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 § 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 1, 2, 4, and 10 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. Instant Claim 1 recites a range for the temperature of the surface treatment step as being in the range of 450°C or more to 1050 °C or less. The surface treatment is either chemical vapor deposition (CVD) or physical vapor deposition (PVD). The examiner notes that dependent Claim 3 previously recited the temperature range in the claims at least filed 01/26/2026. However, the specification states CVD occurs at 100-600 °C [0055] and PVD occurs at 600-1050 °C [0056]. Therefore, Claim 1 does not support the range of greater than 600 °C for CVD or less than 600 °C for PVD.
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 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.
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]. Regarding the surface-treated layer, Yalamanchili et al teaches Al-rich AlTiN coatings [0083], which reads on TiAlN and broadly transition meal (TM) nitrides where TM is one or more transition metals [0017].
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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 10 are free from prior art rejections but are not in allowable form. Yalamanchili et al teaches coating at 100-400 °C and does not suggest a temperature in the range of 450-1050 °C as in Claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1, 2, 4, and 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 5-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the citation in the reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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
Prosecution Insights