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 .
Restriction Election
Applicant’s election of:
Group I, drawn to a medical device,
Species l) at least 50 wt% of one or more of niobium, tantalum, titanium, chromium, zirconium or tungsten, and further includes 1-40 wt% of one of more of aluminum, bismuth, calcium, carbon, copper, gold, hafnium, iridium, iron, lanthanum, magnesium, manganese, nickel, osmium, platinum, rare earth metals, rhodium, ruthenium, silicon, silver, technetium, tin, titanium, vanadium, yttrium, zinc, and zirconium, and further includes at least 15 awt.% rhenium,
with election of the species of chromium and hafnium, and
Species I-Biological, drawn to at least one biological agent,
in the reply filed on November 5, 2025 is acknowledged.
Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
The October 29, 2025 also required election of an implantation species as detailed on p. 7. Applicant’s November 5, 2025 response to the restriction requirement did not include election of an implantation species.
During a telephone conversation with Brian Turung on December 4, 2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Species I-Passage: a medical device for implantation in a body passageway as recited in claim 20.
Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action.
Priority
The pending application is a continuation-in-part of US App. No. 17/586,270 filed January 27, 2022 and of US App No. 18/116,677 filed March 2, 2023. The pending application also claimed priority to Provisional Applications 63/226,270 filed July 28, 2021 and 63/316,077 filed March 3, 2022.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Restriction Election filed November 5, 2025 in which the medical device is an ultimate metal alloy species of at least 50 wt% chromium, 1-40 wt% hafnium, and at least 15 awt.% rhenium was elected. Claims 2-5, 10-13, 17, and 45 are withdrawn from consideration because they recite metal alloy species that are not within the scope of the ultimate elected metal alloy species.
Claims Filing Date
November 5, 2025
Amended
2-5, 11-13
New
43-45
Cancelled
25-42
Pending
1-24, 43-45
Withdrawn
2-13, 15-19, 23-24, 45
Under Examination
1, 14, 20-22, 43, 44
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed May 8, 2024 lists US Patent Publication 2009/0068294 with a publication date of 2009-12-03 (December 3, 2009) and an applicant of Furst et al. However, US PG Pub 2009/0068294 was published 2009-03-12 (March 12, 2009) and has an applicant of Cohen. Therefore, it is unclear what reference is being cited in the IDS, and the cited reference, which does not appear to exist, was not considered.
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.
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.
Claim 14 lines 1-2 “15-60 awt.% Re and one or more metals selected from the group consisting of Cr, Ta, Nb, Ti, and Zr” renders the claim indefinite. Does claim 14 require 15-60 awt.% Re and, separately, a non-limited amount of one or more of Cr, Ta, Nb, Ti, and Zr? Alternatively, does claim 14 require 15-60 awt.% of a combination of Re and one or more of Cr, Ta, Nb, Ti, and Zr? Claim 14, in light of the ultimate metal alloy species election, will be interpreted as requiring 15-60 awt.% Re or 15-60 awt.% Re and Cr.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1, 14, 20-22, and 43-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stinson (US 2007/0044871) in view of Davidson (US 2021/0220513).
Regarding claim 1, Stinson discloses a medical device that is partially or fully formed of a metal alloy ([0001], [0022]); said metal alloy includes 1) at least 50 wt.% of chromium (30% to 90% by weight Cr) ([0009]-[0012], [0023]).
Stinson is silent to the alloy further including 1-40 wt.% of hafnium.
Davidson discloses a medical device ([0002]) including small amounts, <5%, of hafnium ([0135]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the Cr-based medical alloy of Stinson to include small amounts of less than 5 wt% Hf to assist the alloy with the ability to self-passivate and to improve chloride corrosion resistance (Davidson [0099]) and to soften the alloy (Davidson [0119]), increasing ductility (Davidson [0135]).
Stinson is silent to the alloy further including at least 15 awt.% rhenium.
Davidson discloses a medical device ([0002]) including Re ([0088]) in excess of about 25% ([0115]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the Cr-based medical alloy of Stinson to include Re because it has an exceptionally high elastic modulus (Davidson [0088]) that achieves a sufficient amount of ductility (Davidson [0113]-[0115]) and is generally non-toxic (Davidson [0095]) and offers corrosion protection (Davidson [0100]). Adding less than 5% Hf (Davidson [0135]) and an excess of about 25% rhenium (Davidson [0115]) to the alloy of Stinson (5-30 wt% Pt, 5-40 wt% Nb, 30-90 wt% Cr, [0009]) converts the rhenium wt% to an excess of about 9 awt% rhenium.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 14, Stinson in view of Davidson discloses said metal alloy includes 15-60 awt.% Re (an excess of about 25% rhenium) (Davidson [0115]) and Cr (30-90 wt% Cr) (Stinson [0009]). Adding less than 5% Hf (Davidson [0135]) and an excess of about 25% rhenium (Davidson [01115]) to the alloy of Stinson (5-30 wt% Pt, 5-40 wt% Nb, 30-90 wt% Cr, [0009]) converts the rhenium wt% to an excess of about 9 awt% rhenium and to a maximum of 85 awt.% chromium. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 20, Stinson discloses said medical device includes a) a medical device for implantation in a body passageway (guidewire, needle, catheter, intraluminal filter, staple, clip, orthopedic implant, stent) ([0011]-[0012]).
Regarding claim 21, Stinson discloses said medical device includes an expandable frame that is at least partially formed of said metal alloy (intraluminal filter, stent) ([0011]-[0112]).
Regarding claim 22, Stinson discloses wherein at least one region of said medical device includes at least one biological (therapeutic) agent ([0043]).
Regarding claim 43, Stinson discloses a medical device that is partially or fully formed of a metal alloy ([0001], [0011]-[0012], [0022]); said medical device includes an expandable frame that is formed of said metal alloy (intraluminal filter, stent) ([0011]-[0012]); said metal alloy includes 1) at least 50 wt.% of chromium (30% to 90% by weight Cr) ([0009]-[0012], [0023]).
Stinson is silent to the alloy further including 1-40 wt.% of hafnium.
Davidson discloses a medical device ([0002]) including small amounts, <5%, of hafnium ([0135]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the Cr-based medical alloy of Stinson to include small amounts of less than 5 wt% Hf to assist the alloy with the ability to self-passivate and to improve chloride corrosion resistance (Davidson [0099]) and to soften the alloy (Davidson [0119]), increasing ductility (Davidson [0135]).
Stinson is silent to the alloy further including at least 15 awt.% rhenium.
Davidson discloses a medical device ([0002]) including Re ([0088]) in excess of about 25% ([0115]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the Cr-based medical alloy of Stinson to include Re because it has an exceptionally high elastic modulus (Davidson [0088]) that achieves a sufficient amount of ductility (Davidson [0113]-[0115]) and is generally non-toxic (Davidson [0095]) and offers corrosion protection (Davidson [0100]). Adding less than 5% Hf (Davidson [0135]) and an excess of about 25% rhenium (Davidson [0115]) to the alloy of Stinson (5-30 wt% Pt, 5-40 wt% Nb, 30-90 wt% Cr, [0009]) converts the rhenium wt% to an excess of about 9 awt% rhenium.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 44, Stinson in view of Davidson discloses said metal alloy includes at least 15 atw.% Re (an excess of about 25% rhenium) (Davidson [0115]), at least 50 wt.% chromium (30-90 wt% Cr) (Stinson [0009]). Adding less than 5% Hf (Davidson [0135]) and an excess of about 25% rhenium (Davidson [01115]) to the alloy of Stinson (5-30 wt% Pt, 5-40 wt% Nb, 30-90 wt% Cr, [0009]) converts the rhenium wt% to an excess of about 9 awt% rhenium and to a maximum of 85 awt.% chromium. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 1, 14, 20-22, 43, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stinson (US 2007/0044871) in view of Davidson (US 2021/0220513) and Ro (US 2002/0129878).
Regarding claim 1, Stinson discloses a medical device that is partially or fully formed of a metal alloy ([0001], [0022]); said metal alloy includes 1) at least 50 wt.% of chromium (30% to 90% by weight Cr) ([0009]-[0012], [0023]).
Stinson is silent to the alloy further including 1-40 wt.% of hafnium.
Davidson discloses a medical device ([0002]) including small amounts, <5%, of hafnium ([0135]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the Cr-based medical alloy of Stinson to include small amounts of less than 5 wt% Hf to assist the alloy with the ability to self-passivate and to improve chloride corrosion resistance (Davidson [0099]) and to soften the alloy (Davidson [0119]), increasing ductility (Davidson [0135]).
Stinson is silent to the alloy further including at least 15 awt.% rhenium.
Ro discloses a metal alloy including at least 50 wt% chromium (Cr-base) ([0002], [0006]) and at least 15 awt.% rhenium (1 to 40 at%) ([0007], [0013], [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the Cr alloy of Stinson to include 1 to 40 at% rhenium to solid solution strengthen, suppressing diffusion, and improving the alloy’s strength, corrosion resistance, and oxidation resistance without being too expensive (Ro [0015]).
Therefore, the alloy of Stinson in view of Davidson and Ro includes 30 to 90% Cr (Stinson [0009]-[0012], [0023]), less than 5% Hf (Davidson [0135]), and 1 to 40 at% Re (Ro [0007], [0013], [0018]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 14, Stinson in view of Davidson and Ro discloses said metal alloy includes 15-60 awt.% Re (1-40 at% Re) (Ro [0007], [0013], [0018]) and Cr (30-90 wt% Cr) (Stinson [0009]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 20, Stinson discloses said medical device includes a) a medical device for implantation in a body passageway (guidewire, needle, catheter, intraluminal filter, staple, clip, orthopedic implant, stent) ([0011]-[0012]).
Regarding claim 21, Stinson discloses said medical device includes an expandable frame that is at least partially formed of said metal alloy (intraluminal filter, stent) ([0011]-[0112]).
Regarding claim 22, Stinson discloses wherein at least one region of said medical device includes at least one biological (therapeutic) agent ([0043]).
Regarding claim 43, Stinson discloses a medical device that is partially or fully formed of a metal alloy ([0001], [0011]-[0012], [0022]); said medical device includes an expandable frame that is formed of said metal alloy (intraluminal filter, stent) ([0011]-[0012]); said metal alloy includes 1) at least 50 wt.% of chromium (30% to 90% by weight Cr) ([0009]-[0012], [0023]).
Stinson is silent to the alloy further including 1-40 wt.% of hafnium.
Davidson discloses a medical device ([0002]) including small amounts, <5%, of hafnium ([0135]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the Cr-based medical alloy of Stinson to include small amounts of less than 5 wt% Hf to assist the alloy with the ability to self-passivate and to improve chloride corrosion resistance (Davidson [0099]) and to soften the alloy (Davidson [0119]), increasing ductility (Davidson [0135]).
Stinson is silent to the alloy further including at least 15 awt.% rhenium.
Ro discloses a metal alloy including at least 50 wt% chromium (Cr-base) ([0002], [0006]) and at least 15 awt.% rhenium (1 to 40 at%) ([0007], [0013], [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the Cr alloy of Stinson to include 1 to 40 at% rhenium to solid solution strengthen, suppressing diffusion, and improving the alloy’s strength, corrosion resistance, and oxidation resistance without being too expensive (Ro [0015]).
Therefore, the alloy of Stinson in view of Davidson and Ro includes 30 to 90% Cr (Stinson [0009]-[0012], [0023]), less than 5% Hf (Davidson [0135]), and 1 to 40 at% Re (Ro [0007], [0013], [0018]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 44, Stinson in view of Davidson and Ro discloses said metal alloy includes at least 15 atw.% Re (1-40 at%) (Ro [0007], [0013], [0018]), at least 50 wt.% chromium (30-90 wt% Cr) (Stinson [0009]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 1, 14, 20, 21, 43, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niwa (JP H09-95751 machine translation) in view of Esashi (JP H06-190050 machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Niwa discloses a device partially or fully formed of a metal alloy; said metal alloy includes 1) at least 50 wt.% of one or more of chromium (Cr-based where Cr is the balance, at least 80 at% (53 wt%)) and further incudes 1-40 wt.% of hafnium (5 at% (11.4 wt%) or less Hf), and further includes at least 15 awt.% rhenium (15 at% (35.6 wt%) or less Re) ([0013], [0015], [0023]-[0025]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Niwa discloses a strain gauge ([0002], [0008]).
Niwa is silent to a medical device.
Esashi discloses a medical device ([0001]) with strain gauges ([0004], [0017]) made of a Cr alloy ([0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the strain gauge of Niwa in the medical device of Esashi because it is a Cr alloy (Esashi [0018]; Niwa [0013]) that is highly sensitive and stable (Niwa [0010]) with a small temperature coefficient of resistance (Niwa [0012]-[0013]).
Regarding claim 14, Niwa discloses said metal alloy includes 15-60 awt.% Re (15 at% or less Re) and Cr (Cr balance) ([0013], [0015], [0023]-[0025]).
Regarding claim 20, Niwa in view of Esashi discloses said medical device includes a) a medical device for implantation in a body passageway (medical device inserted into a blood vessel) (Esashi [0004]).
Regarding claim 21, Niwa in view of Esashi discloses said medical device includes an expandable frame that is at least partially formed of said metal alloy (strain gauge, which reads on a frame that expands due to thermal or electrical heating) (Niwa [0002], [0008]; Esashi [0004], [0017]).
Regarding claim 43, Niwa discloses a device that is partially or fully formed of a metal alloy; said metal alloy includes 1) at least 50 wt.% of one or more of chromium (Cr-based where Cr is the balance, at least 80 at% (53 wt%)) and further incudes 1-40 wt.% of hafnium (5 at% (11.4 wt%) or less Hf), and further includes at least 15 awt.% rhenium (15 at% (35.6 wt%) or less Re) ([0013], [0015], [0023]-[0025]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Niwa discloses a device that includes an expandable frame that is formed of said metal alloy (strain gauge, which reads on a frame that expands due to thermal or electrical heating) ([0002], [0008]).
Niwa is silent to a medical device.
Esashi discloses a medical device ([0001]) with strain gauges ([0004], [0017]) made of a Cr alloy ([0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the strain gauge of Niwa in the medical device of Esashi because it is a Cr alloy (Esashi [0018]; Niwa [0013]) that is highly sensitive and stable (Niwa [0010]) with a small temperature coefficient of resistance (Niwa [0012]-[0013]).
Regarding claim 44, Niwa discloses said metal alloy includes at least 15 atw.% Re (15 at% (35.6 wt%) or less Re), at least 50 wt.% hafnium and chromium (5 at% (11.4 wt%) Hf or less and Cr-based where Cr is the balance, at least 80 at% (53 wt%)) ([0013], [0015], [0023]-[0025]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niwa (JP H09-95751 machine translation) in view of Esashi (JP H06-190050 machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roth (WO 2015-199816).
Regarding claim 22, Niwa in view of Esashi is silent to at least one region of said medical device including at least one biological agent.
Roth discloses a medical device wherein at least one region of said medical device includes at least one biological agent ([0053]-[0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the medical device of Niwa in view of Esashi to include at least one biological agent to enhance success of the medical device and/or reduce or prevent the occurrence of one or more biological problems, such as infection (Roth [0053]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 14, 20-22, 43, and 44 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-7, 30-32, 34-35, and 37 of copending Application No. 18/116,677 (US ‘677) in view of Stinson (US 2007/0044871).
US ‘677 discloses rhenium-chromium alloy B) with less than 50 wt% Re, 0.1-50 wt% Hf, and at least 25 wt% Cr (claim 1). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
US ‘677 is silent to a medical device.
Stinson discloses a medical device that is partially or fully formed of a metal alloy ([0001], [0022]); said metal alloy includes 1) at least 50 wt.% of chromium (30% to 90% by weight Cr) ([0009]-[0012], [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the rhenium-chromium alloy of US ‘677 into a medical device with physical and/or mechanical properties, such as radiopacity, MRI compatibility, hardness, strength, stiffness, elongation, and corrosion resistance (Stinson [0016]).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 14, 20-22, 43, and 44 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 18, 19, 22, 23, 26 of copending Application No. 18/222,237 (US ‘237, reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US ‘237 discloses a medical device (spinal surgery material) of at least 50 wt% of Cr, 1-40 wt% Hf, and at least 15 awt.% Re (claims 18, 19, 22, 23, 26 l)). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 14, 20-22, 43, and 44 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 23, 26-35, 37-39, 41-42, 44-49 of copending Application No. 19/401,465 (US ‘465, reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US ‘465 discloses a medical device of at least 50 wt% of Cr, 1-40 wt% Hf, and at least 15 awt.% Re (claims 23, 37, 44 B)). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 14, 20-22, 43, and 44 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 23 and 25-38 of copending Application No. 19/401,454 (US ‘454, reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US ‘454 discloses a medical device of at least 50 wt% of Cr, 1-40 wt% Hf, and at least 15 awt.% Re (claims 23 B)). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Related Art
Suzuki (JP 2001-073029 machine translation)
Suzuki discloses a high Cr heat-resistant alloy for heating furnace skids ([0001], [0008]) containing C: 0.1 to 0.6%, Si: 2.0% or less, Mn: 2.0% or less, Cr: 60 to 85%, Re: 0.1 to 5.0%, Hf 0.1 to 3.0%, and balance Fe ([0010]-[0021]).
Bhowmik (US 2013/0121823)
Bhowmik discloses a chromium alloy for use at high temperatures, such as gas turbine engine components ([0001]), with a composition of 9-12 at% Ta, 4-15 at% Si, 0-7 at% Mo, 0-7 at% Al, 0-7 at% Ti, 0-5 at% Re, 0-2 at% Ag, 0-2 at% Hf, 0-2 at% La, 0-2 at% Ce, 0-2 at% Y, and balance Cr ([0010]) with examples in Table 4 includes 80 at% Cr, 10 at% Ta, 7 at% Si, and 3 at% Re or 1 at% Hf ([0049]).
Prasad (US 5,091,148)
Prasad discloses a titanium alloy for casting of dental restorations (1:6-16, 2:5-12) including 0.01 to 5.0% rhenium (2:1-66) and 0 to 5% of a rare earth metal (2:67-68) that is suitably hafnium (3:12-13).
Van Thyne (US 4,026,730)
Van Thyne discloses an alloy with high surface hardness and useful wear resistance (4:8-11) with 55-92% columbium (niobium), 5-40% hafnium, and 2-40% rhenium (1:22 to 2:4).
Rakitsky (Rakitsky et al. Mechanical Properties of Cr-Re Alloys at High Temperature. International Symposium on Rhenium and Rhenium Alloys. February 9-13, 1997. Orlando, Florida, USA. The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society. 551-556.)
Rakitsky discloses a Cr-18at%-0.4at%Y alloy (Materials and Testing).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANI HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-12pm.
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 WALKER can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735