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 .
Applicant's submission filed on 2/9/26 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-5, and 7 are currently pending examination, claims 10-11, 13-18, and 20 withdrawn, and claims 2, 6, 8-9, 12, and 19 canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, and 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Poteet (US 2021/0198159; hereafter Poteet) in view of Nicolaus et al (US 2007/0026153; hereafter Nicolaus).
Claim 1: Poteet teaches a method for forming an oxidation protection system on a carbon-carbon composite structure (see, for example, abstract, [0002]), comprising:
applying a boron slurry (boron slurry) to the carbon-carbon composite structure (see, for example, Fig 3A, Fig 5, [0074] [0116]), wherein the boron slurry comprises a boron composition including a first metal boride (such as Ti, Zr, or Si boride), a first glass compound (glass compound), a first silica glass former (such as at least one oxygen reactant of silica forming component), a first glass modifier comprising a first alkaline earth metal compound (such as at least one oxygen reactant of a Mg, Ba, Sr, Ca), and a first water (water), (See, for example, [0004], [0010], [0017], [0069], [0042] [0074-80], [0087-88], [0116]);
applying a silicon slurry to the carbon-carbon composite structure, wherein the silicon slurry comprises a silicon compound comprising at least one silicon comprising refractory material (silicon compound, further SIC, silicide, silicon dioxide, Si-carbonitride, etc ), a second glass compound (glass compound), a second silica glass former (such as at least one oxygen reactant of silica forming component), a second glass modifier comprising a first alkaline earth metal compound (such as at least one oxygen reactant of a Mg, Ba, Sr, Ca), an oxygen inhibitor comprising a second metal boride (such as portion of the metal boride wherein a portion of the entirety of the boron slurry or the composite boron-silicon slurry could additionally be interpreted as reading on the silicon slurry as presently claimed; with the balance reading on the claimed boron slurry), and a second water (See, for example, Fig 3, 5 [0004], [0010], [0017], [0039], [0042], [0059], [0074-80], [0087], [0092-93], [0116], [0140]).
and heating the carbon-carbon composite structure (see, for example, Fig 3,5, [0084-0085], [0135-0137]).
Poteet has taught wherein the boron composition comprises a first metal boride, such as Ti, Zr, and Si borides, and further wherein such boride materials are relied upon for reaction with oxygen leading to production of self healing glass formation to help seal cracks (See, for example, [0010], [0039], [0065]); but it does not explicitly teach one of the claimed metal borides. Nicolaus is directed to a method of improving the high temperature oxidation resistance of carbon comprising composites (See, for example, abstract, [0001-0002])). Nicolaus similarly teaches wherein glass forming, self-healing precursors are utilized to achieve the improved protection (See, for example, abstract, [0011], [0014], [0034], [0037], [0051]). Like Poteet, Nicolaus has recognized the ability of a boron compound, further borides of TI, V, Zr, and Hf, as such borides oxidize at the high temperatures and enable self healing within the coating to be maintained (See, for example, [0019], [0051]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated wherein the metal boride comprises HfB2 as it is well known in the art as a metal boride that achieves the desired result of facilitating the formation a high temperature oxidation protective self healing , sealing glass, and since where two known alternatives are interchangeable for a desired function, an express suggestion to substitute one for the other is not needed to render a substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297,301 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 568 (CCPA 1967).
Although no exemplary embodiment has been taught by Poteet with distinct combinations of species of the first glass former, first glass modifier, second glass former, a second glass modifier, and oxygen inhibitor, Poteet has taught selection of “at least one” oxygen reactant which comprises species that read upon recited genera (refer to 102 rejection above). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a plurality of oxygen reactants that read upon first glass former, first glass modifier, second glass former, a second glass modifier, and oxygen inhibitor since a reasonable expectation of success exists from choosing the specific taught species from explicitly taught lists. Further when the species is clearly named, the species claim is anticipated (rendered obvious) no matter how many other species are additionally named. Ex parte A 17 USPQ2d 1716 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990).
Claim 3: Poteet further teaches wherein the first metal boride comprises 100% by weight of the boron composition. (see, for example, [0010], [0069]; wherein a singular metal boride is interpreted as the boron composition).
Claim 4: Poteet further teaches wherein the boron composition further comprises at least one of boron carbide and boron nitride (see, for example, [0010], [0069]).
Claim 5: Poteet further teaches wherein the first metal boride comprises between 25% and 100% by weight of the boron composition (see, for example, [0010], [0069]; wherein a portion of the first metal boride and boron carbide / nitride that satisfies the claimed condition is interpreted as “the boron composition”, and any remaining as an additional component).
Alternatively, Poteet teaches the boron composition comprises at least of metal borides and boron carbide or nitride and wherein the amount of boron component influences the protective properties and stability (See, for example, [0010], [0041], [0065], [0069], [0087]), but is does not provide an exemplary embodiment wherein the first metal boride comprises between 25% and 100% by weight of the boron composition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated such a concentration within the claimed range since generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical.(MPEP 2144.05 II A), and“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poteet in view of Nicolaus as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mazany (US 2016/0280612; hereafter Mazany).
Claim 7: Poteet in view of Nicolaus teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the boron slurry further comprises a third glass compound that forms a glass mixture with the first glass compound, wherein the third glass compound has a viscosity-temperature profile from 677C to 899C that is at least 2 orders of magnitude more than the first glass compound. Mazany teaches a method of forming oxidation protection systems on C-C composites (See, for example, abstract). Mazany further teaches wherein its protection systems similarly comprise a first glass compound, glass formers, glass modifiers and a carrier fluid (See, for example, [0023-0026]). Mazany further teaches wherein adding a second glass compound to the first glass compound wherein the second glass compound possesses a transition temperature more than 100oC higher than the first glass compound transition temperature offers improved oxidation protection as it provides enhanced resistance to migration at high temperatures, reducing oxidation damage to the C-C composite structure (see, for example, [0003], [0032], [0035]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated adding a second glass compound to the first glass compound wherein the second glass compound possesses a transition temperature more than 100oC higher than the first glass compound transition temperature as it would predictably provide enhanced resistance to migration at high temperatures, reducing oxidation damage to the C-C composite structure. As the transition temperature is associated with a glasses temperature at which it begins to transition into a viscous state, requiring such a difference in transition temperature would correlate to the two glasses possessing significantly different viscosity – temperature profiles inclusive of temperatures spanning 677C to 899C. Although the second glass compound possessing a transition temperature more than 100oC higher than the first glass compound transition temperature is not explicitly possessing a viscosity-temperature profile from 677-899C that is at least 2 orders of magnitude more than the first glass compound, the open ended “more than 100oC higher” would overlap scenarios wherein it was; therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a second glass compound possessing a viscosity-temperature profile measured between 677C and 899C that is at least 2 orders of magnitude more than the first glass compound, since in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diss et al (US 2011/0311804; hereafter Diss) in view of Nicolaus.
Claim 1: Diss teaches a method for forming an oxidation protection system on a carbon-carbon composite structure (see, for example, abstract, [0001-0002]), comprising:
applying a boron slurry (composition for first layer) to the carbon-carbon composite structure (see, for example, Fig 1, abstract, [0041-0050], wherein the boron slurry (such as first slurry layer) comprises a boron composition including a first metal boride (TIB2, ZrB2, etc), a first glass compound (such as borosilicate glass), a first silica glass former (such as silica), a first glass modifier comprising a first alkaline earth metal compound (such as at least oxides of Mg, Ca, Ba), and a first carrier fluid (water), (See, for example, abstract, Fig [0041-0050], [0067]);
applying a silicon slurry (composition for application of second layer) to the carbon-carbon composite structure, wherein the silicon slurry comprises a silicon compound comprising at least one silicon comprising refractory material (such as a portion of the silica), a second glass compound (such as borosilicate glass), a second silica glass former (such as portion of the silica), a second glass modifier comprising a second alkaline earth metal compound (such as at least oxides of Mg, Ca, Ba), an oxygen inhibitor that comprises a second metal boride (such as metal diboride), and a second water (See, for example, abstract, Fig, [0041-0051], [0067]; application is explicitly taught in successive layers, thus each layer composition is interpreted as a distinct slurry);
and heating the carbon-carbon composite structure (see, for example, [0055]).
Diss has taught wherein the boron composition comprises a first metal boride, further “TiB2, ZrB2, etc”, and further wherein such boride materials are relied upon for production of self healing glass formation (See, for example, [0017], [0023], [0044], [0060-0062]); but it is silent as to the additional “etc” borides, so it does not explicitly teach one of the claimed metal borides. Nicolaus is directed to a method of improving the high temperature oxidation resistance of carbon comprising composites (See, for example, abstract, [0001-0002])). Nicolaus similarly teaches wherein glass forming, self-healing precursors are utilized to achieve the improved protection (See, for example, abstract, [0011], [0014], [0034], [0037], [0051]). Like Diss, Nicolaus has recognized the ability of a boron compound, further borides of TI, V, Zr, and Hf, as such borides oxidize at the high temperatures and enable self healing within the coating to be maintained (See, for example, [0019], [0051]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated wherein the metal boride comprises HfB2 as it is well known in the art as a metal boride that achieves the desired result of facilitating the formation a high temperature oxidation protective self healing , sealing glass, and since where two known alternatives are interchangeable for a desired function, an express suggestion to substitute one for the other is not needed to render a substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297,301 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 568 (CCPA 1967).
Claim 3: Diss further teaches wherein the first metal boride comprises 100% by weight of the boron composition. (see, for example, [0044]; wherein a singular metal boride (HfB2) is interpreted as the boron composition).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diss in view of Nicolaus as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Poteet.
Claim 4: Diss in view or Nicolaus teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the boron composition further comprises boron carbide or nitride. Poteet teaches a method of forming an oxidation protection system on a carbon-carbon composite (see, rejections of claim 1 over Poteet in view of Nicolaus above). Poteet further teaches the slurry applied can similarly comprise a boron composition and further teaches wherein the boron composition can predictably include at least one of metal borides, boron carbide, and boron nitride (see, for example, [0007], [0010]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further incorporated boron carbide and / or boron nitride as a component of the boron composition since such combinations are known in the art to serve as suitable boron compositions for oxidation protection systems and since “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 5: Diss in view of Nicolaus and Poteet further teaches wherein the first metal boride comprises between 25% and 100% by weight of the boron composition (see, for example, [0007 and [0010] of Poteet; wherein a portion of the first metal boride and boron carbide / nitride that satisfies the claimed condition is interpreted as “the boron composition”, and any remaining as an additional component.
Alternatively, Poteet teaches the boron composition comprises at least of metal borides and boron carbide or nitride and wherein the amount of boron component influences the protective properties and stability (See, for example, [0010], [0041], [0065], [0069], [0087]), but is does not provide an exemplary embodiment wherein the first metal boride comprises between 25% and 100% by weight of the boron composition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated such a concentration within the claimed range since generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical.(MPEP 2144.05 II A), and“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diss in view of Nicolaus as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mazany.
Claim 7: Diss teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the boron slurry further comprises a third glass compound that forms a glass mixture with the first glass compound, wherein the third glass compound has a viscosity-temperature profile from 677C to 899C that is at least 2 orders of magnitude more than the first glass compound. Mazany teaches a method of forming oxidation protection systems on C-C composites (See, for example, abstract). Mazany further teaches wherein its protection systems similarly comprise a first glass compound, glass formers, glass modifiers and a carrier fluid (See, for example, [0023-0026]). Mazany further teaches wherein adding a second glass compound to the first glass compound wherein the second glass compound possesses a transition temperature more than 100oC higher than the first glass compound transition temperature offers improved oxidation protection as it provides enhanced resistance to migration at high temperatures, reducing oxidation damage to the C-C composite structure (see, for example, [0003], [0032], [0035]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated adding a second glass compound to the first glass compound wherein the second glass compound possesses a transition temperature more than 100oC higher than the first glass compound transition temperature as it would predictably provide enhanced resistance to migration at high temperatures, reducing oxidation damage to the C-C composite structure. As the transition temperature is associated with a glasses temperature at which it begins to transition into a viscous state, requiring such a difference in transition temperature would correlate to the two glasses possessing significantly different viscosity – temperature profiles. Although the second glass compound possessing a transition temperature more than 100oC higher than the first glass compound transition temperature is not explicitly possessing a viscosity-temperature profile from 677C to 899 C that is at least 2 orders of magnitude more than the first glass compound, the open ended “more than 100oC higher” would overlap scenarios wherein it was; therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a second glass compound possessing a viscosity-temperature profile measured from 677oC to 899oC that is at least 2 orders of magnitude more than the first glass compound, since in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
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, and 3- 5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6, 15-16, 19, and 21-26 of copending US Application No. 17/671361. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1: claims 1-4, 6, 15-16, 19, and 21-26 of copending Application No. 17/671361 teach a method for forming an oxidation protection system on a carbon-carbon composite structure (see, for example, claim 1 and 15), comprising:
applying a boron slurry (boron slurry) to the carbon-carbon composite structure, wherein the boron slurry comprises a boron composition including a first metal boride (such as Ca, and Mg boride), a first glass compound (first glass compound), a first silica glass former (first glass former, silica), a first glass modifier comprising a first alkaline earth metal compound (first glass modifier, further comprising borides, carbonates, oxides, of Mg), and a first carrier fluid (first carrier fluid, further water at least present in the colloidal silica), (See, for example, claims 1, 3, 15 and 19);
applying a silicon slurry to the carbon-carbon composite structure, wherein the silicon slurry comprises a silicon compound comprising at least silicon comprising refractory material (silicon compound, silica), a second glass compound (second glass compound), a second silica glass former (second glass former, further silica), a second glass modifier comprising a second alkaline earth metal compound, such as comprising borides, carbonates, oxides, of Mg, an oxygen inhibitor (such a portion of the glass modifier such as metal borides), and a second carrier fluid (second carrier fluid, further water at least present in the colloidal silica) (See, for example, claims 1, 3, 15 and 19)
and heating the carbon-carbon composite structure (see, for example, claims 1 and 15).
Claim 3: claims 1-4, 6, 15-16, 19, and 21-26 of copending Application No. 17/671361 further teaches wherein the first metal boride comprises 100% by weight of the boron composition. (see, for example, claim 3 and 19; wherein a portion of Mg boride is interpreted completely and exclusively as the claimed “boron composition”.
Claim 4: claims 1-4, 6, 15-16, 19, and 21-26 of copending Application No. 17/671361 further teaches wherein the boron composition further comprises at least one of boron carbide and boron nitride (see, for example, claim 6)
Claim 5: claims 1-4, 6, 15-16, 19, and 21-26 of copending Application No. 17/671361 further teaches wherein the first metal boride comprises between 25% and 100% by weight of the boron composition (see, for example, claims 1, 3, and 6; wherein an portion of the first metal boride and boron carbide / nitride that satisfies the claimed condition is interpreted as “the boron composition”, and any remaining as an additional component).
Alternatively, although claims 1-4, 6, 15-16, 19, and 21-26 of copending Application No. 17/671361 does not provide an exemplary embodiment wherein the first metal boride comprises between 25% and 100% by weight of the boron composition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated such a concentration within the claimed range since generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical.(MPEP 2144.05 II A), and“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 1, and 3-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,319,622. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1: claims 7-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,319,622 teach a method for forming an oxidation protection system on a carbon-carbon composite structure (see, for example, claim 7 and 15), comprising:
applying a boron slurry (boron slurry) to the carbon-carbon composite structure, wherein the boron slurry comprises a boron composition including a first metal boride (such as Ca, Mg, boride), a first glass compound (first glass compound), a first silica glass former (first glass former, further silica), a first glass modifier comprising a first alkaline earth metal compound (first glass modifier, further a boride, oxide, carbonate oxide of Mg), and a first carrier fluid (first carrier fluid, further water at least present in the colloidal silica), (See, for example, claims 7, 9, 15 and 19);
applying a silicon slurry to the carbon-carbon composite structure, wherein the silicon slurry comprises a silicon compound comprising at least one silicon comprising refractory material (silicon compound, further silica), a second glass compound (second glass compound), a second silica glass former (second glass former, further silica), a second glass modifier comprising a second alkaline earth metal compound (second glass modifier, further a boride, oxide, carbonate oxide of Ca, Mg), an oxygen inhibitor (such a portion of the second glass modifier such as metal borides), and a second carrier fluid of water (second carrier fluid, further water at least present in colloidal silica) (See, for example, claims 7, 9, 15 and 19)
and heating the carbon-carbon composite structure (see, for example, claims 7 and 15)
Claim 3: claims 7-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,319,622 further teaches wherein the first metal boride comprises 100% by weight of the boron composition. (see, for example, claim 9 and 19; wherein a portion of Mg boride is interpreted completely and exclusively as the claimed “boron composition”.
Claim 4: claims 7-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,319,622 further teaches wherein the boron composition further comprises at least one of boron carbide and boron nitride (see, for example, claim 6)
Claim 5: claims 7-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,319,622 further teaches wherein the first metal boride comprises between 25% and 100% by weight of the boron composition (see, for example, claims 7, 9, 15 and 19; wherein an portion of the first metal boride and boron carbide / nitride that satisfies the claimed condition is interpreted as “the boron composition”, and any remaining as an additional component).
Alternatively, although claims 7-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,319,622 do not provide an exemplary embodiment wherein the first metal boride comprises between 25% and 100% by weight of the boron composition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated such a concentration within the claimed range since generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical.(MPEP 2144.05 II A), and“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments that Luthra’s teaching of calcium boride does not teach the amended claims wherein calcium boride has been removed, filed 2/9/26, with respect to the examiners reliance upon secondary reference Luthra in combination with Poteet and Diss (separately) in the previous art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the art rejections relying upon Luthra has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nicolaus as a secondary reference teaching remaining species HfB2, in place of Luthra, as described in the rejections above.
Applicant’s amendments to claims does not overcome the previously applied non-statutory Double Patenting rejections and provisional non-statutory Double patenting rejections; therefore these rejections have been maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN H EMPIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30AM - 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/NATHAN H EMPIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712