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 .
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Claims 1-9 are examined in this office action as claims 10-12 are withdrawn as directed to a nonelected invention and claims 1-2 and 4-7 were amended in the reply dated 10/13/25.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 3, and 5 all recite metal carbides, nitrides, borides, or intermetallic alloys. In this claim construction, “metal” only modifies “carbides” and as such the claims will be interpreted as requiring metal carbides, or any type of nitrides, borides, or intermetallic alloys.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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(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 “its intermetallic alloys” in lines 3 and 9-10 and 11. Claim 1 also recites “its intermetallic compounds” in line 6. These recitations are also made in claims 6-7. It is not clear what “its” refers to and how this limits the intermetallic alloys or compounds respectively. It is not clear whether this refers back to “ferrous alloy” and means these are ferrous intermetallic alloys or compounds, whether this refers to the wear part composition, or some other meaning. Claims 2-5 and 8-9 are also rejected as they depend from claim 1 and do not solve the above issue.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “macro-microstructure of periodic millimetric areas having a high concentration of micrometric globular particles of metal carbides, nitride, borides, or its intermetallic alloys with millimetric areas being free of the micrometric globular particles of metal carbides, nitrides, borides, or its intermetallic alloys” in lines 7-11. It is not clear what is meant by “macro-microstructure”. A microstructure is the microscopic structure of a material revealed by an optical microscope above 25x magnification. A macrostructure describes the large-scale or overall structure of something that is visible to the naked eye. It is not clear what a macro-microstructure as these definitions are in direct conflict with one another. Claims 2-9 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 2003/0213861 A1 of Condon in view of US 2011/0226882 A1 of Berton.
As to claim 1, it is not clear what is meant by “its intermetallic alloys” and “macro-microstructure”, see 112(b) rejections above. For the purposes of applying prior art, this will be interpreted as requiring intermetallic alloys as well as 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. Condon discloses wear parts of impact crushers that have reduced wear (Condon, abstract), meeting the claim limitation of a wear part. Condon discloses where a part has a portion constructed of a protective metallic composite matrix having small cemented carbide particle and impregnated with a plurality of hard material insert rods extending above the top face of the housing protecting the peripheral surface from wear (Condon, paragraph [0020]-[0021]), meeting the claim limitation of having a reinforced portion reinforced with metal carbides and where the reinforced portion comprises inserts having a predefined geometry. Condon discloses where the portion containing the inserts is an air hardened steel (Condon, paragraph [0035]), meeting the limitation of the reinforced portion comprising a ferrous alloy. Condon discloses where the insert rods are constructed from a hard material such as a carbide such as tungsten carbide with a cobalt or nickel binder (Condon, paragraph [0048]), meeting the claim limitations where the inserts comprise particles of metal carbides, nitrides, borides, or intermetallic compounds prefabricated and embedded in a first metal matrix and where said ferrous alloy forming a second metal matrix different from said first metal matrix as the nickel or cobalt binder is different from the steel used in the containing of the carbide particles and inserts.
However, Condon does not disclose where the reinforcement structure has alternating millimetric areas having a high concentration of micrometric globular particles of metal carbides, nitrides, borides, or intermetallic alloys with millimetric areas being free of the globular particles.
Berton relates to the same field of endeavor of 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]).
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 a reinforced portion comprising 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 as taught by Berton into the wear part disclosed by Condon, thereby incorporating a more ductile matrix and allowing the part to better handle possible local stresses (Berton, paragraph [0108]).
As to claim 4, Condon discloses where the insert rods use a cobalt or nickel binder (Condon, paragraph [0048]), meeting the claim limitations wherein a majority of the first metal matrix binding the ceramic particles of the insert comprises nickel, nickel alloy, cobalt, cobalt alloy, or a ferrous alloy which is different from a casting alloy forming the second metal matrix as the nickel or cobalt binder is different from the steel used in the containing of the carbide particles and inserts.
As to claim 5, Condon discloses where the carbide particle use a 1-10 micron grain size (Condon, paragraph [0048]), meeting the claim limitation of the particles having a mean size D50 of less than 80 µm.
As to claim 6, Condon discloses where the insert rods use a cobalt or nickel binder (Condon, paragraph [0048]) and Condon discloses where the portion containing the inserts is an air hardened steel (Condon, paragraph [0035]), thus Condon is disclosing where there are interstices comprising different metal matrices, i.e. the steel meeting the cobalt or nickel 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, Condon discloses wear parts of impact crushers that have reduced wear (Condon, abstract), however Condon does not explicitly disclose where the wear part is an impactor, an anvil, a cone, or a grinding roller.
Nevertheless, Berton teaches forming a composite impactor for percussion crushers (Berton, paragraph [0001]). Berton teaches that these impactors are used to drastically reduce the rock size in extractive and recycling industries (Berton, paragraph [0001]).
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 a impactor as taught by Berton, into the method of forming a wear part disclosed in Condon, thereby allowing for the drastic reduction in the rock size in extractive and recycling industries (Berton, paragraph [0001]).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2003/0213861 A1 of Condon and US 2011/0226882 A1 of Berton as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 3623849 A of Benjamin.
As to claim 2, Condon discloses where the insert rods are constructed from a hard material such as a carbide with a cobalt or nickel binder (Condon, paragraph [0048]). However, Condon 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 Condon as Condon 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, Condon discloses where the insert rods are constructed from a hard material such as a carbide with a cobalt or nickel binder (Condon, paragraph [0048]). However, Condon 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 Condon as Condon 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 2003/0213861 A1 of Condon and US 2011/0226882 A1 of Berton as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP 3374107 B1 of Olejnik.
As to claim 8, Condon discloses where a part has a portion constructed of a protective metallic composite matrix having small cemented carbide particle and impregnated with a plurality of hard material insert rods extending above the top face of the housing protecting the peripheral surface from wear (Condon, paragraph [0020]-[0021]) and 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 Condon and Berton 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 Condon and Berton, 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 of claims 2, 4, and 6-7, it is agreed that applicant’s amendments cure the previous indefiniteness issues. Therefore the rejections are withdrawn. However, see new 112(b) rejections concerning claim 1 and its dependents above.
With respect to the 103 rejection over Condon in view of Berton, applicant argues that as Condon teaches that the cemented carbide particles “flow into and fill the voids formed between the preselected pattern of the rods” and this eliminates the possibility of alternating macro-microstructure of periodic millimetric areas as recited in claim 1 and therefore the modification of Condon with Berton goes against the express disclosure of Condon (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 7, section A, first two paragraphs).
However, it is not clear how the flow of particles between the rods in Condon is incompatible with the teachings of Burton. This section of Condon is teaching that smaller sizes of carbides are chosen such that flow can occur once the proximal ends are integrally cast into the central feed body housing (Condon, paragraph [0037]). The voids at issue in this part of Condon is merely the spaces between the insert rods; Condon is not stating that there are not voids in the microstructure. Further, the instant claims are merely describing particles that are measured in a micrometric scale with areas measured in a millimetric scale that have high and low concentrations of the globular particles. There is nothing in this teaching of Condon that is contrary to this structure with differences in concentration being formed. Further, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Here Condon already discloses embedding the inserts by casting them in situ and 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]). Thus, it is obvious to combine Berton’s process of casting to produce this alternating structure in the cemented carbide disclosed in Burton.
Applicant also argues that Condon disparages prior art systems in which hard material rods may be washed out from a supporting material and thus Condon teaches the layer of closely packed cemented carbide particles and the layer of cemented carbide materials reduces the rate of rods being eroded or washed out and therefore inclusion of millimetric areas that are free of carbide particles is against the expressed disclosure of Condon and would destroy the benefits of Condon’s layer of cemented carbide (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 8, section B).
First, applicant’s use of millimetric and micrometric are not limiting in the way that applicant argues. Millimetric and micrometric merely mean that these areas or particles can be measured using millimetric or micrometric units. Micrometric particles can be 0.1 microns or 1000 microns. While applicant is claiming an alternating microstructure, there is no specific size for the globular particles nor for the areas of high concentrations or freedom from these globular particles other than they are capable of being measured in millimetric or micrometric units. Thus, there is nothing in Condon that runs contrary to the instant claims. Also, Condon is disclosing a reinforced structure that incorporates a binder metal with carbide reinforcements. As Burton teaches a method of forming a reinforced structure with carbide reinforcements, it is obvious to combine the references to reduce local stresses. The cited passages in Condon is teaching that there should be a reinforced area using carbides to hold the inserts in place. There is nothing in Condon that teaches away from there being some area that does not have carbides. Condon is not disclosing a 100% carbide structure, but is teaching a cemented carbide just as Burton is. Thus, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that the alternating structure improves the cohesion of the inserts with the ferrous alloy of the reinforced wear part (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 9, section C, 1st full paragraph). Applicant also argues that the instant invention addresses how to enhance the wear part to obtain an improved interface between inserts and matrix avoiding materials discontinuity and it is not mentioned in Condon (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 10, section C, 3rd paragraph).
In response to applicant's argument concerning the cohesion of the inserts with the ferrous alloy and improving the interface between the inserts and the matrix, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant also argues that Condon discloses using steel which has a melting point which is around 1400-1500°C which is much lower than the temperatures in the present disclosure using the SHS exothermic reaction that leads to the alternating structure of the reinforced area (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 10, section C, 1st through 2nd paragraphs).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case, this difference in temperature would be remedied by Berton which teaches a SHS process for forming a reinforcement structure.
Finally, applicant argues that as the interface between the rods of Condon and the composite matrix is not contemplated by Condon and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Condon to improve this interface (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 10, section C, last two paragraphs).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, both Condon and Burton relate to the same field of endeavor of carbide reinforced parts containing inserts. Burton teaches the benefits of a more ductile matrix in the reinforcing portion of the part where the inserts are attached. As such, Burton provides the motivation for the combination of references. A person of ordinary skill is not limited to what one reference teaches or invites; a person of ordinary skill considers the art as a whole. Thus, it is not material that Condon does not recognize a specific deficiency that needs to be addressed so long as the art as a whole, in this case Burton, teaches the missing piece and the reason for modification. Thus, a person of ordinary skill, looking at both references together, would be motivated to modify Condon with Burton to reach the instant claimed invention. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
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 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