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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 8, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment and Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed May 8, 2026, are acknowledged. Claims 1, 13 and 16 are amended, and Claims 33-36 are newly added. Claims 21-22, 26-27 and 31-32 are cancelled. No new matter has been added.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-20, 23-25, 28-30 and 33-36 are pending and currently considered in this office action.
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, 11-20, 23-25, 28-30 and 33-36 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 Inagaki (JP 01119650 A, English Machine Translation provided) and 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”).
Regarding Claim 1, Sattari discloses manufacturing a component for a nuclear reactor using a Zr-Sn-Mo-Nb quaternary zirconium alloy, wherein the Zr-Sn, Zr-Mo and Zr-Nb phase diagrams depict precipitation hardening by solution heat treatment in the alpha+beta region followed by quenching to produce a super-saturated solution at room temperature, with a final step of aging in the alpha region to produce fine and dispersed precipitates (Introduction, Para. 1-2; Abstract).
Sattari exemplifies this process by applying the solution heat treatment and aging to the quaternary alloy Excel (Zr-3.5% Sn-0.8% Mo-0.8%Nb), but does not expressly present an example using a Zr alloy comprising 3% or less alloying elements, the alloying elements comprising one of tin, as claimed.
Inagaki discloses a quaternary Zr alloy comprising 0.5-2.5% Nb, 0.5-2wt% Sn, 0.1-1.0% Mo (1.1-5.5wt% total alloying elements) which, like the Excel alloy, is used for a nuclear component (Abstract; para. [0003]; para. [0010]), wherein the alpha+beta temperature range for solution annealing is 790-870C, and the alpha range for aging is 400-650C (Abstract; para. [0041]; [0045]). Inagaki discloses wherein this alloy is optimized for corrosion resistance and creep deformation characteristics, wherein by example, a composition comprises 1% Nb, 1% Sn and 0.5% Mo (Abstract; Tale 1, example L1).
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 the composition disclosed by Inagaki, such as a Zr alloy with 1% Nb, 1% Sn and 0.5% Mo, and comprising an alpha+beta temperature range for solution annealing of 790-870C and an alpha temperature range for aging of 400-650C, for the invention disclosed by Sattari. One would be motivated to use the alloy by Inagaki because it is a quaternary alloy as desired by Sattari, and Inagaki demonstrates its suitability for a nuclear component similar to the Excel alloy, wherein the alloy composition allows for improved corrosion resistance and creep deformation characteristics (see teachings above).
A Zr alloy comprising 0.5-2.5% Nb, 0.5-2wt% Sn, 0.1-1.0% Mo, and one specifically comprising 1% Nb, 1% Sn and 0.5% Mo, reads on the claimed alloy comprising 3% or less alloying elements, the alloying elements comprising one of Sn. 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.
Sattari does not disclose wherein the solution treated and aged component is formed by additive manufacturing using the feedstock powder.
Sun teaches additively manufacturing a zirconium alloy (Zn-1Mo) by PBLF (power bed laser 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 to be solution treated and aged by PBLF, 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 solution heat treatment and/or aging fully recrystallizes a microstructure of the additively manufactured component to have alpha grains; however, the method of Sattari and Sun, and the composition of Inagaki, are the same as the instant invention.
Specifically, Sun discloses using PBLF to form the component, Sattari discloses solution heat treatment in the alpha+beta range and aging in alpha range, and Inagaki discloses the same composition as the instant composition comprising total alloying elements of 3% or less (0.5-2.5% Nb, 0.5-2wt% Sn and 0.1-1.0% Mo, specifically 1% Nb, 1% Sn and 0.5% Mo), wherein the alpha+beta range for this Zr alloy composition is 790-870C and the alpha range is 400-650C, which are the same ranges and temperatures required by the instant invention (see instant invention, para. [0045], powder bed fusion with a laser; para. [0048]; see also Claim 8 temperatures).
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the additively manufactured component is not deformed prior to annealing, as claimed (see Claim 1).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the invention of Sattari, Inagaki and Sun would result in the claimed feature of a fully recrystallize microstructure comprising alpha-grains. 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 2, Sattari discloses annealing in the alpha phase temperature range (aging) and annealing at a temperature in the alpha+beta range (solution treatment), which reads on the claimed first and second annealing and temperatures (Introduction, Para. 2). 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, Inagaki discloses herein the metal comprises a non-binary zirconium alloy comprising tin and another alloying element (Abstract; Table 1, ex. L1).
Regarding Claim 5, Inagaki discloses herein the metal comprises a non-binary zirconium alloy comprising niobium and another alloying element (Abstract; Table 1, ex. L1).
Regarding Claim 6, Sattari discloses wherein solution treatment is performed in the alpha-beta phase range, and aging occurs in the alpha phase range (Introduction, para. 2). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the alpha range is lower than the alpha-beta range, and therefore reads on the claimed second annealing temperature which is lower than the first annealing temperature (see also Inagaki, Abstract, alpha-beta range is 790-870C and alpha range is 400-650C).
Regarding Claim 7, Sun discloses wherein the feedstock is a powder (Abstract, PBLF).
Regarding Claim 8, Sattari discloses wherein solution treatment is performed in the alpha-beta phase range and aging occurs in the alpha phase range, and Inagaki discloses wherein, for the alloy of Inagaki, the alpha-beta range is 790-870C and alpha range is 400-650C, which reads on the claimed 600-800C and 450-600C ranges for the first and second annealing temperatures, respectively (Sattari, Introduction, para. 2; Inagaki, Abstract, para. [0041], [0045]). 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 in view of Inagaki disclose wherein the second annealing temperature is in the range of 400-650C, which reads on the claimed 530-580C (Sattari, Introduction, para. 2, aging in the alpha range; Inagaki, Abstract, para. [0045], alpha range and aging which occurs at 400-650C). 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 11, Sattari discloses wherein aging forms dispersed and fine precipitates, and Sattari and Inagaki disclose suitability for nuclear components (Sattari, Introduction, Para. 1-2; Inagaki, para. [0003]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate these precipitates to be a second phase metal in a matrix of a primary phase metal, as is well-known in the art of solution heat treatment, quenching and aging processes.
Regarding Claim 12, Sun discloses powder bed laser fusion (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 13, Sattari discloses manufacturing a component for a nuclear reactor using a Zr-Sn-Mo-Nb quaternary zirconium alloy, wherein the Zr-Sn, Zr-Mo and Zr-Nb phase diagrams depict precipitation hardening by solution heat treatment in the alpha+beta region followed by quenching to produce a super-saturated solution at room temperature, with a final step of aging in the alpha region to produce fine and dispersed precipitates (Introduction, Para. 1-2; Abstract).
Sattari exemplifies this process by applying the solution heat treatment and aging to the quaternary alloy Excel (Zr-3.5% Sn-0.8% Mo-0.8%Nb), but does not expressly present an example using a Zr alloy comprising 3% or less alloying elements, the alloying elements comprising one of tin, as claimed.
Inagaki discloses a quaternary Zr alloy comprising 0.5-2.5% Nb, 0.5-2wt% Sn, 0.1-1.0% Mo (1.1-5.5wt% total alloying elements) which, like the Excel alloy, is used for a nuclear component (Abstract; para. [0003]; para. [0010]), wherein the alpha+beta temperature range for solution annealing is 790-870C, and the alpha range for aging is 400-650C (Abstract; para. [0041]; [0045]). Inagaki discloses wherein this alloy is optimized for corrosion resistance and creep deformation characteristics, wherein by example, a composition comprises 1% Nb, 1% Sn and 0.5% Mo (Abstract; Tale 1, example L1).
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 the composition disclosed by Inagaki, such as a Zr alloy with 1% Nb, 1% Sn and 0.5% Mo, and comprising an alpha+beta temperature range for solution annealing of 790-870C and an alpha temperature range for aging of 400-650C, for the invention disclosed by Sattari. One would be motivated to use the alloy by Inagaki because it is a quaternary alloy as desired by Sattari, and Inagaki demonstrates its suitability for a nuclear component similar to the Excel alloy, wherein the alloy composition allows for improved corrosion resistance and creep deformation characteristics (see teachings above).
A Zr alloy comprising 0.5-2.5% Nb, 0.5-2wt% Sn, 0.1-1.0% Mo, and one specifically comprising 1% Nb, 1% Sn and 0.5% Mo, reads on the claimed alloy comprising 3% or less alloying elements, the alloying elements comprising one of Sn. 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.
Sattari does not disclose wherein the solution treated and aged component is formed by additive manufacturing using the feedstock powder.
Sun teaches additively manufacturing a zirconium alloy (Zn-1Mo) by PBLF (power bed laser 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 to be solution treated and aged by the PBLF process (see steps above) 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 solution heat treatment and/or aging fully recrystallizes a microstructure of the additively manufactured component to have alpha grains; however, the method of Sattari and Sun, and the composition of Inagaki, are the same as the instant invention.
Specifically, Sun discloses using PBLF to form the component, Sattari discloses solution heat treatment in the alpha+beta range and aging in alpha range, and Inagaki discloses the same composition as the instant composition comprising total alloying elements of 3% or less (0.5-2.5% Nb, 0.5-2wt% Sn and 0.1-1.0% Mo, specifically 1% Nb, 1% Sn and 0.5% Mo), wherein the alpha+beta range for this Zr alloy composition is 790-870C and the alpha range is 400-650C, which are the same ranges and temperatures required by the instant invention (see instant invention, para. [0045], powder bed fusion with a laser; para. [0048]; see also Claim 8 temperatures).
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the additively manufactured component is not deformed prior to annealing, as claimed (see Claim 1).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the invention of Sattari, Inagaki and Sun would result in the claimed feature of a fully recrystallize microstructure comprising alpha-grains. 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 14, Inagaki discloses herein the metal comprises a non-binary zirconium alloy comprising niobium and another alloying element (Abstract; Table 1, ex. L1).
Regarding Claim 15 and Claim 16, Sattari in view of Inagaki disclose wherein the second annealing temperature is in the range of 400-650C, which reads on the claimed (Claim 15) 450-800C and further (Claim 16) 450-620C (Sattari, Introduction, para. 2, aging in the alpha range; Inagaki, Abstract, para. [0045], alpha range and aging which occurs at 400-650C). 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 17, Sattari and Inagaki disclose wherein the annealing occurs for a time period ranging from 0.1 hour to 100 hours (Sattari, Abstract, aging occurs for 0.5-4 hours; Inagaki, para. [0047], 05-30 hours).
Regarding Claim 18, Inagaki discloses wherein the alloy is suitable for a spacer grid (para. [0010]; para. [0025]; spacers read on spacer grid).
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 20, Sattari discloses wherein solution treatment is performed in the alpha-beta phase range and Inagaki discloses wherein, for the alloy of Inagaki, the alpha-beta range is 790-870C (Sattari, Introduction, para. 2; Inagaki, Abstract, para. [0039]; [0041]). Sattari does not expressly disclose a heating duration for solution treatment; however, Inagaki discloses heating for alpha+beta quenching, which one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate is the same process as the solution treatment, in a range of 1 hour (para. [0052]; see also para. [0044], wherein solid solution occurs from alpha-beta quenching). Therefore, 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 duration of 1 hour, as taught by Inagaki, because Inagaki discloses wherein this is suitable for a alpha+beta quench, and therefore solution treatment.
Regarding the solid solution annealing temperature range including 790C, while 790C is outside the claimed range of 740-780C, it is very close to 780C and it is the examiner's position that the amounts in question are so close that it is prima facie obvious that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. (see MPEP 2144.05.I; Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 773).
Regarding Claim 23 and Claim 28, Sun discloses using PBLF to form the component, Sattari discloses solution heat treatment in the alpha+beta range and aging in alpha range, and Inagaki discloses the same composition as the instant composition comprising total alloying elements of 3% or less (0.5-2.5% Nb, 0.5-2wt% Sn and 0.1-1.0% Mo, specifically 1% Nb, 1% Sn and 0.5% Mo), wherein the alpha+beta range for this Zr alloy composition is 790-870C and the alpha range is 400-650C, which are the same ranges and temperatures required by the instant invention (see instant invention, para. [0045], powder bed fusion with a laser; para. [0048]; see also Claim 8 temperatures). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the additively manufactured component is not deformed prior to annealing, as claimed (see Claim 1).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the invention of Sattari, Inagaki and Sun would result in the claimed feature wherein the annealed additively manufactured component comprises a random texture. 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.
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 24-25 and Claim 29-30, Sun discloses wherein the microstructure of the additively manufactured component comprises (Claim 24, Claim 29) a random texture prior to annealing (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 also appreciate that a component with random texture would be considered isotropic (no preferred orientation/properties in a specific direction), as claimed (Claim 25, Claim 30). Additionally, the additive manufacturing process and the composition of Inagaki (see Claim 1 and Claim 13 limitations) is the same as claimed, and one of ordinary school in the art would appreciate that the process of Sun and composition of Inagaki would therefore result in the claimed structure after additive manufacturing and prior to annealing, and (Claim 24, Claim 29) one comprising a random texture and (Claim 35, Claim 30) one which is isotropic.
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 Claims 33-34 and Claims 35-36, Sun discloses using PBLF to form the component, Sattari discloses solution heat treatment in the alpha+beta range and aging in alpha range, and Inagaki discloses the same composition as the instant composition comprising total alloying elements of 3% or less (0.5-2.5% Nb, 0.5-2wt% Sn and 0.1-1.0% Mo, specifically 1% Nb, 1% Sn and 0.5% Mo), wherein the alpha+beta range for this Zr alloy composition is 790-870C and the alpha range is 400-650C, which are the same ranges and temperatures required by the instant invention (see instant invention, para. [0045], powder bed fusion with a laser; para. [0048]; see also Claim 8 temperatures). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the additively manufactured component is not deformed prior to annealing, as claimed (see Claim 1 and Claim 13).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the invention of Sattari, Inagaki and Sun would result in the claimed feature wherein the annealed additively manufactured component comprises (Claim 33, Claim 35) a bimodal distribution of large and small alpha grains, and further (Claim 34, Claim 36) wherein the annealing nucleates and coarsens second phase particles. 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.
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.
Claims 24-25 and 29-30 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 Inagaki (JP 01119650 A, English Machine Translation provided) and 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”), as applied to Claim 1 and Claim 13, respectively, in further view of Harooni (previously cited, “Mechanical properties and microstructures in zirconium deposited by injected powder laser additive manufacturing”) and Barberis (previously cited, US 20060215806 A1).
Regarding Claim 24-25 and Claim 29-30, Sun discloses wherein the microstructure of the additively manufactured component comprises (Claim 24, Claim 29) a random texture prior to annealing (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 also appreciate that a component with random texture would be considered isotropic (no preferred orientation/properties in a specific direction), as claimed (Claim 25, Claim 30). Additionally, the additive manufacturing process and the composition of Inagaki (see Claim 1 and Claim 13 limitations) is the same as claimed, and one of ordinary school in the art would appreciate that the process of Sun and composition of Inagaki would therefore result in the claimed structure after additive manufacturing and prior to annealing, and (Claim 24, Claim 29) one comprising a random texture and (Claim 35, Claim 30) one which is isotropic.
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.
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 24 and Claim 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, as taught by Harooni and Barberis, for the invention disclosed by Sattari, Inagaki and Sun, in order to reduce irradiation growth while obtaining advantageous mechanical properties for a nuclear component (see teaching by Barberis above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed May 8, 2026, with respect to Claims 1 and 13, and dependent claims thereof, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Sattari, Sun and Foster976, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims further limiting the composition of the Zr alloy. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sattari in view of Inagaki and Sun, as detailed above.
Applicant’s arguments are deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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).
Foster976 (previously cited, US 20150307976 A1): 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.
Choi (previously cited, US 20160304991 A1): 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 grids (para. [0004]; see also para. [0002]).
Sattari2013 (previously cited, “Phase transformation temperatures of Zr alloy Excel”): 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).
Takase (previously cited, US 4842814 A): 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).
Russell (US 20200027585 A1): 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.
Van Rooyen (US 20200094322 A1): 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]).
Foster1990 (“INFLUENCE OF FINAL RECRYSTALLIZATION HEAT TREATMENT ON ZIRCALOY-4 STRIP CORROSION”): 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.
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