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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: With regard to the content of rhenium and only rhenium “awt. %” is used and the meaning of this is not specified.
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 25-38 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.
In regard to claims 25 and 32, the term “awt.% rhenium” is used whereas the rest of the time “wt.%” is used and it is unclear if Applicant intends a different unit for the rhenium relative to the other elements or the same unit for rhenium relative to the other elements.
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 25-28 and 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czech (US 5,939,204).
In regard to claims 25 and 32, Czech (‘204) discloses iron, cobalt and/or nickel based alloys comprising 0 to 20 weight percent rhenium and 10 to 40 weight percent chromium, which overlap the ranges of the instant invention, thereby establishing prima facie evidence of obviousness (column 4). MPEP 2144.05 I.
In regard to claims 26 and 33, Czech (‘204) discloses 0 to 20 weight percent, which is less than 35 weight percent as claimed (column 4).
In regard to claims 27 and 34, Czech (‘204) discloses 0 to 20 weight percent, which is less than 25 weight percent as claimed (column 4).
With respect to the recitation “wherein said metal alloy has a) an increase of at least 10% in ductility as compared to said metal alloy that is absent rhenium, and/or b) an increase of at least 10% in tensile strength as compared to said metal alloy that is absent rhenium” in claims 28 and 35, Czech (‘204) discloses substantially similar compositions. Therefore, the claimed properties would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29-31 and 36-38 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regard to claims 29-31 and 36-38, Czech (‘204) teaches wherein the alloys would be applicable to heat resistant and corrosion resistant articles for transporting a hot, oxidizing gas (column 1) and thus teaches away from applying the alloys to medical implants and therefore these claims would distinguish from Czech (‘204).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Furst et al. (WO ‘282) discloses molybdenum-rhenium alloys for stents (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessee Roe whose telephone number is (571)272-5938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7:30 am to 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, 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.
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759