Detailed Office Action
Notice of Pre-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
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed on 03/03/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 – 19 remain pending. Claims 1 – 8 and 11 – 19 remain withdrawn. Claims 9 – 10 are under examination. The amendment to claims 9 – 10 find support in at least page 3 of the specification.
Applicant’s updated drawings have overcome the previous objection.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 9 has overcome the rejection under 101. The rejection is withdrawn.
The previous rejections under 112(b) have been overcome.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §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 9 – 10 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.
Regarding claim 9, the composition of claim 9 is indefinite. In particular, the claim now requires at least one Group 4 of Ti and at least one of Group 10 of Ni and/or Pt to make up a basic ternary composition. This is indefinite because it does not make clear whether 3 elements are required or not.
Regarding claim 9, the composition of claim 9 is indefinite. The composition is indefinite because the claims states providing alloy powders produced by combining 4 – 6 elements of at least one Group 4, at least one Group 10, to make up a basic ternary. The claim then states with further additions of 1 up to 3 other transition metals to make a final alloy. That is, the claims do not make clear whether “a final alloy” is the same composition as “alloy powders” or whether the claim is now requiring that alloy powders with 4 to 6 elements are provided and have 1 to 3 additional elements added to them to provide a final alloy. Moreover, the claims are unclear because 4 – 6 elements would not be “ternary”.
Based on the amended claim language. The claims are now interpreted as requiring providing an alloy powder with a final alloy composition that contains 4 to 6 elements with at least one Group 4 element of Ti, with at least one Group 10 element of Ni and/or Pt, and 1 to 3 other transition metals. The Group 4 and Group 10 elements are provided in a range of 10 – 35 at%, another element is provided in an amount of 10 – 35 at% to make up the “basic ternary alloy” and the other transition metals are provided in a range of 5 – 25 at%.
Claim 10 is rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §102
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 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)(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.
Claims 9 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Badwe (US11,311,938)
Regarding claims 9 – 10, Badwe teaches powder feedstock for producing a component via metal injection molding, additive manufacturing, or hot isostatic pressing [Abstract], meeting the claimed step of forming a component by AM, MIM, or HP. Badwe teaches that the powder composition is a high entropy alloy and specifically teaches an alloy of FeCoNiCrTi, wherein the alloy meets the limitation of containing 4 – 6 elements with at least Ti as well as Ni and/or Pt [Col 2, line 32 – 33].
Wherein “FeCoNiCrTi” would indicate equiatomic because no decimals or sub-script fractions are disclosed with the elements and as such, the composition would be Fe = 20 at%, Co = 20 at%, Ni = 20 at%, Cr = 20 at%, and Ti = 20 at% [Col 6, line 10; Claim 15], which meets the claimed ranges of 10 – 35 at% for a basic ternary alloy and 5 – 25% for other transition metal elements.
The alloy powder is produced by mechanical alloying feedstock and then subjecting it to spheroidization [Claim 1], meeting the claimed limitation of claim 9 of providing an alloy powder and claim 10 of subjecting it spheroidization.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 9 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US2020/0158123)
Regarding claims 9 – 10, Chen teaches a method of producing an alloy component [Title]. Chen teaches that the alloy has a composition of Co, Cr, Ni, Fe, Ti in a range of 5 – 35 at% [Abstract], which overlaps with the claimed ranges of the “basic ternary” elements (10 – 35 at%) and the other transition metal elements (5 – 25 at%) and meets the claimed composition limitation of having at least Ti as well as Ni and/or Pt. Chen also teaches the presence of Mo from 0 to 8 at% [Abstract], which overlaps with the claimed range (5 – 25 at%) and meets the claimed composition limitation of having 4 to 6 elements.
Chen teaches that powders are producing by melting and atomization [Fig 1, 0069], meeting the claimed limitation of claim 9 of providing alloy powders and claim 10 of producing by atomization of the final alloy.
Chen teaches that the alloy powders are used in an additive manufacturing process to produce a component [Fig 1, 0077], meeting the claimed limitation step in claim 9 of producing a component via AM.
With regards to the overlapping ranges taught, “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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”, absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.05 I). "The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range." In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05 III A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the previous rejection(s) under 103 of claims 9 – 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Austin M Pollock whose telephone number is (571)272-5602. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (11 - 8 ET).
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 (571) 272-6297. 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.
/AUSTIN POLLOCK/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights