Detailed Office Action
Notice of Pre-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
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, Claims 12 – 25 in the reply filed on 06/30/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1 – 7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/30/2025.
Claim Interpretation
The combination of “present” in combination with the claimed ranges including 0%, is interpreted as requiring the presence of the element/not including the endpoint of “0”. This is applicable for Ni, Mo, Mn, and B.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. § 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.
Claim 14 is 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.
Regarding claim 14, the elongation value range does not possess units and therefore, the metes and bounds are not clear. For purposes of examination, a unit of “%” is interpreted.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 12 requires that the heat-treated metallic part has an elongation of at least 5%. As such, claim 14 does not further limit claim 12, which it depends upon.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 20 – 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ding (CN108559996, using espacenet translation)
Regrading claims 20 and 25, Ding teaches an iron-based alloy powder for laser cladding [0036], meeting the claimed limitation of an alloy, and wherein an alloy powder for laser cladding would be capable of being used for 3D printing, meeting the claimed limitation.
Ding teaches a specific example with a composition that anticipates the claimed composition [Example 1].
Element
Claimed Invention (wt%)
Ding (mass%)
Chromium (Cr)
9 – 19%
18.5%
Nickel (Ni)
0 – 5.0%
3.5%
Molybdenum (Mo)
0 – 3.0%
0.4%
Manganese (Mn)
0 – 3.0%
0.3%
Carbon (C)
0.1 – 0.3%
0.2%
Boron (B)
0 – 1.0%
1.0%
Copper (Cu)
Up to 2.5%
0%
Tungsten (W)
Up to 7.5 wt%
0%
Vanadium (V)
Up to 3.5 wt%
0.3%
Iron (Fe)
Balance
Balance
*Shaded indicates optional
The alloy composition of Ding does not include W or V and therefore, meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 25.
Regarding claims 21 – 23, Ding teaches the invention as applied in claim 20. Ding teaches that the alloy powder when used in laser cladding attains a hardness of 45 – 55 HRC, which meets the claimed range of H1.
Ding does not explicitly teach that the alloy can form a martensitic matrix, one of the claimed borides, or the alloy’s abrasion wear resistance before or after heat – treatment when formed using 3D printing (claim 21 and 23), the tensile strength, yield strength, or elongation when formed using 3D printing (claim 22), or the hardness following heat – treatment (claim 21 or 23).
However, Ding teaches a substantially identical composition and therefore, there is a reasonable expectation to an ordinarily skilled artisan that the composition of Ding would be capable of attaining the microstructure and properties of claims 21 – 23 when formed using 3D printing (and further subjected to heat treatment).
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, in this case composition, a prima facie case of anticipation is established (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (See MPEP 2112.01)). Furthermore, products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties. (In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)) (MPEP 2112.01).
"[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962))
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 12 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuffile (US2019/0262944, cited in the IDS of 11/16/2023) in view of Woehrle (DE102018201855, using espacenet translation)
Regrading claims 12 and 16, Tuffile teaches a hard ferrous metallic alloy powder for powder bed fusion [Title], meeting the claimed limitation of a 3D printed part with iron-based alloy, meeting the claimed limitation.
Tuffile teaches the 3D printed parted/iron-based alloy has a composition of:
Element
Claimed Invention (wt%)
Tuffile (wt%)
Relationship
Reference
Chromium (Cr)
9 – 19%
10 – 19%
[0012]
Falls within
Nickel (Ni)
0 – 5.0%
0 – 5.0 wt%
[0012]
Falls within
Molybdenum (Mo)
0 – 3.0%
0.5 – 3.0%
[0012]
Falls within
Manganese (Mn)
0 – 3.0%
0 – 3.0%
[0035]
Falls within
Carbon (C)
0.1 – 0.3%
0 – 0.35%
[0012]
Overlaps
Boron (B)
0 – 1.0%
Does not teach
-
-
Copper (Cu)
Up to 2.5%
0 – 5%
[0012]
Overlaps
Tungsten (W)
Up to 7.5 wt%
Does not teach
-
Meets
Vanadium (V)
Up to 3.5 wt%
Does not teach
-
Meets
Iron (Fe)
Balance
Balance
[0012]
Meets
*Shaded indicates optional
Tuffile suggests that the component contains martensite [0050, 0054] and that the as-built part can be subjected to heat treatment to obtain particular properties including a hardness HV of 475 – 650 (~47 – 55 HRC) [0066], which falls within the claimed range of at least 40 HRC, and elongation value of 1 – 16% [0065], which overlaps with the claimed range of at least 5%.
Tuffile does not explicitly teach the presence of boron or respective borides. Tuffile suggests the presence of martensite but does not explicitly state forming a martensitic matrix. Tuffile does not teach the abrasion resistance.
Woehrle teaches material suitable for additive manufacturing and in particular iron-based alloys [0005]. Woehrle teaches that the iron-based alloy(s) contains a composition similar to Tuffile [0005] and additionally describes the addition of boron in a range of 0.5 – 2 wt% [0019], which overlaps with the claimed range. The reason for this addition, as described by Woehrle, is to provide improved wear resistance and strength as well as high long-term stability and heat resistance [0009, 0010] due to the boron forming homogenously and finely distributed borides throughout the steel [0011]. Specifically, Woehrle teaches that formation of these borides with a martensitic matrix, meeting the claimed limitation, achieves an extremely high wear resistance [0018].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have applied/combined the teachings of forming a martensitic matrix with borides in a steel alloy by adding 0.5 – 2 wt% of boron, as disclosed by Woehrle, to the steel alloy of Tuffile. Tuffile and Woehrle are directed to the same field of endeavor of additively manufactured steel alloys and both disclose similar steel alloy composition. Therefore, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in applying the teachings of Woehrle to Tuffile. Additionally, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply the teachings in order to improve wear resistance and strength as well as achieve high long-term stability and heat resistance.
While Tuffile in view of Woehrle does not explicitly teach the respective borides formed, given that Tuffile in view of Woehrle has an overlapping content of boron and a substantially identical chromium content of the claimed invention, there is a reasonable expectation that a chromium boride would be present in the additive manufactured steel alloy of Tuffile in view of Woehrle, meeting the limitation of claim 12 and 16.
Tuffile in view of Woehrle does not explicitly teach the abrasion resistance following heat treatment. However, given that Tuffile in view of Woehrle disclose an overlapping composition to the claimed range, Woehrle discloses that the presence of boron and respective borides increases wear resistance, and Tuffile in view of Woehrle discloses a substantially identical manufacturing method of powder bed fusion [Tuffile, Title], there is a reasonable expectation to an ordinarily skilled artisan that the 3D printed alloy of Tuffile in view Woehrle would be capable of achieving the abrasion resistance.
With regards to the overlapping ranges taught, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected overlapping ranges as disclosed. Selection of overlapping ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP § 2144.05 I). “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)”
Regarding claims 13 – 14, Tuffile in view of Woehrle teaches the invention as applied in claim 12. Tuffile teaches that the as-built part has a tensile strength of at least 1000 MPa [0045], a yield strength of at least 700 MPa [0046], an elongation of at least 3% [0047], and a hardness of 420 – 600 HV (~43 – 54 HRC) [0048], which all fall within the claimed range of claim 13.
Tuffile further teaches that following the heat treatment, the heat-treated part can have an elongation of 1 – 16% [0065], which overlaps with the claimed range of claim 14.
Selection of overlapping ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP § 2144.05 I)
Regarding claim 15, Tuffile in view of Woehrle teaches the invention as applied in claim 12. Tuffile teaches copper present in a range of 0 – 5% [0012], which overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 17, Tuffile in view of Woehrle teaches the invention as applied in claim 12. Tuffile does not teach the presence of W or V and therefore, meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 18, Tuffile in view of Woehrle teaches the invention as applied in claim 12. Tuffile does not teach the presence of W or V and therefore, meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitations/ranges.
Regarding claim 19, Tuffile in view of Woehrle teaches the invention as applied in claim 12. Tuffile teaches the 3D printed parted/iron-based alloy has a composition of:
Element
Claimed Invention (wt%)
Tuffile (wt%)
Relationship
Reference
Chromium (Cr)
9 – 19%
10 – 19%
[0012]
Falls within
Nickel (Ni)
0 – 3.0%
0 – 5.0 wt%
[0012]
Falls within
Molybdenum (Mo)
0.2 – 0.8%
0.5 – 3.0%
[0012]
Falls within
Manganese (Mn)
0.75 – 3.0%
0 – 3.0%
[0035]
Falls within
Carbon (C)
0.1 – 0.25%
0 – 0.35%
[0012]
Overlaps
Boron (B)
0.25 – 0.75%
Does not teach
-
-
Copper (Cu)
Up to 0.8%
0 – 5%
[0012]
Overlaps
Tungsten (W)
Up to 5.5 wt%
Does not teach
-
Meets
Vanadium (V)
Up to 2.5 wt%
Does not teach
-
Meets
Iron (Fe)
Balance
Balance
[0012]
Meets
Selection of overlapping ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP § 2144.05 I)
Regrading claim 20, Tuffile teaches a hard ferrous metallic alloy powder for powder bed fusion [Title], meeting the claimed limitation of iron-based alloy for 3D printing, meeting the claimed limitation.
Tuffile teaches the 3D printed parted/iron-based alloy has a composition of:
Element
Claimed Invention (wt%)
Tuffile (wt%)
Relationship
Reference
Chromium (Cr)
9 – 19%
10 – 19%
[0012]
Falls within
Nickel (Ni)
0 – 5.0%
0 – 5.0 wt%
[0012]
Falls within
Molybdenum (Mo)
0 – 3.0%
0.5 – 3.0%
[0012]
Falls within
Manganese (Mn)
0 – 3.0%
0 – 3.0%
[0035]
Falls within
Carbon (C)
0.1 – 0.3%
0 – 0.35%
[0012]
Overlaps
Boron (B)
0 – 1.0%
Does not teach
-
-
Copper (Cu)
Up to 2.5%
0 – 5%
[0012]
Overlaps
Tungsten (W)
Up to 7.5 wt%
Does not teach
-
Meets
Vanadium (V)
Up to 3.5 wt%
Does not teach
-
Meets
Iron (Fe)
Balance
Balance
[0012]
Meets
*Shaded indicates optional
Tuffile does not explicitly teach the presence of boron.
Woehrle teaches material suitable for additive manufacturing and in particular iron-based alloys [0005]. Woehrle teaches that the iron-based alloy(s) contains a composition similar to Tuffile [0005] and additionally describes the addition of boron in a range of 0.5 – 2 wt% [0019], which overlaps with the claimed range. The reason for this addition, as described by Woehrle, is to provide improved wear resistance and strength as well as high long-term stability and heat resistance [0009, 0010] due to the boron forming homogenously and finely distributed borides throughout the steel [0011]. Specifically, Woehrle teaches that formation of these borides with a martensitic matrix achieves an extremely high wear resistance [0018].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have added 0.5 – 2 wt% of boron, as disclosed by Woehrle, to the steel alloy of Tuffile. Tuffile and Woehrle are directed to the same field of endeavor of additively manufactured steel alloys and both disclose similar steel alloy composition. Therefore, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in applying the teachings of Woehrle to Tuffile. Additionally, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply the teachings in order to improve wear resistance and strength as well as achieve high long-term stability and heat resistance.
With regards to the overlapping ranges taught, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected overlapping ranges as disclosed. Selection of overlapping ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP § 2144.05 I). “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)”
Regarding claims 21 and 23, Tuffile in view of Woehrle teaches the invention as applied in claim 20. Tuffile further teaches that following the heat treatment, the part is capable of having an elongation of 1 – 16% [0065], which meets the claimed range of claim 23, and a hardness HV of 475 – 650 (~47 – 55 HRC) [0066], which meets the claimed range of claim 23.
Wherein the as-built part is capable of a hardness of 420 – 600 HV (~43 – 54 HRC) [0048], which is within 10 of a post-heat treatment hardness of 475 – 650 (~47 – 55 HRC) [0066].
Tuffile in view of Woehrle does not explicitly teach what abrasion wear resistance before or after heat – treatment the alloy is capable of achieving when formed using 3D printing.
However, Tuffile in view of Woehrle teaches a composition that overlaps with the claimed composition and therefore, there is a reasonable expectation to an ordinarily skilled artisan that the composition of Woehrle would be capable of achieving a post heat treatment abrasion resistance of 1.9 or less (claim 23), and an as-built abrasion resistance that is lower (claim 21). Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties. (In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)) (MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding claim 22, Tuffile in view of Woehrle teaches the invention as applied in claim 20. Tuffile discloses that the as-built component is capable of achieving a tensile strength of at least 1000 MPa [0045], a yield strength of at least 700 MPa [0046], an elongation of at least 3% [0047], and a hardness of 420 – 600 HV (~43 – 54 HRC) [0048], meeting the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 24, Tuffile in view of Woehrle teaches the invention as applied in claim 20. Tuffile teaches the iron-based alloy has a composition of:
Element
Claimed Invention (wt%)
Tuffile (wt%)
Relationship
Reference
Chromium (Cr)
9 – 19%
10 – 19%
[0012]
Falls within
Nickel (Ni)
0 – 3.0%
0 – 5.0 wt%
[0012]
Falls within
Molybdenum (Mo)
0.2 – 0.8%
0.5 – 3.0%
[0012]
Falls within
Manganese (Mn)
0.75 – 3.0%
0 – 3.0%
[0035]
Falls within
Carbon (C)
0.1 – 0.25%
0 – 0.35%
[0012]
Overlaps
Boron (B)
0.25 – 0.75%
0.5 – 2%
[0019, Woehrle]
Overlaps
Iron (Fe)
Balance
Balance
[0012]
Meets
Selection of overlapping ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP § 2144.05 I)
Regarding claim 25, Tuffile in view of Woehrle teaches the invention as applied in claim 20. Tuffile does not teach the presence of W or V and therefore, meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitations/ranges.
Claims 20 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woehrle (DE102018201855, using espacenet translation)
Regrading claim 20, Woehrle teaches material suitable for additive manufacturing and in particular iron-based alloys [0005]. Woehrle teaches the iron-based alloy has a composition of:
Element
Claimed Invention (wt%)
Woehrle (wt%)
Relationship
Reference
Chromium (Cr)
9 – 19%
13 – 20%
[0019]
Overlaps
Nickel (Ni)
0 – 5.0%
0 – 20%
[0019]
Overlaps
Molybdenum (Mo)
0 – 3.0%
0 – 10%
[0005]
Overlaps
Manganese (Mn)
0 – 3.0%
0.25 – 10%
[0019]
Overlaps
Carbon (C)
0.1 – 0.3%
0 – 0.3%
[0019]
Overlaps
Boron (B)
0 – 1.0%
0.5 – 2 wt%
[0019]
Overlaps
Copper (Cu)
Up to 2.5%
2 wt% or less
[0020]
Overlaps
Tungsten (W)
Up to 7.5 wt%
Does not teach
-
Meets
Vanadium (V)
Up to 3.5 wt%
0 – 10%
[0019]
Overlaps
Iron (Fe)
Balance
Balance
[0012]
Meets
*Shaded indicates optional
With regards to the overlapping ranges taught, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected overlapping ranges as disclosed. Selection of overlapping ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP § 2144.05 I). “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)”
Regarding claims 21 – 23, Woehrle teaches the invention as applied in claim 20. Woehrle teaches that a martensitic matrix with borides can be achieved when additively manufactured [0018].
Woehrle does not explicitly teach what boride is formed, the alloy’s abrasion wear resistance before or after heat – treatment when formed using 3D printing (claim 21 and 23), the tensile strength, yield strength, or elongation when formed using 3D printing (claim 22), or the hardness following a heat – treatment (claim 21 or 23).
However, Woehrle teaches a composition that encompasses the claimed composition and therefore, there is a reasonable expectation to an ordinarily skilled artisan that the composition of Woehrle would be capable of achieving the properties of claims 21 – 23 when formed using 3D printing (and further subjected to heat treatment). Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties. (In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)) (MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding claim 24, Woehrle teaches the invention as applied in claim 20. Woehrle teaches the iron-based alloy has a composition of:
Element
Claimed Invention (wt%)
Woehrle (wt%)
Relationship
Reference
Chromium (Cr)
9 – 19%
13 – 20%
[0019]
Overlaps
Nickel (Ni)
0 – 3.0%
0 – 20%
[0019]
Overlaps
Molybdenum (Mo)
0.2 – 0.8%
0 – 10%
[0005]
Overlaps
Manganese (Mn)
0.75 – 3.0%
0.25 – 10%
[0019]
Overlaps
Carbon (C)
0.1 – 0.25%
0 – 0.3%
[0019]
Overlaps
Boron (B)
0.25 – 0.75%
0.5 – 2 wt%
[0019]
Overlaps
Iron (Fe)
Balance
Balance
[0019]
Meets
Selection of overlapping ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP § 2144.05 I)
Regarding claim 25, Woehrle teaches the invention as applied in claim 20. Woehrle does not require the presence of W or V and therefore, meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitations/ranges.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US2021/0381087 – Tool steel for additive manufacturing with overlapping composition, tensile and yield strength
US2020/0109465 – Iron-based alloy coating by laser cladding including overlapping composition with high hardness
DE102019213030 – Producing martensitic stainless steel with overlapping composition
CN110331401 – Laser cladding material with overlapping composition (absent Cu, V, or W)
CN110306188 – Laser cladding material with overlapping composition (absent Mn)
CN105039869 – FV520B stainless with overlapping composition for remanufacturing/repairing components by laser
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Austin M Pollock whose telephone number is (571)272-5602. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (11 - 8 ET).
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/AUSTIN POLLOCK/Examiner, Art Unit 1738 /SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738