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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/27/26 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 are examined in this office action as claims 10-12 are withdrawn as directed to a nonelected invention and claims 1, 3, and 5-7 were amended in the reply dated 4/27/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “millimetric areas, which have dimensions on the order of millimeters” in lines 9-10 and 13 and a similar limitation of “micrometric globular particles which have dimensions on the order of micrometers” has been added in line 11. Applicant points to Figures 1, 11 and 12 and paragraphs [0062], [0064], [0068], and [0090] of the patent application publication as support for this amendment. However, Fig 1 merely shows a exploded view of the microstructure without any indication of actual dimensions and Figs 11 and 12 relate to the wear properties of the inserts and do not relate to the dimensions of the microstructure. Also the cited paragraphs of the specification relates to the materials in the wear part and do not relate to the dimensions of the structure. The term “order” is not cited in the specification and there are no recitations in the specification to make clear what on “the order of millimeters” and on “the order of micrometers” encompasses. Therefore, the specification does not describe the claimed subject matter of “the order of millimeters” and “the order of micrometers” in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “millimetric areas, which have dimensions on the order of millimeters” in lines 9-10 and 13. A similar limitation of “micrometric globular particles which have dimensions on the order of micrometers” in line 11. It is not clear what is meant by “order of”. While measuring structures using millimeters and micrometers is known, it is not clear what scope is added by “order of”. Claims 2-9 are also rejected as they depend from claim 1 and do not solve the above issue.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “high concentration” with respect to micrometric globular particles in line 10. Claim 6 recites the identical limitation and claim 7 recites the similar limitation “a higher concentration of micrometric globular particles”. The term “high” in claims 1 and 6-7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While high and low concentrations of ceramics is recited in the specification in paragraph [0029] of the published application in relation to the concentration of the ceramics, this does no explain what constitutes “high” concentrations. Claims 2-5 and 8-9 are also rejected as they depend from claim 1 and do not solve the above issue.
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.
Claims 1, 4-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0226882 A1 of Berton in view of US 2008/0041993 A1 of Hall.
As to claim 1, it is not clear what is meant by “on the order of” and “high concentration”, see 112(b) rejections above. For the purposes of applying prior art, this will be interpreted as requiring the microstructure having alternating areas of high concentration of micrometric globular particles of metal carbides, nitrides, borides, or intermetallic alloys with millimetric areas free from the micrometric globular particles measured in the appropriate unit and high concentration will be interpreted as differences in concentration of the globular particles. Berton discloses a composite impactor for percussion crushers (Berton, paragraph [0001]). Berton teaches forming a reinforced portion by using a mixture of carbon and titanium powders and casting a ferrous alloy into the mold where the heat from the casting triggers a exothermic self-propagating high temperature synthesis (SHS) of titanium carbide producing alternating macro-microstructure of millimetric areas concentrated with micrometric globular particles of titanium carbide at the location of said precursor granules, said areas being separated from each other by millimetric areas essentially free of micrometric globular particles of titanium carbide (Berton, paragraph [0022]-[0027]). Berton teaches that the presence of a more ductile matrix between the micrometric globular TiC particles in the alternating areas of low and high concentration allows to better handle possible local stresses (Berton, paragraph [0108]), meeting the limitations of a reinforced portion comprising a ferrous alloy reinforced with metal carbides, metal nitrides, metal borides, or intermetallic alloys and reinforcement structure alternating structure of periodic millimetric areas, which have dimensions on the order of millimeters and have having a high concentration of micrometric globular particles, which have dimensions on the order of micrometers and are formed of metal carbides, metal nitrides, metal borides, or [[its]]the intermetallic alloys, with millimetric areas, which have dimensions on the order of millimeters and are being free of the micrometric globular particles of metal carbides, metal nitrides, metal borides, or ]the intermetallic alloys.
However, Berton does not disclose where inserts comprising micrometric particles of metal carbides, metal nitrides, metal borides, or intermetallic compounds prefabricated and embedded in a first metal matrix, said inserts being inserted into a reinforcement structure, nor where a ferrous alloy forms a second metal matrix different from the first metal matrix.
Hall relates to the same field of endeavor of rotary impact mills and associated impact hammers (Hall, abstract). Hall teaches hammers made of cemented metal carbides where the hammers comprise a plurality of wear resistant inserts (Hall, paragraph [0037]). Hall teaches where the insert is formed of cemented metal carbide (Hall, paragraph [0040]) and specifically Hall teaches where the carbide in the insert is a tungsten carbide comprising a cobalt concentration of 6 to 14 weight percent and where grains sizes are within 0.5 to 300 microns (Hall, paragraph [0041]), meeting the claim limitation of inserts comprising micrometric particles of metal carbides, metal nitrides, metal borides, or intermetallic compounds prefabricated and embedded in a first metal matrix and where the second metal matrix (ferrous in the Berton impactor) is different from the first metal matrix (cobalt in Hall). Hall teaches that the wear resistant inserts reduce wear of the hammer body (Hall, paragraph [0037]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add cemented metal carbide inserts of tungsten carbide with cobalt as binder metal as taught by Hall into the composite impactor disclosed in Berton, thereby reducing the wear of the hammer body and increasing its lifespan (Hall, paragraph [0037]).
As to claim 4, Hall discloses where the carbide is a tungsten carbide comprising a cobalt concentration of 6 to 14 weight percent (Hall, paragraph [0041]), meeting the limitation where the first metal matrix is cobalt or cobalt alloy which is different from the second metal matrix.
As to claim 5, Hall discloses where grains sizes are within 0.5 to 300 microns (Hall, paragraph [0041]), rendering the claimed range of less than 80 µm obvious . “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”, see MPEP § 2144.05(I).
As to claim 6, Hall discloses where the insert rods use a cobalt binder (Hall, paragraph [0041]) and Berton teaches forming a reinforced portion by using a mixture of carbon and titanium powders and casting a ferrous alloy into the mold (Berton, paragraph [0022]-[0027])., the combination is disclosing where there are interstices comprising different metal matrices, i.e. the steel meeting the cobalt binder, thereby meeting the claim limitations.
As to claim 7, Berton discloses an alternating macro-microstructure of millimetric areas concentrated with micrometric globular particles of titanium carbide at the location of said precursor granules, said areas being separated from each other by millimetric areas essentially free of micrometric globular particles of titanium carbide, said globular particles being also separated within said millimetric areas concentrated with titanium carbide through micrometric interstices and that its process results in infiltration of the millimetric and micrometric interstices by said high temperature cast ferrous alloy, following the formation of microscopic globular particles of titanium carbide (Berton, paragraphs [0026]-[0027]), meeting the claim limitation of wherein the reinforcement structure consists of an alternation of millimetric areas having a higher ceramic concentration resulting from the agglomerates of reagents having reacted and of millimetric areas having a lower ceramic concentration forming the millimetric interstices infiltrated by the second metal matrix.
As to claim 9, Berton teaches forming a composite impactor for percussion crushers (Berton, paragraph [0001]), meeting the claim limitation of an impactor.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0226882 A1 of Berton in view of US 2008/0041993 A1 of Hall as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 3623849 A of Benjamin.
As to claim 2, the combination of Burton and Hall teaches the wear part of claim 1, see claim 1 rejection above. Hall teaches where the insert is formed of cemented metal carbide (Hall, paragraph [0040]). However, Hall does not explicitly disclose where the inserts comprise micrometric particles of titanium carbides.
Benjamin relates to the same field of endeavor of sintered refractory articles of manufacture where these articles are used as inserts and useful in wear applications (Benjamin, abstract; Col 2, lines 43-45; col 8, lines 63-65). Benjamin teaches using carbides such as tungsten carbide and titanium carbide in combination with iron group metals such as iron, nickel, cobalt and alloys thereof (Benjamin, col 8 lines 5-10 and 29-34), meeting the limitation where the inserts comprise titanium carbides. Benjamin teaches that the particle size of refractory carbides is from about 2 to 10 microns (Benjamin, col 2 lines 66-67), meeting the limitation of micrometric particles. Benjamin teaches that compositions including TiC exhibit good shock resistance together with wear and crater resistance (Benjamin, col 8 lines 59-63).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute an insert composition comprising TiC as taught by Benjamin into the insert rods disclosed in Hall as Hall already discloses the use of carbides and Benjamin teaches that TiC compositions exhibit good shock resistance together with wear and crater resistance (Benjamin, col 8 lines 59-63).
As to claim 3, the combination of Burton and Hall teaches the wear part of claim 1, see claim 1 rejection above. Hall teaches where the insert is formed of cemented metal carbide (Hall, paragraph [0040]). However, Hall does not explicitly disclose where the concentration of the metal carbides, nitrides, borides, or intermetallic elements of up to 90% by volume and at least 30% by volume.
Benjamin teaches where the concentration of hard refractory compounds is 24 to 85 vol % (Benjamin, claim 2). Benjamin also teaches specific examples such as Composition 3 which is 15-20 vol% Co, 10-22 vol% TiC, and balance WC (Benjamin, col 8, Table 1) which means the metal carbides make up 80-85 vol% of the insert, meeting the claim limitations. Benjamin teaches that Composition 3 exhibits good shock resistance together with wear and crater resistance (Benjamin, col 8 lines 59-63).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute an insert composition comprising 15-20 vol% Co, 10-22 vol% TiC, and balance WC as taught by Benjamin into the insert rods disclosed in Hall as Hall already discloses the use of carbides and Benjamin teaches that this TiC composition exhibits good shock resistance together with wear and crater resistance (Benjamin, col 8 lines 59-63).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0226882 A1 of Berton in view of US 2008/0041993 A1 of Hall as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP 3374107 B1 of Olejnik.
As to claim 8, the combination of Burton and Hall teaches the wear part of claim 1, see claim 1 rejection above. Berton teaches forming the composite using exothermic self-propagating high temperature synthesis (SHS) of titanium carbide producing alternating macro-microstructure of millimetric areas concentrated with micrometric globular particles of titanium carbide at the location of said precursor granules, said areas being separated from each other by millimetric areas essentially free of micrometric globular particles of titanium carbide (Berton, paragraph [0022]-[0027]). However, the combination of Berton and Hall does not disclose where the reinforcement structure further comprises millimetric grains of alumina, zirconia, or alumina-zirconia alloy.
Olejnik relates to the same field of endeavor of the manufacture of casting inserts used in the fabrication of wear-resistant local composite zones (Olejnik, paragraph [0001]) and Olejnik teaches forming carbides using self-propagating high temperature synthesis (SHS) and specifically to use this process to form TiC (Olejnik, paragraphs [0008] and [0015]). Olejnik teaches adding moderator powders selected from the group of ZrO2, stabilized ZrO2, Al2O3, or a mixture thereof to the powder composition before casting to engage the reaction forming the carbide and Olejnik teaches where the ZrO2, stabilized ZrO2, Al2O3 powders are micron and millimeter particles (Olejnik, paragraph [0013] and [0048]), meeting the limitation of millimetric grains as if the powder is that size, the resulting grains will also be of similar size as the oxide will not melt from the application of molten steel. Olejnik teaches that the use of the moderator creates titanium carbide crystals with relatively uniform distributions which imparts improved abrasive wear resistance and improved impact strength (Olejnik, paragraph [0019]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add millimetric ZrO2 and Al2O3 powders as taught by Olejnik to the wear part made using a SHS process disclosed by the combination of Berton and Hall, thereby creating titanium carbide crystals with relatively uniform distributions which imparts improved abrasive wear resistance and improved impact strength (Olejnik, paragraph [0019]).
Response to Arguments
With respect to the 112(b) rejections, applicant’s deletion of “its” in front of intermetallic compounds and deletion of “macro-micro” cures the previous indefiniteness issues. However, see new 112(b) rejections concerning claim 1 and its dependents above.
With respect to the 103 rejection over Condon in view of Burton, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua S Carpenter whose telephone number is (571)272-2724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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 Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/JOSHUA S CARPENTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JOPHY S. KOSHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights