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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment and Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment filed 05/22/2026 has been entered.
Pending: claims 1, 3-9, 11-12, 15-18, 20-21, and 24-27
Amended: claims 1, 3-9, 11-12, 15-16, 21, and 27
Cancelled: claims 2, 10, 13-14, 19, and 22-23
Rejected: claims 1, 3-9, 11-12, 15-18, 20-21, and 24-27
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because Smith teaches the following alloy composition for a high-entropy alloy material (title, abstract):
Element
Instant claim 1(wt. %)
Smith
(wt. %)
Location in reference
Cr
12-22
4.8-26.0
Table IA: “Ex. 1-4 Range 1”
Mo
22-35
21.75-41.0
Table IA: “Ex. 1-4 Range 1”
Ta
15-50
21.0-50.0
Table IA: “Ex. 1-4 Range 1”
Ti
10-20
<18.0
Table IA: “Ex. 1-4 Range 1”
Al
1-3
0-4.0
Table IA: “Ex. 1-4 Range 1”
V
-
6.0.0-27.0
Table IA: “Ex. 1-4 Range 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 (MPEP 2144.05 I.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05 I.). Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected (MPEP 716.02).
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, 3-9, 11-12, 15-18, 20-21, and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 20230392236 A1; of record).
Regarding claims 1, 3-9, 11-12, 15-17, and 24-26, Smith teaches the following alloy composition for a high-entropy alloy material (title, abstract):
Element
Instant claim 1(wt. %)
Smith
(wt. %)
Location in reference
Cr
12-22
4.8-26.0
Table IA: “Ex. 1-4 Range 1”
Mo
22-35
21.75-41.0
Table IA: “Ex. 1-4 Range 1”
Ta
15-50
21.0-50.0
Table IA: “Ex. 1-4 Range 1”
Ti
10-20
<18.0
Table IA: “Ex. 1-4 Range 1”
Al
1-3
0-4.0
Table IA: “Ex. 1-4 Range 1”
V
-
6.0.0-27.0
Table IA: “Ex. 1-4 Range 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 (MPEP 2144.05 I.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05 I.). Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected (MPEP 716.02).
Smith further teaches that the alloy has a BCC structure [0015], meeting the corresponding limitations in claims 1, 17, and 25. “The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 18, Smith teaches that the inventive examples had hardness levels ranging from 594-740 Vickers hardness (Table II), which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05 I.).
Regarding claim 20, Smith teaches the alloy of claim 1 above, and further teaches that the alloy may be used for an aircraft component [0003], [0017]-[0019], [0095].
Regarding claim 21, Smith teaches the alloy of claim 1 above, and further teaches that the alloy may be formed from sintering elemental powders (i.e. powder consolidation) or by atomization from plasma spray (i.e. arc melting) [0088].
Regarding claim 27, Smith teaches the following alloy composition for a high-entropy alloy material (title, abstract):
Element
Instant claim 27(wt. %)
Smith
(wt. %)
Location in reference
Cr
12-22
4.8-26.0
Table IA: “Ex. 1-4 Range 1”
Mo
22-35
21.75-41.0
Table IA: “Ex. 1-4 Range 1”
Ta
15-50
21.0-50.0
Table IA: “Ex. 1-4 Range 1”
Ti
10-20
<18.0
Table IA: “Ex. 1-4 Range 1”
V
-
6.0.0-27.0
Table IA: “Ex. 1-4 Range 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 (MPEP 2144.05 I.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05 I.). Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected (MPEP 716.02).
With regard to the claimed “A heat exchanger comprising…”, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a heat exchanger is any product that is capable of exchanging heat when being used where there may be a temperature differential. Smith teaches that the alloy can be used for gas turbine engine components such as blades or vanes, which are heat exchangers under BRI, because gas turbine engine blades and vanes have internal cooling channels which allow for exchanging heat from the blades/vanes to the cooling medium within (e.g., air),
Smith further teaches that the alloy has a BCC structure [0015], meeting the corresponding limitations in claim 27. “The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (MPEP 2113).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adil Siddiqui whose telephone number is (571)272-8047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM CST.
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 at 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.
/ADIL A. SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights