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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Responsive to the amendment filed 23 June 2026 claims 17-21 are added. Claims 1-7 and 16-20 are currently under examination.
Status of Previous Rejections
Responsive to the amendment filed 23 June 202 the rejections based on Makineni in view of Cochran are maintained. New grounds of rejection are presented.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makineni et al, Synthesis and stabilization of a new phase regime in a Mo-Si-B based alloy by laser-based additive manufacturing (document cited by applicant; hereinafter “Makineni”), in view of US 20090011266 A1 (hereinafter “Cochran”).
Regarding claim 1, Makineni teaches a method of making a Mo-Si-B alloy (see title). Makineni teaches that it is desired to form an alloy containing T2 particles (Mo5SiB2) along with a molybdenum phase (see 1. Introduction). Makineni teaches that the additive manufacturing techniques can be used to generate the material (See p. 32). Makineni teaches that the method includes melting pure Mo Si and B powders that have been milled (See 2. Experimental). Makineni teaches that the powder is deposited onto a substrate (see 2.1 Alloy formation by laser melting). Makineni teaches that the additive manufacturing machine is used to melt the powder via laser beam (2.1 Alloy formation by laser melting). Makineni teaches that this forms a molybdenum phase and intermetallic T1 and T2 (see 3.1 Identification of phases by X-ray diffraction (XRD).
Makineni does not teach that the process includes a mixture including a nitride or SiC compound. Makineni teaches that the method includes melting pure Mo Si and B powders that have been milled (See 2. Experimental).
Cochran teaches a method of forming intermetallic composited (See title). Cochran teaches a molybdenum silicon boride material (see abstract, SUMMARY). Cochran teaches that this includes the T2 phase (See [0010]-[0013] and [0028]). Cochran teaches that the method includes use of a mixed powder including silicon nitride and boron nitride with molybdenum powders by milling (see [0025]). Cochran teaches that the mixture of powders is reacted by subjecting it to a heat source (see [0025]-[0028]). Cochran teaches that this generates a composite of Mo and T2 ([0028]-[0032]). Cochran teaches that the starting nitrides generate nitrogen partial pressure which facilitates the reaction at temperature, and allows for microstructural control over the product ([0032]-[0033]).
It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan at time of filing to have used the additive manufacturing approach of Makineni, but to have altered the method as by using the starting powders of Cochran, because Cochran teaches that the starting nitrides generate nitrogen partial pressure which facilitates the reaction at temperature, and allows for microstructural control over the product ([0032]-[0033]).
Regarding claims 2-3, Makineni in view of Cochran is applied to the claim as stated above. Cochran teaches to use Si3N4 (see SUMMARY, [0032]-[0033]).
Regarding claim 4, Cochran teaches that the starting nitrides generate nitrogen partial pressure which facilitates the reaction at temperature, and allows for microstructural control over the product ([0032]-[0033]).
Regarding claim 5-7, Makineni teaches that this forms a molybdenum phase and intermetallic T1 and T2 (see 3.1 Identification of phases by X-ray diffraction (XRD)).
Cochran also teaches that the use of the nitride materials generates a composite of Mo and A15 and T2 ([0028]-[0032]).
Regarding claim 16, Makineni in view of Cochran is applied to the claim as stated above. Cochran teaches to use Mo, BN, and Si3N4 (see SUMMARY, [0032]-[0033]). Cochran teaches the T2 and A15 phases be generated from this mixture (See [00287]-[0032]). The limitations of the claim would have naturally flowed from following the suggestions of the prior art.
Regarding claim 17-19, Makineni teaches that it is known in the prior art that additional refractory elements such as Ti substitute for Mo in the intermetallic, and lend stability to the system (see abstract and I. Introduction). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to have substituted an amount of the Mo with Ti powder because Makineni teaches that this is a substitute in the intermetallic that can stabilize the material (Abstract and I Introduction).
Regarding claim 20, Cochran teaches that the method includes use of a mixed powder including silicon nitride and boron nitride with molybdenum powders by milling (see [0025]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the invention of Makineni is directed to a process to specifically generate a Mo + T1 + T2 structure. Applicant states that Cochran is instead directed to generating a A15 and T2 structure. Thus applicant argues that because the powders of Cochran are directed to forming a different phase composition to the invention of Makineni, there would have been no reason to have used the powders of Cochran in a method of Makineni, and no reasonable expectation of success.
Applicant’s arguments are carefully considered, but they are not persuasive because they are not commensurate ion scope with the prior art. The teachings of Makineni and those of Cochran are indeed correct in that the phases are different. However, Cochran teaches more broadly that the approach allows for a more precise microstructural control ([0032]-[0033]). The cited portions of Cohran at [0028]-[0032] actually describe that molybdenum silicide phases such as A15 and molybdenum boride silicide phases such as T2 are formed. Thus, Cochran envisions that the actual phases may differ slightly.
Furthermore, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). Applicant’s argument effectively is that because Makineni teaches the alloy with the Mo + T1 + T2 phases is the invention, that no modifications would be made by a skilled artisan. The reasons why modifications would be suitable are already described in the Office action, which applicant does not refute. The fact that Makineni envisions a new phase regime is not an indicia against applying teachings of Cochran.
When all of the evidence is considered as a whole, evidence of obviousness outweighs evidence against obviousness.
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 CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6510. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
CHRISTOPHER S. KESSLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights