DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 16-31 are pending. Of the pending claims, claims 16-28 are presented for examination on the merits, and claims 29-31 are withdrawn from examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/26/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final Office action on 09/15/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Previous Objection to the Drawings
The previous objection to the drawings is withdrawn in view of the replacement drawing sheet and the amendment to the specification, each filed on 12/15/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 16-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0306832 (A1) (also WO 2019/060932 (A1)) to Huber et al. (“Huber”) in view of CN 107309274 (A) to Zhang et al. (“Zhang”) (abstract and computer-generated translation in file as of 09/15/2025).
US 2020/0306832 (A1) is the U.S. pre-grant publication of PCT/AT2018/000071, which is published as WO2019/060932 (A1), and will serve as its translation. All citations to Huber in this Office action will refer to the pre-grant publication unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 16, Huber teaches a sintered molybdenum part containing greater than or equal to 99.93 wt.% molybdenum (body being formed at least party of a molybdenum-based alloy having a fraction of molybdenum ≥ 90 wt.% in a sintered state). Abstract; para. [0009], [0031]; claim 15.
Huber does not measure the thermal shock resistance of the sintered part in the manner defined by the claim (i.e., yield point at room temperature divided by the product of thermal expansion coefficient and elasticity modulus). However, it is well established that when a material is produced by a process that is identical or substantially identical to that of the claims and/or possesses a structure or composition that is identical or substantially identical to that of the claims, any claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Such a finding establishes a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness. See MPEP § 2112.01.
In the present instance, Huber teaches a process for producing a sintered molybdenum part characterized by the following steps (para. [0031], [0035], [0053]): (a) pressing of a powder mixture composed of molybdenum powder and boron- and carbon-containing powders to give a green body (para. [0032]); and (b) sintering of the green body in an atmosphere protected against oxidation for a time of at least 45 minutes at temperatures within the range of 1600-2200°C (para. [0033]) (producing a molybdenum-based alloy in a pressed-and-sintered state). This method is identical or substantially identical to the method of manufacture of the present invention (e.g., instant claim 30; specification at page 19, lines 14-25), and the material subjected to said method of manufacture is identical to the material of the present invention (e.g., instant claims 16 and 22-25 as discussed below). Thus, any claimed properties, such as thermal shock resistance, would be expected in Huber’s molybdenum part given its matching method and material composition.
Huber teaches that the molybdenum-based part is suitable for various high-performance applications due to its high melting point. Para. [0002]. High-performance applications include components of high-temperature furnaces, heat sinks, and X-ray anodes. Para. [0002]. By being utilized as a part in a furnace, Huber suggests that the part can function at high temperatures.
Huber does not does not specifically identify an application of the molybdenum part as a high-temperature forming tool comprising a body that is capable of forming a tool at high temperature.
Zhang is drawn to a hollow molybdenum-based plug for use in the production of seamless tubes (plug is a high-temperature forming tool). Abstract; para. [0002]. The production process requires that the plug be subjected to hot temperatures when shaping difficult-to-deform metals (tool body is capable of forming a tool at high temperature). Para. [0002].
Zhang teaches that molybdenum has good high-temperature hardness, high strength, stability in cold and hot fatigue environments, small thermal expansion coefficient, and long service life. Para. [0004]. Huber teaches that molybdenum has a high melting point, low coefficient of thermal expansion, and high thermal conductivity, and is suitable for various high-performance applications, such as components in high-temperature furnaces. Para. [0002]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have fabricated the plug of Zhang from the molybdenum part of Huber because the molybdenum part of Huber possesses properties that meet the high-performance properties desired by Zhang.
Regarding claims 17, 20, and 26, Huber is silent regarding the yield point at room temperature, plain-strain fracture toughness at room temperature, and mean grain aspect ratio. However, any claimed properties, such as yield point, fracture toughness, and grain aspect ratio, would be expected in Huber’s molybdenum part given that Huber’s material composition and method of manufacture matches that of the present invention, as noted above.
Regarding claim 18, Huber teaches sintering the part so that the density is 93% or greater of the theoretical density of molybdenum (para. [0017]), which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 19, Huber shows that the elongation at break of the sintered molybdenum parts exceed 8% at 20oC (room temperature). FIG. 3; para. [0030], [0048].
Regarding claim 21, Huber teaches that the transition from ductile to brittle behavior can be shifted to significantly lower temperatures in the case of sintered molybdenum parts according to the invention. Para. [0046], [0047]. Example temperatures are −10°C and 0°C (para. [0046]; FIGS. 1 and 2), which fall within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 22, Huber teaches that the sintered molybdenum part has a molybdenum content of greater than or equal to 99.93% by weight (abstract; para. [0009], [0031]; claim 15), which falls within the claimed range. The part has a boron content (B) of greater than or equal to 3 ppmw and a carbon content (C) of greater than or equal to 3 ppmw. Abstract; para. [0010], [0031]; claim 15.
Regarding claim 23, Huber teaches that the sintered molybdenum part has a molybdenum content of greater than or equal to 99.93% by weight (abstract; para. [0009], [0031]; claim 15), which falls within the claimed range. The part has a boron content (B) of greater than or equal to 3 ppmw and a carbon content (C) of greater than or equal to 3 ppmw. Abstract; para. [0010], [0031]; claim 15. The total content of carbon and boron is 15-50 ppmw. Abstract; para. [0010], [0031]; claim 15.
Regarding claim 24, Huber teaches that the part has an oxygen (O) content of 3-20 ppmw. Abstract; para. [0011], [0031]; claim 15.
Regarding claim 25, Huber teaches that the sintered molybdenum part has a molybdenum content of greater than or equal to 99.93% by weight (abstract; para. [0009], [0031]; claim 15), which falls within the claimed range. The part has a boron content (B) of greater than or equal to 3 ppmw and a carbon content (C) of greater than or equal to 3 ppmw. Abstract; para. [0010], [0031]; claim 15. The total content of carbon and boron is 15-50 ppmw. Abstract; para. [0010], [0031]; claim 15. The part has an oxygen (O) content of 3-20 ppmw. Abstract; para. [0011], [0031]; claim 15.
Regarding claim 27, Zhang teaches that the molybdenum-based plug comprises a head, a base body, an inner chamber, and an interface (body is formed wholly of said molybdenum-based alloy). Abstract; FIGS. 1 and 2; para. [0009].
Regarding claim 28, Zhang teaches a cooling pipe (4), inner cavity (13), and interface (14) (at least one facility embodied therein). Para. [0027]. Water (cooling medium) circulates into the inner cavity. Para. [0016]. The cooling slows down the softening phenomenon of the piecing plug, which reduces the piecing accident rate, improves production efficiency, improves quality and yield of the product, and realizes continuous and low-cost production. Para. [0023].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the present invention is not obvious over Huber because the present invention is not just related to a composition but also to thermal shock resistance. Applicant states that comparing composition misses the point of the present invention.
In response, Huber discloses not just a composition substantially identical to the claimed composition (see the comparison above regarding Huber and instant claims 16 and 22-25) but also a method of manufacture that is identical to the method disclosed in the present application (see comparison above regarding Huber with withdrawn instant claim 30). By subjecting identical or substantially identical materials to identical methods of manufacture, the same properties would be expected to be present in the resulting materials. Thus, although Huber does not specifically measure a property of thermal shock resistance, that property is presumed inherent in Huber’s alloys, absent evidence to the contrary. Applicant has not provided any contrary evidence showing that Huber’s method of manufacture applied to Huber’s alloy composition results in a material possessing different properties from the claimed invention.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had any incentive to consider Huber’s alloys for high-temperature forming tools because Huber shows a material with improved low-temperature mechanical properties, not high-temperature properties.
In response, an objective of Huber is producing a sintered part having increased ductility and increased strength (para. [0014]). Huber attains that objective, in part, by controlling the contents of boron, carbon, and oxygen (para. [0015], [0016]). Huber tests the performance of the sintered molybdenum parts by measuring their bending performance at and around the ductile-to-brittle temperature (para. [0046]).
Testing at or near the ductile-to-brittle temperature does not imply that the Huber seeks to optimize properties only at low temperature or that the part is to be utilized only in low-temperature environments, as Applicant appears to suggest. Huber acknowledges that molybdenum must also perform well and is suitable for applications, such as material for glass melting electrodes and for components of a high-temperature furnace (para. [0002]). These applications are not cold environments. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the Huber does not seek to limit the use of its molybdenum parts to low-temperature applications.
Applicant argues that the microalloyed molybdenum of Huber can never achieve high strength levels at high temperatures because a microalloying concept does not affect high-temperature strength. Applicant states that microalloyed molybdenum is significantly inferior to other molybdenum-based materials in terms of heat resistance.
In response, as an initial matter, the graphs provided in the remarks (e.g., page 15 of 18) are illegible and cannot be properly read and evaluated. The graphs do not match any graphs cited in Huber (US 2020/0306832 (A1)), Exhibit #1, or Exhibit #2.
Furthermore, the argument is not persuasive because the argument is not commensurate in scope with the claim. The claims do not recite any minimum required tensile strength at high temperatures. Huber explicitly states that the has high strength, good weldability, and can be used universally in various applications (para. [0006], [0019]; FIG. 4), which suggests its utility in all different types of environments.
Applicant argues that the Examiner’s conclusion relies on hindsight, as Zhang is directed only to geometrical improvements and not to improvements related to the molybdenum material.
In response, the Examiner agrees that Zhang is not cited to teach improvements related to molybdenum as a material itself. Zhang is cited for teaching that it is well known to construct plugs (high-temperature forming tools) from molybdenum-based alloys due to their high-temperature hardness, high strength, stable resistance to cold and hot fatigue, small thermal expansion coefficient, and long service life (para. [0004]). Huber teaches that the molybdenum part of their invention, which possesses increased strength, increased ductility, and good weldability, can be used universally in various applications (para. [0006]). This suggests that there are few to no limits as to where the material can be used. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select a molybdenum-based alloy that fulfills the performance criteria in Zhang as a material for use in the plug tool.
With respect to Applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As explained the preceding paragraph, the use of molybdenum-based alloys in industrial, high-temperature settings (e.g., plug for tube-forming, furnace, electrode) is well established, leading one to use molybdenum alloys, such as those of Huber, in applications satisfy the needs disclosed in Zhang.
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 VANESSA T. LUK whose telephone number is (571)270-3587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM 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, Keith D. Hendricks, can be reached at 571-272-1401. 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.
/VANESSA T. LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
February 27, 2026