to reduce irradiation growth while obtaining advantageous mechanical properties for a nuclear component (see teaching by Barberis above).
Claims 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sattari (previously cited, “Aging response and characterization of precipitates in Zr alloy Excel pressure tube material”) in view of Sun (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed October 29, 2021, “Fabrication and Characterization of a Low Magnetic Zr-1Mo Alloy by Powder Bed Fusion Using a Fiber Laser”) and Foster976 (previously cited, US 20150307976 A1), as applied to Claim 1 and Claim 13 above, respectively, in further view of Russell (US 20200027585 A1).
Regarding Claim 31 and Claim 32, Sattari does not disclose wherein the zirconium alloy comprises less than 3wt% of one or more alloying elements, based on the total amount of the zirconium alloy, the one or more alloying elements comprising tin, chromium, iron, nickel, copper, or vanadium, or any combination thereof.
Sattari teaches wherein the solid solution and aging response is present in Sn containing alloys, and wherein the presence of Fe helps stabilize the tin precipitates (Introduction, para. 1-3).
Russell teaches wherein Zircaloy-4 is used for the additive manufacturing of a component for use in a nuclear reactor (Abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Zircalloy-4 comprises about 1.5% Sn, 0.20% Fe, and 0.10% Cr and balance of Zr, which reads on the claimed composition wherein the zirconium alloy comprises less than 3wt% of one or more alloying elements, based on the total amount of the zirconium alloy, the one or more alloying elements comprising tin, chromium, iron, nickel, copper, or vanadium, or any combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Zircaloy-4, as taught by Russel, for the invention disclosed by Sattari and Sun, because Sattari teaches that an alloy comprising Sn (such as Zircaloy-4, see above) comprises solid solution strengthening and aging response as desired by Sattari, and because Russel teaches that this alloy is also suitable for a reactor material. Additionally, Zircaloy-4 is a commercially known material, and it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell (US 20200027585 A1) in view of \ Van Rooyen (US 20200094322 A1), Foster976 (previously cited, US 20150307976 A1) and Foster1990 (“INFLUENCE OF FINAL RECRYSTALLIZATION HEAT TREATMENT ON ZIRCALOY-4 STRIP CORROSION”).
Regarding Claim 31, Russell discloses manufacturing a component for use in a nuclear reactor (Abstract), the method comprising:
additively manufacturing the component for use in the nuclear reactor utilizing a feedstock comprising a metal, wherein the metal comprises a zirconium alloy (Abstract; para. [0052], Zircalloy-4).
One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Zircalloy-4 comprises about 1.5% Sn, 0.20% Fe, and 0.10% Cr and balance of Zr, which reads on the claimed composition wherein the zirconium alloy comprises less than 3wt% of one or more alloying elements, based on the total amount of the zirconium alloy, the one or more alloying elements comprising tin, chromium, iron, nickel, copper, or vanadium, or any combination thereof (see Claim 31 limitations).
Russel fails to disclose annealing at a first annealing temperature within the alpha phase temperature range of the metal, the alpha+beta phase temperature range of the metal, or a combination thereof, and wherein annealing fully recrystallizes a microstructure of the additively manufactured part.
Van Rooyen teaches annealing an additively manufactured zirconium alloy, including Zircaloy, component in order to relieve stresses and reduce brittle phases, thereby improving thermal properties (Abstract; para. [0036], zircaloy; para. [0050]; para. [0059]).
Foster976 teaches using a final annealing treatment for a zirconium alloy also comprising Sn, Cr and Fe in order to obtain a recrystallization amount from 80-100%, thereby improving in-reactor creep resistance (para. [0027]; para. [0038]; para. [0087]). Foster976 teaches annealing at 585C (1085F) and above in order to obtain 100% recrystallization (para. [0080]; para. [0082], fully recrystallize annealed (“RXA”, at a temperature of 1085F)”.
Foster1990 also teaches wherein Zircaloy-4 is heated to 550C or more, and up to 775C, in order to produce a recrystallized structure (Abstract; Pg. 171, Col. 1, Para. 2).
occurs for temperatures of 900F (482C) and above, and reaches full recrystallization (100%) at 1085F (585C) and above (para. [0082]; para. [0076]; para. [0080]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the alpha phase temperature range of zircaloy-4 is 820C or less, such that heating in the range of 550-775C reads on the claimed alpha phase temperature range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have annealed the additively manufactured component, as taught by Von Rooyen, to have further annealed within the alpha temperature range, such 585C or above or within the range of 550-750C, as taught by Foster976 and Foster1990, respectively, and to have obtained a fully recrystallized microstructure by the annealing, as taught by Foster976, for the invention disclosed by Russel. One would be motivated to do this in order to reduce stresses and brittle phases (see teaching by Von Rooyen) and in order to improve and maximize the in-reactor creep resistance (see teaching by Foster976 above).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell (US 20200027585 A1) in view of Sun (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed October 29, 2021, “Fabrication and Characterization of a Low Magnetic Zr-1Mo Alloy by Powder Bed Fusion Using a Fiber Laser”), Van Rooyen (US 20200094322 A1), Foster976 (previously cited, US 20150307976 A1) and Foster1990 (“INFLUENCE OF FINAL RECRYSTALLIZATION HEAT TREATMENT ON ZIRCALOY-4 STRIP CORROSION”).
Regarding Claim 32, Russell discloses additively manufacturing a component for use in a nuclear reactor (Abstract), the method comprising:
depositing a layer of powder feedstock comprising a zirconium alloy to layer-by-layer, additively manufacture the component (Abstract; para. [0052], Zircalloy-4; para. [0055]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Zircalloy-4 comprises about 1.5% Sn, 0.20% Fe, and 0.10% Cr and balance of Zr, which reads on the claimed composition wherein the zirconium alloy comprises less than 3wt% of one or more alloying elements, based on the total amount of the zirconium alloy, the one or more alloying elements comprising tin, chromium, iron, nickel, copper, or vanadium, or any combination thereof (see Claim 32 limitations).
Russel does not expressly disclose the claimed steps of the additive manufacturing process.
Sun discloses an additive manufacturing process for a zirconium alloy using powder bed fusion, wherein the method allows for reduced raw material usage, near-net-shape production without expensive molds, and design freedom using 3D CAD data (Abstract; Introduction, para. 2).
Sun teaches wherein the powder bed fusion process includes:
depositing a layer of a powder feedstock comprising a zirconium alloy across a build plate (Experimental Procedure, 2.1., wherein powder is used; Table 2, layer thickness and substrate; one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a powder layer is made on the substrate)
affixing at least a selected region of the layer together in the selected region, the affixing comprising:
rastering a laser across the layer of powder feedstock along a path guided by previously input computer-aided design files for a three- dimensional component to be built (Introduction, para. 3, wherein laser is used and aided by 3D CAD; see Table 2, laser power and scanning speed);
melting the powder feedstock within the layer with the laser; solidifying the melted powder; repeating the depositing and the affixing to provide an additively manufactured component (Introduction, para. 3, wherein powder is melted and then solidified, and the process is layer by layer (i.e., repeated); see also Discussion, wherein laser has produced a melt track); and
removing the additively manufactured component from the build plate (Experimental Procedure, 2.2., wherein cylinders are made; one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the cylinders would be removed from the substrate after conclusion of building – see also Results, wherein cylinders have been characterized in various testing equipment, i.e., removed from the substrate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have additively manufactured the component of Russel using the powder bed fusion process taught by Sun in order to produce near-net-shape products without expensive molds while reducing raw material usage (see teaching by Sun).
Russel fails to disclose annealing at a first annealing temperature within the alpha phase temperature range of the metal, the alpha+beta phase temperature range of the metal, or a combination thereof, and wherein annealing fully recrystallizes a microstructure of the additively manufactured part.
Van Rooyen teaches annealing an additively manufactured zirconium alloy component in order to relieve stresses and reduce brittle phases, thereby improving thermal properties (Abstract; para. [0036], zircaloy; para. [0050]; para. [0059]).
Foster976 teaches using a final annealing treatment for a zirconium alloy also comprising Sn, Cr and Fe in order to obtain a recrystallization amount from 80-100%, thereby improving in-reactor creep resistance (para. [0027]; para. [0038]; para. [0087]). Foster976 teaches annealing at 585C (1085F) and above in order to obtain 100% recrystallization (para. [0080]; para. [0082], fully recrystallize annealed (“RXA”, at a temperature of 1085F)”.
Foster1990 teaches wherein Zircaloy-4 is heated to 550C or more, and up to 775C, in order to produce a recrystallized structure (Abstract; Pg. 171, Col. 1, Para. 2).
occurs for temperatures of 900F (482C) and above, and reaches full recrystallization (100%) at 1085F (585C) and above (para. [0082]; para. [0076]; para. [0080]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the alpha phase temperature range of zircaloy-4 is 820C or less, such that heating in the range of 550-775C reads on the claimed alpha phase temperature range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have annealed the additively manufactured component, as taught by Von Rooyen, to have further annealed within the alpha temperature range, such 585C or above or within the range of 550-750C, as taught by Foster976 and Foster1990, respectively, and to have obtained a fully recrystallized microstructure by the annealing, as taught by Foster976, for the invention disclosed by Russel and Sun. One would be motivated to do this in order to reduce stresses and brittle phases (see teaching by Von Rooyen) and in order to improve and maximize the in-reactor creep resistance (see teaching by Foster976 above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are respectfully not persuasive.
Regarding Foster976 (previously Foster):
Applicant argues that Foster976 does not demonstrate that the recrystallization process is obtained through heat treatment alone (Remarks, Pg. 7 and Pg. 9).
Applicant argues that recrystallization is a process requiring deformed grains, and that annealing is performed after cold rolling, or after hot rolling and cold processing, in order to remove residual stress, as demonstrated by Waryoba and Choi. Applicant also recites Barberis, wherein annealing time required is dependent on the amount of deformation from cold rolling (Remarks, Pg. 7-8).
Applicant therefore argues that, at the time of the instantly filed application, the state of the art was that there can be no recrystallization without some amount of deformation from hot or cold working, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to apply the final heat treatment of Foster976 to an additively manufactured component (as taught by Sun), and one of ordinary skill in the art would not have utilized a final heat treatment, taught to alleviate stresses, to an additively manufactured component that has not been cold or hot worked (Remarks, Pg. 9).
These arguments are respectfully not found persuasive.
The claims also do not currently require that recrystallization is accomplished without deformation, or by annealing ‘alone’. The claims do not exclude or prohibit deformation or other steps/processes in addition to annealing, and the method currently comprises open ended transitional phrasing (comprising), and therefore the argument that the recrystallization occurs by heat treatment alone is not commensurate in scope with the claims.
Regarding the teachings of Foster976, Sattari already discloses the claimed heat treatment which is the same as the instant invention’s, and the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art (stress relief/solid solution heat treatment and aging) cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Foster976 is further relied upon to teach wherein the heat treatment temperatures of Sattari, which are already applied, are also capable of producing recrystallization, and teaches obtaining 100% recrystallization, further providing proper motivation for why one of ordinary skill in the art would want to obtain 100% recrystallization in order to increase creep strength.
In regards to the state of the art at the time of the instantly filed invention, it was recognized that heat treatment of additively manufactured components produces recrystallization, and the prior art recognizes that residual stresses are inherent to the additive manufacturing process, which Applicant has argued is required for any recrystallization to occur. For example, both Yan and Liu (cited below), teach annealing after additive manufacturing results in recrystallization (Yan, pg. 4-5, Section 2.2. Via Post Heat-Treatments; Liu, Pg. 209, Sect. 3.1. Microstructure of an LRFed Inonel 718 superalloy, para. 2).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of the residual stresses from the additive manufacturing process, understood that such residual stresses contribute to obtaining recrystallization during heat treatment, and it would have been obvious that the heat treatment already disclosed by Sattari further obtains recrystallization, as taught by Foster976, and as known in the art by Yan and Liu. To be clear, Applicant argues that deformation from hot and cold working is required to produce the residual stresses which promotes recrystallization, but the state of the art recognized that residual stresses alternatively come from the additive manufacturing process, resulting in recrystallization during heat treatment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Watcher (cited by Applicant in IDS filed September 20, 2024, US 20170187246 A1): teaches additively manufacturing a Zr alloy and heat treating (hot pressing) the additively manufactured part at a temperature above the transformation temperature and the recrystallization temperature (Abstract; para. [0047]; para. [0068]).
Antikainen (previously cited, US 20200032380 A1): teaches additively manufacturing (using powder bed fusion, vat photo-polymerization, binder jetting, material extrusion, directed energy deposition, material jetting, or sheet lamination, or a combination thereof) and a feedstock comprising titanium metal of a powder, a sheet, or a wire, or combinations thereof (para. [0003]; para. [0008]; para. [0015]), to form a component for use in a nuclear reactor (Abstract; para. [0034]),
annealing the additively manufactured component at a first annealing temperature within the alpha phase temperature range of the metal, the alpha+beta phase temperature range of the metal, or a combination thereof (Fig. 1; para. [0016]-[0017]; annealing temperatures below beta transus (1000C) would be the alpha-beta region), and
annealing the additively manufactured component for a second time at a second annealing temperature that is lower than the first annealing temperature (Fig. 1, Dage).
Yan (“Grain structure control of additively manufactured metallic materials”): teaches wherein post processing heat treatment of additively manufactured components results in recrystallization (pg. 4-5, Section 2.2. Via Post Heat-Treatments).
Liu (“Microstructure and residual stress of laser rapid formed Inconel 718 nickel-base superalloy”): teaches solution annealing after additive manufacturing results in recrystallization (Pg. 209, Sect. 3.1. Microstructure of an LRFed Inonel 718 superalloy, para. 2).
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 CATHERINE P SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00-4:00 MT.
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, Keith Walker can be reached on (571)-272-3458. 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.
CATHERINE P. SMITH
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/CATHERINE P SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights