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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-8, 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittendorf et al. (US 2021/0123350) in view of Oikawa et al. (JP 2015-092010) and Colet et al. (US 2019/0119540).
Regarding claim 1, 7-8, 20 Mittendorf discloses turbomachine includes a shroud and a rotor, which includes first and second blades. A first blade tip and a second blade tip respectively include a base and a first layer. The second blade tip also includes an abrasive second layer layered over the respective first layer (abstract). The second layer 180 may be an abrasive layer configured for abrading, grinding, cutting, and otherwise removing material from the shroud 150 (0053). The second layer 180 may include a plurality of abrasive particles 182 that are embedded within a matrix 186 (para 0054, figure 6-7). The matrix 186 may be made from nickel aluminide (Ni3Al) intermetallic single-phase alloy (para 0055). The particles 182 may be made from cubic boron nitride (cBN) [para 0056]. The particles 182 may be coated in a coating 184. The coating 184 may protect (insulate) the particles 182 from energy absorption (para 0057). The coating 184 may prevent the particles 182 from absorbing the laser's energy and overheating and/or prevent segregation of the particles 182. The coating 184 may also promote wetting of the particles 182 within the matrix 186. In some embodiments, the coating 184 may include titanium, which may also serve to provide a titanium-nitride oxidation protection for the cBN particles (para 0057).
However, Mittendorf fails to disclose that the nickel aluminide intermetallic phase is with laves phase and abrasive particles are distributed in the matrix in multiple distinct layers spaced from one another in a direction essentially perpendicular to an exterior surface of the matrix.
Whereas, Oikawa discloses precipitation strengthening type ferritic heat resistant steel having balance of mechanical strength and oxidation resistance at high temperature at a higher level than conventional one, a turbine high temperature member using the heat resistant steel and a turbine using the turbine high temperature member (Abstract). The precipitation strengthened ferritic heat resistant steel, wherein the intermetallic compound is a Laves phase and a β-NiAl phase (page 11).
Whereas, Colet discloses fixed abrasive article having a body including abrasive particles contained within a bond material, the abrasive particles including shaped abrasive particles or elongated abrasive particles (abstract). FIG. 6 includes an illustration of a portion of a fixed abrasive article including abrasive particles in accordance with an embodiment (para 0018). FIG. 6 includes an illustration of a portion of a fixed abrasive article including abrasive particles as viewed from a side surface in accordance with an embodiment. As illustrated, and as referenced in FIG. 5A, the body 101 can include abrasive particles 502, 503, 504, 505, and 506 (502-506) as part of the first group 501 (para 0117). Figure 6 discloses abrasive particles are distributed in the matrix in multiple distinct layers spaced from one another in a direction essentially perpendicular to an exterior surface of the matrix.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include intermetallic compound having Laves phase in the abrasive particle and a β-NiAl phase as taught by Oikawa in the matrix of Mittendorf motivated by the desire to have excellent high temperature strength and oxidation resistance and to form abrasive particles of Mittendorf distributed in form of layers and stacked in a direction essentially perpendicular to the surface as taught by Colet motivated by the desire to have high shape fidelity and consistency for end use applications.
Although Mittendorf does not disclose matrix configured to bind to a substrate to attach particles to the substrate, it is noted that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. 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”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Mittendorf meets the requirements of the claimed product, Mittendorf clearly meet the requirements of present claims of matrix comprising a nickel aluminide intermetallic phase.
Alternatively, As Mittendorf in view of Oikawa and Colet discloses plurality of abrasive particles distributed in the matrix, where the matrix comprises nickel aluminide intermetallic phase with a Laves phase as presently claimed, it therefore would be obvious that matrix would be configured to attach abrasive particles to the substrate.
As Mittendorf in view of Oikawa and Colet discloses plurality of abrasive particles distributed in the matrix, where the matrix comprises nickel aluminide intermetallic phase with a Laves phase as presently claimed, therefore the abrasive material would intrinsically be resistant to a high temperature i.e. 1100C or higher of an operating turbomachine.
Claim(s) 2-6, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittendorf et al. (US 2021/0123350) in view of Oikawa et al. (JP 2015-092010) and Colet et al. (US 2019/0119540) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Smarsly (US 2015/0315919).
Regarding claim 2, Mittendorf in view of Oikawa and Colet fails to disclose that the Laves phase has a C14 hexagonal phase structure.
Whereas, Smarsly discloses NiAl crystallites and/or the Ni.sub.3Al crystallites, the ternary phases on the basis of Ni, Al and Ta and/or Nb ensure that there is a corresponding increase in the strength and the creep strength of the material. Ternary Laves phases of this type can be in the form of the hexagonal C14 structure (para 0025).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to form Laves phase of Oikawa having C14 hexagonal structure as taught by Smarsly motivated by the desire to have increased strength and toughness of the material.
Regarding claims 3-4, 18-19 Mittendorf in view of Oikawa fails to disclose that the Laves phase comprises TA in an amount of 1-20 at%.
Whereas, Smarsly discloses the material can comprise 50.1 to 70 at. % Ni, preferably 51 at. % to 60 at. % Ni and 0.5 at. % to 10 at. % Ta, in particular 1 at. % to 5 at. % Ta (para 0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to form Laves phase of Oikawa comprising Ta in an amount of .5-10 at% as taught by Smarsly motivated by the desire to have increased strength and creep strength of the material.
Regarding claim 5, Mittendorf in view of Oikawa fails to disclose that the nickel aluminide intermetallic alloy comprises Cr, Mo, Nb or V.
Whereas, Smarsly discloses the material can comprise 50.1 to 70 at. % Ni, preferably 51 at. % to 60 at. % Ni and 0.5 at. % to 10 at. % Ta, in particular 1 at. % to 5 at. % Ta. In addition, or as an alternative to tantalum, the material can comprise 0.5 at. % to 10 at. % Nb, in particular 1 at. % to 5 at. % Nb, the remainder being formed by aluminum Tantalum and niobium can be mutually interchanged in the material, and therefore the sum total of tantalum and niobium can be in the range of 0.5 at. % to 10 at. % and in particular 1 at. % to 5 at. % (para 0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to form nickel aluminide intermetallic phase of Mittendorf in view of Oikawa comprising Nb in an amount of 0.5-10 at% as taught by Smarsly motivated by the desire to have increased strength and creep strength of the material.
Regarding claim 6, which recites “up to 7.5 at% Cr”, the claim limitation is met when Cr is absent from it.
Claim(s) 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittendorf et al. (US 2021/0123350) in view of Oikawa et al. (JP 2015-092010), Colet et al. (US 2019/0119540) and Smarsly (US 2015/0315919) as applied to claim 3, further in view of Harada et al. (WO 2014/024734).
Regarding claim 17, Smarsly discloses the material may comprise ternary Laves phases on the basis of Ni, Al and Ta and/or Nb, in particular, one or more of NiAlTa, NiAlNb and NiAl(Ta,Nb) (para 0015), but fails to disclose τ.sub.1NiAlTa.
Whereas, Harada discloses nickel-type single crystal superalloy comprises 6-12 %mass chromium, 0.4-3.0 %mass molybdenum, 6-10 %mass tungsten, 4.0-6.5 %mass aluminum, 0-1 %mass niobium, 8-12 %mass tantalum (abstract). Harada discloses nickel-type single crystal superalloy having a form of tau (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to form NiAlTa of Smarsly having a form of tau NiAlTa as taught by Harada motivated by the desire to have excellent thermal-mechanical fatigue characteristic.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and Declaration filed on 03/31/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant respectfully submits that the present requirement of the nickel aluminide intermetallic phase being a beta nickel aluminide (b-NiAl) intermetallic phase with the Laves phase is critical to meet the expected operating temperature of the subject abrasive material. Testing of this material showed that this material retains its strength to significantly higher temperatures (as are found in operating turbomachines) than prior art materials, as well as meeting requirements in terms of phase stability, mechanical properties, and oxidation stability. This higher strength is used to anchor the abrasive particles, such as cubic boron nitride particles in place at the necessary higher operating temperature, as well as for providing sufficient rub stability.
However, it should be noted that Oikawa discloses precipitation strengthening type ferritic heat resistant steel having balance of mechanical strength and oxidation resistance at high temperature at a higher level than conventional one, a turbine high temperature member using the heat resistant steel and a turbine using the turbine high temperature member (Abstract). The precipitation strengthened ferritic heat resistant steel, wherein the intermetallic compound is a Laves phase and a β-NiAl phase (page 11) and It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include intermetallic compound having Laves phase in the abrasive particle and a β-NiAl phase as taught by Oikawa in the matrix of Mittendorf motivated by the desire to have excellent high temperature strength and oxidation resistance and thus, the mechanical properties, and oxidation stability as mentioned by the Applicant is not unexpected as these properties are already being taught in Oikawa.
Further, Applicant have failed to provide data to support their position.
As Mittendorf in view of Oikawa and Colet discloses plurality of abrasive particles distributed in the matrix, where the matrix comprises nickel aluminide intermetallic phase with a Laves phase as presently claimed, therefore the abrasive material would intrinsically be resistant to a high temperature i.e. 1100C or higher of an operating turbomachine.
Conclusion
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 RONAK C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-6:30PM (FLEX).
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, ALICIA CHEVALIER can be reached on 5712721490. 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.
/RONAK C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights