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 25, 2025, are acknowledged. Claims 1 and 20-22 are amended, Claim 16 is cancelled and Claim 23 is newly added. No new matter has been added.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-15 and 17-23 are pending and currently considered in this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 28, 2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on September 8, 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 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 1-3, 5, 7-8, 11-14, 17-19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detor (previously cited, US 20180002794 A1) in view of Muhamad (previously cited, US 20200063240 A1), Harris (US 20130142637 A1) and Hardy (US 20180073106 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Detor discloses a nickel-based superalloy (Abstract), which at least comprises elements of:
Element
Claim 1 (wt%)
Detor
Citation
C
0.03-0.13
0-0.2
[0029]
Cr
12.5-16.0
10-20
[0030]
Mo
1.0-2.0
0-4
[0029]
W
2.0-4.0
0-4
[0029]
Al
4.0-5.5
0.1-6
[0025]
B
0.0025-0.015
0-0.1
[0029]
Zr
0.0025-0.015
0-0.1
[0029]
Ta
3.0-7.0
0.1-6
[0025]
Fe
3.0-7.0
0-40
[0029]
Hf
1.4-2.2
0-2
[0029]
Ga
>0 to 0.003
silent (0%)
Optionally:
Co
0-5.0
0-45
[0029]
Nb
0-1.0
0.5-9
[0025]
Re
0-1.0
silent (0%)
Si
0
silent (0%)
Mn
0
silent (0%)
P
0-0.005
silent (0%)
S
0-0.001
silent (0%)
Ti
0-0.20
0.1-6 or 0
[0025]
Cu
0-0.01
silent (0%)
V
>0 to 0.1
silent (0%)
Ag
0-0.0005
silent (0%)
Pb
0-0.0002
silent (0%)
Se
0-0.001
silent (0%)
O
0
silent (0%)
Bi
0-0.001
silent (0%)
N
0-0.005
silent (0%)
Mg
0-0.007
silent (0%)
Y
0-0.02
silent (0%)
Ce
0-0.02
silent (0%)
Regarding the elements Re, Si, Mn, P, S, Cu, Ag, Pb, Se, O, Ga, Bi, N, Mg, Y and Ce, Detor is silent towards these elements, and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that they are absent in the invention of Detor and therefore 0%, which is inclusive of the claimed ranges.
Regarding the element Ti, in addition to being included in an amount of at least 0.1wt% in combination with Ta, one of ordinary skill in the art would also appreciate that Ti is not required when Ta is present in an amount of 0.1-6%, and therefore may also be 0% (see para. [0025]).
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.
Detor is silent towards V, and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate this element to not be included (0%). Detor therefore fails to disclose the claimed range of greater than 0% and maximum 0.1% V.
Muhamad teaches 0-1.2% V, wherein V is preferably included in an amount of 0.1-0.7wt% in order to provide solid solution strengthening of the matrix and to generate carbides for increasing grain boundary strength, while balancing for the formation of unstable intermetallics which deteriorate high-temperature strength, and wherein V may exist with a lower limit of 0% when present as an impurity (para. [0070]-[0072]). One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore appreciate that Muhamad teaches an allowable impurity range of 0% to less than 0.1% V, and an intentional inclusion range of 0.1-0.7% V (one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Muhamad teaches the full range of 0-0.70%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have intentionally included 0.1-0.7% V, or alternatively comprised an allowable impurity range of 0% to less than 0.1% V, as taught by Muhamad, for the invention disclosed by Detor. One would be motivated to include at least 0.1% V in order to provide solid solution strengthening of the matrix and to generate carbides for increasing grain boundary strength, while balancing for the formation of unstable intermetallics which deteriorate high-temperature strength (see teaching above). Alternatively, one would be motivated to comprise 0% to less than 0.1% V as allowable impurity because Muhamad teaches this range is acceptable without effecting the invention (see teaching above).
The range 0.1-0.7% V, or alternatively the range of 0% to less than 0.1% V, read on the claimed range of greater than 0% and maximum 0.1%. 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.
Detor is silent towards Ga, and fails to disclose an amount greater than 0% and up to 0.003%.
Harris teaches wherein allowable amounts of trace and incidental impurity elements for a nickel-based superalloy include up to 2ppm Ag, 0.2ppm Bi, 200ppm Mg, 10 ppm Ga, 1ppm Pb, and 0.5ppm Se (para. [0009]-[0010]).
Hardy similarly teaches wherein amounts of incidental elements include up to 0.005wt% Mg, 1ppm Ag, 0.1ppm Bi, 25ppm Ga, 2ppm Pb, 1ppm Se, and wherein such an alloy is suitable for an additive manufacturing process (see Table in para. [0017]; para. [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have allowed up to 10ppm Ga (0.0001% Ga), or further up to 25ppm Ga (0.0025%), and further up to 2ppm Ag, 0.2ppm Bi, 200ppm Mg, 1ppm Pb, and 0.5ppm Se, or up to 0.005wt% Mg, 1ppm Ag, 0.1ppm Bi, 2ppm Pb, and 1ppm Se, as incidental/trace impurity elements, as taught by Harris and Hardy, for the invention of Detor. One would be motivated to allow up to the maximum impurity levels taught by Harris and Hardy as a means to decrease cost, because such incidental and trace ranges are well known in the art of nickel-based alloy compositions, and in order to comprise a nickel-based alloy suitable for additive manufacturing (see teaching above).
Further, Applicant has not provided criticality or a showing of unexpected results for the claimed Ga range, and 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 2, Claim 3 and Claim 13, Detor discloses wherein Co is (Claim 2) 0.5-3.0%, wherein Co is (Claim 3) 0.5-1.0wt%, and wherein Co is (Claim 13) 0-3.0wt% (para. [0029], 0-45% reads on the claimed the claimed ranges of 0.5-3.0%, 0.5-1.0wt% and 0-3.0wt%).
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 5 and Claim 17, Detor discloses wherein Ta is (Claim 5) 5.1-7% and wherein Ta is (Claim 17) 6-7wt% (para. [0025], 0.1-6wt% Ta reads on the claimed ranges of 5.1-7wt% and 6-7wt%).
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 7, Claim 18 and Claim 19, Detor discloses wherein Fe is (Claim 7) 5.1-7wt%, wherein Fe is (Claim 19) 4-5wt%, and wherein Fe is (Claim 19) 6-7wt% (para. [0029], 0-40% Fe reads on the claimed ranges of 3-5%, 5.1-7wt%, 4-5wt% and 6-7wt%).
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 8, Detor discloses a method for producing a component using an alloy as claimed in Claim 1 (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 11, Detor discloses a product comprising an alloy as claimed in Claim 1 (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 12, Detor discloses a Ni-based superalloy consisting of the elements (in wt%) of Claim 1 (Detor does not disclose including any additional elements than those listed above in Claim 1, which reads on the claimed ‘consisting’ language).
Regarding Claim 14, Detor discloses wherein Nb is 0.1-0.5wt% (para. [0025], 0.5-9wt% Nb reads on the claimed 0.1-0.5wt%).
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 21 and Claim 22, Harris and Hardy teach the claimed ranges:
Claim 21
Wt%
Harris, para. [0009]-[0010]
Hardy, Table in para. [0017]
Bi
> 0 to 0.001%
0-0.2ppm (0-0.00002%)
0-0.1ppm (0-0.00001%)
Mg
> 0 to 0.007%
0-200ppm (0-0.02%)
0-0.005%
Claim 22
Ag
> 0 to 0.0005%
0-2ppm (0-0.0002%)
0-1ppm (0-0.0001%)
Pb
> 0 to 0.0002%
0-1ppm (0-0.0001%)
0-2ppm (0-0.0002%)
Se
> 0 to 0.001%
0-0.5ppm (0-0.00005%)
0-1ppm (0-0.0001%)
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detor (previously cited, US 20180002794 A1) in view of Muhamad (previously cited, US 20200063240 A1), Harris (US 20130142637 A1) and Hardy (US 20180073106 A1), as applied to Claim 8 above, in further view of Nagatomi (previously cited, US 20190055627 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Detor is silent towards an additive manufacturing process used to form the component and does not disclose using a powder bed process, selective melting (SLM), and/or selective sintering (SLS) by laser beam or electron beam.
Nagatomi teaches wherein a Ni-based alloy, comprising sufficiently low amounts of S and N, may be readily processed, unlike casted and forged pieces, and allows for rapid melting-rapid solidification processes such as powder manufacturing (direct metal laser sintering, powder bed fusion, selective melting) and the processing of near-net shape manufacturing without the issue of internal microcracks during precipitation of intermetallic compounds (para. [0002]-[0003]; para. [0006]-[0007]).
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 rapid melting-rapid solidification process such as additive manufacturing, including powder bed fusion or direct metal laser sintering, as taught by Nagatomi, for the composition disclosed by Detor, in order to readily produce near-net shape components without the issue of internal microcracks forming during intermetallic precipitation (see teaching above).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detor (previously cited, US 20180002794 A1) in view of Muhamad (previously cited, US 20200063240 A1), Harris (US 20130142637 A1) and Hardy (US 20180073106 A1), as applied to Claim 8 above, in further view of Nagatomi (previously cited, US 20190055627 A1) and Fried (previously cited, US 20200230744 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Detor is silent towards an additive manufacturing process used to form the component and does not disclose using a powder bed process, selective melting (SLM), and/or selective sintering (SLS) by laser beam or electron beam.
Nagatomi teaches wherein a Ni-based alloy, comprising sufficiently low amounts of S and N, may be readily processed, unlike casted and forged pieces, and allows for rapid melting-rapid solidification processes such as powder manufacturing (direct metal laser sintering, powder bed fusion, selective melting) and the processing of near-net shape manufacturing without the issue of internal microcracks during precipitation of intermetallic compounds (para. [0002]-[0003]; para. [0006]-[0007]).
Fried teaches wherein powder based additive manufacturing processes for Ni-based superalloys include those such as selective laser beam melting/sintering, selective electron beam melting/sinter or (powder) deposition welding, and are capable of producing components such as turbomachine components (para. [0008]-[0010]). Thus, Fried recognizes that selective melting and selective sintering with an electron or laser beam (as disclosed by Nagatomi) is an art equivalent to powder deposition welding.
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 rapid melting-rapid solidification process such as additive manufacturing, including powder deposition welding, as taught by Nagatomi, for the composition disclosed by Detor, in order to readily produce near-net shape components without the issue of internal microcracks forming during intermetallic precipitation (see teaching above by Nagatomi), and because Fried recognizes that powder deposition welding is an art equivalent to the additive manufacturing processes taught by Nagatomi (see teaching above; see MPEP 2144.06.II).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detor (previously cited, US 20180002794 A1) in view of Muhamad (previously cited, US 20200063240 A1), Harris (US 20130142637 A1) and Hardy (US 20180073106 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Ota (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed July 29, 2022, US 20210340644 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Detor fails to disclose the inclusion of Re in an amount of 0.1-0.5wt%.
Ota teaches wherein up to 5wt% Re contributes to solid solution strengthening of the y phase and increases corrosion resistance, while balancing for the formation of harmful phases and the cost, as Re is an expensive element (para. [0106]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included up to 5wt% Re, including 0.1-0.5wt% Re, as taught by Ota, for the alloy of Detor, in order to improve solid solution strength of the y phase and to increase corrosion resistance while balancing for the formation of harmful phases and the cost of Re (see teaching above).
Claim 20 and Claim 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detor (previously cited, US 20180002794 A1) in view of Muhamad (previously cited, US 20200063240 A1), Harris (US 20130142637 A1) and Hardy (US 20180073106 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Hamaguchi (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed July 29, 2022, US 20150159241 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Detor is silent towards the elements Y and Ce, and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that they are absent in the invention of Detor and that Detor fails to disclose greater than 0 and up to 0.02wt% Ce and greater than 0 and up to 0.02wt% Y.
Hamaguchi teaches including 0-0.5% Ce and 0-0.5% Y, in a total amount of 0.8wt% or less, in order to increase hot workability by fixing S in sulfides (para. [0124]-[0132]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included up to 0.5wt% Ce and up to 0.5wt% Y, which reads on the claimed amounts of greater than 0 and up to 0.02wt% Ce and greater than 0 and up to 0.02wt% Y, as taught by Hamaguchi, for the invention disclosed by Detor, in order to increase hot workability (see teaching above).
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 23, Detor is silent towards 7wt%.
Hamaguchi teaches including up to 8wt% in order to form carbonitrides which increase high temperature strength and to increase creep rupture strength through solid solution hardening, while balancing for workability and mechanical properties (para. [0151]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have increased to Ta of Detor to a value up to 8wt%, which reads on the claimed 7wt%, as taught by Hamaguchi, to further increase high temperature strength and creep rupture strength, while avoiding decreases in workability and mechanical properties, and while still achieving the effects of Detor. One of ordinary skill in the will appreciate that while Detor discloses 0.1-6wt% Ta, Detor does not teach a criticality for this range and does not teach away from exceeding 6wt% Ta.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 11-14, 17-19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detor (previously cited, US 20180002794 A1) in view of Hasselqvist (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed March 4, 2022, US 20100296962 A1), Harris (US 20130142637 A1) and Hardy (US 20180073106 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Detor discloses a nickel-based superalloy (Abstract), which at least comprises elements of:
Element
Claim 1 (wt%)
Detor
Citation
C
0.03-0.13
0-0.2
[0029]
Cr
12.5-16.0
10-20
[0030]
Mo
1.0-2.0
0-4
[0029]
W
2.0-4.0
0-4
[0029]
Al
4.0-5.5
0.1-6
[0025]
B
0.0025-0.015
0-0.1
[0029]
Zr
0.0025-0.015
0-0.1
[0029]
Ta
3.0-7.0
0.1-6
[0025]
Fe
3.0-7.0
0-40
[0029]
Hf
1.4-2.2
0-2
[0029]
Optionally:
Co
0-5.0
0-45
[0029]
Nb
0-1.0
0.5-9
[0025]
Re
0-1.0
silent (0%)
Si
0
silent (0%)
Mn
0
silent (0%)
P
0-0.005
silent (0%)
S
0-0.001
silent (0%)
Ti
0-0.20
0.1-6 or 0
[0025]
Cu
0-0.01
silent (0%)
V
>0 to 0.1
silent (0%)
Ag
0-0.0005
silent (0%)
Pb
0-0.0002
silent (0%)
Se
0-0.001
silent (0%)
O
0
silent (0%)
Ga
0.003
silent (0%)
Bi
0-0.001
silent (0%)
N
0-0.005
silent (0%)
Mg
0-0.007
silent (0%)
Y
0-0.02
silent (0%)
Ce
0-0.02
silent (0%)
Regarding the elements Re, Si, Mn, P, S, Cu, Ag, Pb, Se, O, Ga, Bi, N, Mg, Y and Ce, Detor is silent towards these elements, and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that they are absent in the invention of Detor and therefore 0%, which is inclusive of the claimed ranges.
Regarding the element Ti, in addition to being included in an amount of at least 0.1wt% in combination with Ta, one of ordinary skill in the art would also appreciate that Ti is not required when Ta is present in an amount of 0.1-6%, and therefore may also be 0% (see para. [0025]).
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.
Detor is silent towards V, and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate this element to not be included (0%). Detor therefore fails to disclose the claimed range of greater than 0% and maximum 0.1% V.
Hasselqvist teaches including V up to 1wt% in order to strengthen gamma prime particles while balancing for oxidation resistance (para. [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included up to 1wt%, which reads on the claimed range of more than 0% and maximum 0.1wt%, as taught by Hasselqvist, for the invention disclosed by Detor, in order to strengthen gamma prime particles while balancing for oxidation resistance (see teaching above).
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.
Detor is silent towards Ga, and fails to disclose an amount greater than 0% and up to 0.003%.
Harris teaches wherein allowable amounts of trace and incidental impurity elements for a nickel-based superalloy include up to 2ppm Ag, 0.2ppm Bi, 200ppm Mg, 10 ppm Ga, 1ppm Pb, and 0.5ppm Se (para. [0009]-[0010]).
Hardy similarly teaches wherein amounts of incidental elements include up to 0.005wt% Mg, 1ppm Ag, 0.1ppm Bi, 25ppm Ga, 2ppm Pb, 1ppm Se, and wherein such an alloy is suitable for an additive manufacturing process (see Table in para. [0017]; para. [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have allowed up to 10ppm Ga (0.0001% Ga), or further up to 25ppm Ga (0.0025%), and further up to 2ppm Ag, 0.2ppm Bi, 200ppm Mg, 1ppm Pb, and 0.5ppm Se, or up to 0.005wt% Mg, 1ppm Ag, 0.1ppm Bi, 2ppm Pb, and 1ppm Se, as incidental/trace impurity elements, as taught by Harris and Hardy, for the invention of Detor. One would be motivated to allow up to the maximum impurity levels taught by Harris and Hardy as a means to decrease cost, because such incidental and trace ranges are well known in the art of nickel-based alloy compositions, and in order to comprise a nickel-based alloy suitable for additive manufacturing (see teaching above).
Further, Applicant has not provided criticality or a showing of unexpected results for the claimed Ga range, and 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 2, Claim 3 and Claim 13, Detor discloses wherein Co is (Claim 2) 0.5-3.0%, wherein Co is (Claim 3) 0.5-1.0wt%, and wherein Co is (Claim 13) 0-3.0wt% (para. [0029], 0-45% reads on the claimed the claimed ranges of 0.5-3.0%, 0.5-1.0wt% and 0-3.0wt%).
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 5 and Claim 17, Detor discloses wherein Ta is (Claim 5) 5.1-7% and wherein Ta is (Claim 17) 6-7wt% (para. [0025], 0.1-6wt% Ta reads on the claimed ranges of 5.1-7wt% and 6-7wt%).
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 7, Claim 18 and Claim 19, Detor discloses wherein Fe is (Claim 7) 5.1-7wt%, wherein Fe is (Claim 19) 4-5wt%, and wherein Fe is (Claim 19) 6-7wt% (para. [0029], 0-40% Fe reads on the claimed ranges of 3-5%, 5.1-7wt%, 4-5wt% and 6-7wt%).
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 8, Detor discloses a method for producing a component using an alloy as claimed in Claim 1 (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 11, Detor discloses a product comprising an alloy as claimed in Claim 1 (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 12, Detor discloses a Ni-based superalloy consisting of the elements (in wt%) of Claim 1 (Detor does not disclose including any additional elements than those listed above in Claim 1, which reads on the claimed ‘consisting’ language).
Regarding Claim 14, Detor discloses wherein Nb is 0.1-0.5wt% (para. [0025], 0.5-9wt% Nb reads on the claimed 0.1-0.5wt%).
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 21 and Claim 22, Harris and Hardy teach the claimed ranges:
Claim 21
Wt%
Harris, para. [0009]-[0010]
Hardy, Table in para. [0017]
Bi
> 0 to 0.001%
0-0.2ppm (0-0.00002%)
0-0.1ppm (0-0.00001%)
Mg
> 0 to 0.007%
0-200ppm (0-0.02%)
0-0.005%
Claim 22
Ag
> 0 to 0.0005%
0-2ppm (0-0.0002%)
0-1ppm (0-0.0001%)
Pb
> 0 to 0.0002%
0-1ppm (0-0.0001%)
0-2ppm (0-0.0002%)
Se
> 0 to 0.001%
0-0.5ppm (0-0.00005%)
0-1ppm (0-0.0001%)
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detor (previously cited, US 20180002794 A1) in view of Hasselqvist (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed March 4, 2022, US 20100296962 A1), Harris (US 20130142637 A1) and Hardy (US 20180073106 A1), as applied to Claim 8 above, in further view of Nagatomi (previously cited, US 20190055627 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Detor is silent towards an additive manufacturing process used to form the component and does not disclose using a powder bed process, selective melting (SLM), and/or selective sintering (SLS) by laser beam or electron beam.
Nagatomi teaches wherein a Ni-based alloy, comprising sufficiently low amounts of S and N, may be readily processed, unlike casted and forged pieces, and allows for rapid melting-rapid solidification processes such as powder manufacturing (direct metal laser sintering, powder bed fusion, selective melting) and the processing of near-net shape manufacturing without the issue of internal microcracks during precipitation of intermetallic compounds (para. [0002]-[0003]; para. [0006]-[0007]).
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 rapid melting-rapid solidification process such as additive manufacturing, including powder bed fusion or direct metal laser sintering, as taught by Nagatomi, for the composition disclosed by Detor, in order to readily produce near-net shape components without the issue of internal microcracks forming during intermetallic precipitation (see teaching above).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detor (previously cited, US 20180002794 A1) in view of Hasselqvist (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed March 4, 2022, US 20100296962 A1), Harris (US 20130142637 A1) and Hardy (US 20180073106 A1), as applied to Claim 8 above, in further view of Nagatomi (previously cited, US 20190055627 A1) and Fried (previously cited, US 20200230744 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Detor is silent towards an additive manufacturing process used to form the component and does not disclose using a powder bed process, selective melting (SLM), and/or selective sintering (SLS) by laser beam or electron beam.
Nagatomi teaches wherein a Ni-based alloy, comprising sufficiently low amounts of S and N, may be readily processed, unlike casted and forged pieces, and allows for rapid melting-rapid solidification processes such as powder manufacturing (direct metal laser sintering, powder bed fusion, selective melting) and the processing of near-net shape manufacturing without the issue of internal microcracks during precipitation of intermetallic compounds (para. [0002]-[0003]; para. [0006]-[0007]).
Fried teaches wherein powder based additive manufacturing processes for Ni-based superalloys include those such as selective laser beam melting/sintering, selective electron beam melting/sinter or (powder) deposition welding, and are capable of producing components such as turbomachine components (para. [0008]-[0010]). Thus, Fried recognizes that selective melting and selective sintering with an electron or laser beam (as disclosed by Nagatomi) is an art equivalent to powder deposition welding.
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 rapid melting-rapid solidification process such as additive manufacturing, including powder deposition welding, as taught by Nagatomi, for the composition disclosed by Detor, in order to readily produce near-net shape components without the issue of internal microcracks forming during intermetallic precipitation (see teaching above by Nagatomi), and because Fried recognizes that powder deposition welding is an art equivalent to the additive manufacturing processes taught by Nagatomi (see teaching above; see MPEP 2144.06.II).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detor (previously cited, US 20180002794 A1) in view of Hasselqvist (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed March 4, 2022, US 20100296962 A1), Harris (US 20130142637 A1) and Hardy (US 20180073106 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Ota (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed July 29, 2022, US 20210340644 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Detor fails to disclose the inclusion of Re in an amount of 0.1-0.5wt%.
Ota teaches wherein up to 5wt% Re contributes to solid solution strengthening of the y phase and increases corrosion resistance, while balancing for the formation of harmful phases and the cost, as Re is an expensive element (para. [0106]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included up to 5wt% Re, including 0.1-0.5wt% Re, as taught by Ota, for the alloy of Detor, in order to improve solid solution strength of the y phase and to increase corrosion resistance while balancing for the formation of harmful phases and the cost of Re (see teaching above).
Claim 20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detor (previously cited, US 20180002794 A1) in view of Hasselqvist (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed March 4, 2022, US 20100296962 A1), Harris (US 20130142637 A1) and Hardy (US 20180073106 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Hamaguchi (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed July 29, 2022, US 20150159241 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Detor is silent towards the elements Y and Ce, and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that they are absent in the invention of Detor and that Detor fails to disclose greater than 0 and up to 0.02wt% Ce and greater than 0 and up to 0.02wt% Y.
Hamaguchi teaches including 0-0.5% Ce and 0-0.5% Y, in a total amount of 0.8wt% or less, in order to increase hot workability by fixing S in sulfides (para. [0124]-[0132]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included up to 0.5wt% Ce and up to 0.5wt% Y, which reads on the claimed amounts of greater than 0 and up to 0.02wt% Ce and greater than 0 and up to 0.02wt% Y, as taught by Hamaguchi, for the invention disclosed by Detor, in order to increase hot workability (see teaching above).
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 23, Detor is silent towards 7wt%.
Hamaguchi teaches including up to 8wt% in order to form carbonitrides which increase high temperature strength and to increase creep rupture strength through solid solution hardening, while balancing for workability and mechanical properties (para. [0151]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have increased to Ta of Detor to a value up to 8wt%, which reads on the claimed 7wt%, as taught by Hamaguchi, to further increase high temperature strength and creep rupture strength, while avoiding decreases in workability and mechanical properties, and while still achieving the effects of Detor. One of ordinary skill in the will appreciate that while Detor discloses 0.1-6wt% Ta, Detor does not teach a criticality for this range and does not teach away from exceeding 6wt% Ta.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed September 25, 2025, with respect to Claim 1, and dependent claims thereof, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Detor in view of Muhamad, and over Detor in view of Hasselqvist, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims further limiting the range of Ga to be greater than 0% and maximum 0.003wt%. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Detor in view of Muhamad, Harris and Hardy, and over Detor in view of Hasselqvist, Harris and Hardy, 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.
Igarashi (previously cited, JP 3265599 B, further teachings): Igarashi discloses a nickel-based superalloy (para. [0001]), which overlaps the claimed invention except for the element Hf, which is limited to 1wt% while the claimed invention requires at least 1.4wt%.
Element
Claim 1 (wt%)
Igarashi (wt%)
Citation (para.)
C
0.03-0.13
0-0.10
[0010]
Cr
12.5-16.0
5.0-18.0
[0010]
Mo
1.0-2.0
0.5-5.0
[0011]
W
2.0-4.0
1.0-10.0
[0011]
Al
4.0-5.5
4.5-12.0
[0010]
B
0.0025-0.015
0.0001-0.03
[0010]
Zr
0.0025-0.015
0.01-0.3
[0010]
Ta
3.0-7.0
1.0-10.0
[0012]
Fe
3.0-7.0
0-5
[0010]
Hf
1.4-2.2
0.05-1
[0010]
Co
0-5.0
Silent (0%)
Nb
0-1.0
0.5-5, 0% (optional)
[0012]
Re
0-1.0
Silent (0%)
Si
0-0.02
0-1.0
[0010]
Mn
0-0.05
0-0.2
[0010]
P
0-0.005
Silent (0%)
S
0-0.001
Silent (0%)
Ti
0-0.20
0.05-1.0
[0010]
Cu
0-0.01
Silent (0%)
V
0-0.1
0.3-3, 0% (optional)
[0012]
Ag
0-0.0005
Silent (0%)
Pb
0-0.0002
Silent (0%)
Se
0-0.001
Silent (0%)
O
0-0.02
Silent (0%)
Ga
0.003
Silent (0%)
Bi
0-0.001
Silent (0%)
N
0-0.005
Silent (0%)
Mg
0-0.007
0.001-0.02
[0010]
Y
0-0.02
0.01-0.25, 0% (optional)
[0014]
Ce
0-0.02
0.01-0.25, 0% (optional)
[0014]
Igarashi further teaches including 0.05-1.0% Ti in order to balance grain boundary strengthening with rupture strength, and wherein Ti is optionally included (may be 0%) when B, Zr or Hf are already introduced (para. [0024]).
Igarashi additionally teaches including at least one of 0.5-5% Nb and 1-10% Ta (Nb may be 0% when Ta is included) in order to balance rupture strength with toughness (para. [0012]; para. [0028]). Igarashi teaches limiting Nb+(1/2)Ta to 5% when both elements are added. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that when 0.5wt% Nb is included, Ta would be limited to 9% or less in order to meet the required limitations of Igarashi.
Hasselqvist (further teachings, previously cited and cited above, cited by Applicant in IDS filed March 4, 2022, US 20100296962 A1): teaches limiting Ti to 0.45% or less and Nb to 0.28% or less in order to achieve strength from gamma prime particles while avoiding lowered oxidation resistance (para. [0011]).
Ota (further teachings, previously cited and cited above and by Applicant in IDS filed July 29, 2022, US 20210340644 A1): teaches a Ni-based superalloy comprising 0-0.2% C, 5-25% Cr, 0-10% Mo, 0-8% W, 1-8% Al, 0-0.1% B, 0-0.1% Zr, 1-10% of Ta+Nb+Ti, 0-10% Fe, 0-2% Hf, 0-30% Co, 0-5% Re, and 0.003-0.05% O (para. [0097]; O is no longer an element allowed by the currently recited claims).
Nagatomi (further teachings, previously cited and cited above, US 20190055627 A1): teaches a nickel-based superalloy produced by selective laser melting (Abstract), which comprises 0-0.2% C, 10-25% Cr, 1-6% Mo, 0-10% W, 0.1-8% Al, 0.001-0.01% B, 0.01-0.1% Zr, 0-6% Ta, 0.01-10% Fe, 0-2% Hf, 0.1-10% Co, 0-6 Nb, 0.1-8 Ti, 0-10% Cu, 0.05-1 Si, 0-0.002 S, 0-0.02 O, and 0-0.10 N (Abstract; para. [0033]-[0038]; para. [0041]; Si is no longer an element allowed by the currently recited claims).
Yokokawa (US 20090317288 A1): teaches wherein vanadium is solid solubilized in the γ’ phase in order to improve γ’ phase strength, but is limited to 0.5wt% or less in order to balance creep strength (para. [0051]).
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