Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/035,104

ALLOY MEMBER MANUFACTURING METHOD, ALLOY MEMBER, AND PRODUCT USING ALLOY MEMBER

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
May 02, 2023
Examiner
MCGUTHRY BANKS, TIMA MICHELE
Art Unit
1733
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Proterial Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
941 granted / 1154 resolved
+16.5% vs TC avg
Minimal +2% lift
Without
With
+1.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
65 currently pending
Career history
1219
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
40.3%
+0.3% vs TC avg
§102
19.4%
-20.6% vs TC avg
§112
33.0%
-7.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1154 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/26/2026 has been entered. Status of Claims Claims 1 and 5 are currently amended, Claims 2 and 3 are as originally filed, and Claims 4 and 6-9 are as previously presented. 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. Claims 5-9 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 5 recites a surface treated layer “consisting of a nitride, oxide, oxynitride or carbonitride selected from the group consisting of Ti, Al, Si and Cr [emphasis added].” The specification as originally filed does not support the limitation “consisting of” for either the surface treated layer (nitride, oxide, oxynitride or carbonitride) or that the metals associated with the layer (Ti, Al, Si and Cr). Claims dependent on any of the rejected claims are likewise rejected under this statute. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/031577 A, based on the machine translation, in view of Yalamanchili et al (US 2022/0220601, which is in the same patent family as WO 202234484 A1 published 11/26/2020. WO 2019/031577 A (WO ‘577) teaches a method for producing a high-entropy alloy with Co, Cr, Fe, Ni, and Ti each have 5-35 atomic % and Mo is 0-8 atomic % (abstract) using additive manufacturing (page 5). However, WO ‘577 does not teach forming a surface-treated layer as claimed. Yalamanchili et al teaches producing a coating comprising at least one PVD coating layer in a chamber comprising oxygen and nitrogen as reactive gases to form a multi-anion high-entropy alloy-oxynitride structure with magnetron sputtering (abstract). All alloy elements are present at a range of 10-40 atomic % [0016]. The coating comprises or consists of a transition metal nitride, AlN, and Si3N4 [0017]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the sputtering process of Yalamanchili et al in the process of WO ‘577, since Yalamanchili et al teaches providing an efficient, simple, fast, and cheap method for producing new high-entropy alloy coating materials that show thermal stability at high temperature [0012]. Regarding Claim 2, WO ‘577 teaches an aging treatment at 500-900 °C (page 6). Regarding Claim 3, Yalamanchili et al teaches the coating temperature is 100-400 °C [0033]. Regarding Claim 4, WO ‘577 teaches the heat source used for molding is laser light (page 3). Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO ‘577 in view of Yalamanchili et al. WO ‘577 teaches a high-entropy alloy with Co, Cr, Fe, Ni, and Ti each have 5-35 atomic % and Mo is 0-8 atomic % (abstract). However, WO ‘577 does not the alloy has a surface-treated layer consisting of a nitride, oxide, oxynitride, or carbonitride selected from the group consisting of Ti, Al, Si, and Cr or the Rockwell hardness as claimed. Regarding the surface-treated layer, Yalamanchili et al is applied as discussed above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the alloy of WO ‘577 to have the surface-treated layer as taught in Yalamanchili et al, since Yalamanchili et al teaches high-entropy alloy coating materials that show thermal stability at high temperature [0012]. Regarding the Rockwell hardness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the high-entropy alloy coating of CN ‘716 would read on the claimed Rockwell hardness, since 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, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP § 2112.01. In this case, the prior art product is substantially identical in structure and composition and produced by a similar process. Regarding Claim 6, WO ‘577 teaches selective laser melting to form a three-dimensional member using rapid solidification (page 5). Heat treatment is applied to form very small grains of 100 nm or smaller are dispersed in matrix crystals. During aging, intermetallics compound phase grows (page 6). The structure was observed with STEM. The structure had fine columnar crystals with an average particle diameter of 40 μm or less. The parent phase is an equiaxed crystal with an average particle diameter of 60 μm. Fine particles were generated in the matrix crystals (page 8). Though WO ‘577 does not specifically teach the dislocation of higher surface density as claimed, 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, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. Regarding Claim 7, WO ‘577 teaches fine particles with an average particle diameter of 100 nm or less were generated in the matrix crystals, and Ni and Ti were more concentrated than the matrix crystals (page 8). Regarding Claim 8, WO ‘577 teaches very small grains of 100 nm or smaller that are dispersed in matrix crystals before the high-entropy alloy is surface treated. Regarding Claim 9, WO ‘577 in view of Yalamanchili et al is applied as discussed above. Further, WO ‘577 teaches the alloy is used for the impeller of a fluid machine and an impeller in a centrifugal compressor (page 10). Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 103173716 B, based on the machine translation. CN 103173716 B (CN ‘716) teaches a coating comprising NiCoFeCrTi high-entropy alloy material with equimolar proportions of each metal [0022], which reads on up 25 atomic % each, and Al [0013] or Si [0015]. With radio frequency magnetron sputtering, a high-entropy nitride thin film coating is sputtered onto a cemented carbide substrate to form (NiCoFeCrTi)xAlyN, where 0 < x < 1 and 0 < y < [0028] or (NiCoFeCrTi)xSiyN, where 0 < x < 1 and 0 < y < [0034]. However, CN ‘716 does not teach the Rockwell hardness as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the high-entropy alloy coating of CN ‘716 would read on the claimed Rockwell hardness, since 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, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. In this case, the prior art produce is substantially identical in structure and composition. Regarding Claim 9, CN ‘716 is applied as discussed above. CN ‘716 further teaches the coating is used for high-speed cutting, hard cutting, dry cutting, and repeated friction and wear [0005] and for tooling and dies [0018]. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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 Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 4:00 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 D. 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. Tima M. McGuthry-Banks Primary Examiner Art Unit 1733 /TIMA M. MCGUTHRY-BANKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 02, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jul 24, 2025
Interview Requested
Aug 04, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Aug 04, 2025
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 24, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 30, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jan 26, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 29, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601024
HETEROSTRUCTURED ANTIMICROBIAL STAINLESS STEEL AND METHOD FOR SYNTHESIZING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601030
METHOD FOR PRODUCING REDUCED FORM OF METAL OXIDES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590347
PROCESS FOR MANUFACTURING COLD-ROLLED AND ANNEALED STEEL SHEET WITH A VERY HIGH STRENGTH, AND SHEET THUS PRODUCED
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590761
DIRECT FLAME PREHEATING SECTION FOR A CONTINUOUS METAL STRIP PROCESSING LINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12569897
PRODUCTION METHOD FOR GRAIN-ORIENTED ELECTRICAL STEEL SHEET, AND PRODUCTION LINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+1.9%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1154 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month