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 .
Response to Amendments
2. The Amendments filed October 30th, 2025 in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed 07/31/2025 are noted.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are noted.
3. Claims 1-18 remain pending in the application.
4. Claims 1-18 have been fully considered in examination.
Specification
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the metal layer" in line 5. Claim 1 recites “at least two metal layers”, establishing sufficient basis for “the at least two metal layers” thereafter. Therefore, for consistency and Examination purposes, “the metal layer” has been interpreted as --- the at least two metal layers ---
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the metal layers" in line 2. Claim 1 recites “at least two metal layers”, establishing sufficient basis for “the at least two metal layers” thereafter. Therefore, for consistency and Examination purposes, “the metal layers” has been interpreted as --- the at least two metal layers ---.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 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 7 recites the limitation(s) "wherein the single-phase silicide material is (CrMoTa)Si2" in lines 1-2, but depends from claim 1 which has been amended to require that “the single-phase high entropy silicide material comprises five or more elements in near equiatomic ratios”. The chemical formula requires three equiatomic-elements, while claim 1 requires five equiatomic elements. Applicant must amend either claim 7 or 1 to establish consistency with claim 1. For example, applicant could amend claim 1 to recite “the single-phase high entropy silicide material comprises three or more elements in near equiatomic ratios” or amend claim 7 to recite “wherein the single-phase silicide material is (CrMoTaVNb)Si2”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation(s) "Single phase high entropy (CrMoTa)Si2, comprising five or more elements in near equiatomic ratios" in lines 1-2. The chemical formula requires three equiatomic-elements, while claim 13 requires five equiatomic elements. Applicant must amend claim 13 to establish consistency with these two limitations. For example, applicant could amend claim 13 to recite "Single phase high entropy (CrMoTa)Si2, comprising three or more elements in near equiatomic ratios" or amend claim 7 to recite “Single phase high entropy (CrMoTaVNb)Si2, comprising five or more elements in near equiatomic ratios".
Claim 15 recites the limitation(s) " the ternary (CrMoTa)Si2 and the quinary (CrMoTaVNb)Si2, wherein the single-phase high entropy silicides comprise five or more elements in near equiatomic ratios" in lines 1-2. The ternary chemical formula requires three equiatomic-elements, while claim 15 requires five equiatomic elements. Applicant must amend claim 15 to establish consistency with these two limitations. For example, applicant could amend claim 15 to recite "…wherein the single-phase high entropy silicides comprise three or more elements in near equiatomic ratios ". Claims 16-18 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 15.
Claim 16 recites the limitation(s) " the ternary (CrMoTa)Si2” while claim 15 on which 16 depends has been amended to recite “wherein the single-phase high entropy silicides comprise five or more elements in near equiatomic ratios" in lines 1-2. The ternary chemical formula requires three equiatomic-elements, while claim 15 requires five equiatomic elements. Applicant must amend either claim 15 or claim 16 to establish consistency with these two limitations. For example, applicant could amend claim 15 to recite "…wherein the single-phase high entropy silicides comprise three or more elements in near equiatomic ratios ".
Claims 1, 13, 14, and 15 have been amended to recite the limitation(s) " five or more elements in near equiatomic ratios.” Because this is a requirement of the metal-silicide material, this broad phrasing raises a possible contradiction when comparing the relative number of metal atoms in the silicide material with the relative number of silicon ratios. To eliminate this indefiniteness based on the context of claims 1, 13, 14, and 15 - as well as the support provided by the instant application - " five or more elements in near equiatomic ratios” has been interpreted as "five or more metal elements in near equiatomic ratios.” Claims 2-12 and 16-18 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claims 1 and 15, respectively.
Claims 7, 13, 15, and 16 recite the chemical formulas(s) “(CrMoTa)Si2”. It is unclear whether this formula should be interpreted as three-metal-atoms-total: two-silicon-atoms or one-metal-atom-total: two-silicon-atoms. Applicant must clarify the combined metal atom ratio: silicon ratio of the silicide material in the claim language when providing this formula in order to eliminate this indefiniteness. Claims 16-18 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 15.
Claims 10, 14, 15, and 16 recite the chemical formulas(s) “(CrMoTaVNb)Si2”. It is unclear whether this formula should be interpreted as five-metal-atoms-total: two-silicon-atoms or one-metal-atom-total: two-silicon-atoms. Applicant must clarify the combined metal atom ratio: silicon ratio of the silicide material in the claim language when providing this formula in order to eliminate this indefiniteness. Claims 16-18 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Remaining references made available on the PTO-892 form (of record) are considered relevant to the present disclosure because they all feature silicide materials.
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 SEAN AYERS WINTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3308. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30 am - 7:00 pm (EST).
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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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.
/SEAN AYERS WINTERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2892 12/08/2025
/NORMAN D RICHARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights