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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/16/2025.
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arnett et al. (US20210180169A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 6 and 10, Arnett teaches heat treatment assembly for a workpiece comprising:
First and second thermal applicators in thermal communication and which apply respective heat treatment of different temperatures to different regions in a workpiece (See claims 13 and 18) where the thermal applicators include heating elements of induction heating coils (See Claim 4); where the heating of the workpiece is configured to heat first and second ends (112 and 116) of the workpiece 102 (See Figure 3); where the thermal heat treatment is done simultaneously (in a single step process) [0027]; while the workpiece being acted upon is not taught to be a bar specifically, the exemplary workpiece of a turbomachine part as shown in figure 3 is similar to that of a bar in that under normal operation of the heat assembly, the heat assembly of the prior art is considered to be configured to operate on a bar.
The language “wherein the first and second temperatures and a rate which they are reached are determined by a model based on desired microstructure changes in the metal bar” is not considered to impart patentable weight to the apparatus claims as the apparatus under normal operation is configured to heat to first and second temperatures at given heating rates, regardless if the rates and temperatures were determined by a model (which may be a mental step separate from the structure of the apparatus).
Regarding Claim 3, the language “to achieve specific microstructure and mechanical properties” is considered intended use and does not impart patentable weight as any resulting microstructure and mechanical properties of the portions would read on the claim.
Regarding Claim 4, the limitation of a hybrid modeling-test approach is used to achieve location specific microstructures and mechanical properties, since this approach is considered a mental step, it is not considered to carry patentable weight as the prior art method and system teach a product with specific microstructures and properties.
Regarding Claim 5, the amperage is considered to be controlled which yields different temperatures in the different regions.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnett et al. (US20210180169A1).
Regarding Claim 2, the thermal applicators operate independently from each other [0005]; however the prior art is silent regarding if a power supply for each coil is shared or separate; however, as the applicators are taught to be independent, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use separate power supplies for the purpose of efficiently controlling the heating zone of each thermal applicator.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnett et al. (US20210180169A1) in view of Franchet et al. (US20180371563A1).
Regarding Claims 8-9, Arnett is silent regarding the limitaitons of claim 8-9, however Franchet teaches a heater system may be used to form a mechanical part with one region heated below the solvus temperature and the other region heated above the solvus temperature (abstract) for the purpose of forming a part with a gradated microstructure (abstract) and that the part may be a Nickel- chromium alloy such as Inco718 [0037]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the apparatus of Watanabe to be configured to heat one region above solvus and the other below solvus for the purpose of forming gradated metal parts such as Ni-Cr products with regions of differing microstructures and mechanical properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the prior art teaches the heating and temperature are controlled by a controller, but that the prior art does not teach or suggest the temperatures and heating rates are based on a model based on desired microstructure changes. This is not persuasive as the claim is directed to an apparatus, where the structural limitations are critical (apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does) (See MPEP 2114); in this case, applicant admits the prior art teaches a device with a structure that (1) heats an object to first and second temperatures and given heating rates; (2) the heating is controlled by a controller; (3) a microstructure is formed as a result. Applicant appears to argue the apparent method step of first determining the first and second temperatures and heating rates with a model should further limit the apparatus claims; this is not persuasive, the apparatus still performs the same function whether the temperatures and rates were first determined by an advanced algorithm, with a chalkboard, or mentally and whether the resulting microstructure was desired or not.
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 RICARDO D MORALES whose telephone number is (571)272-6691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9 am- 4 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, Sally Merkling can be reached at 5712726297. 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.
/RICARDO D MORALES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights