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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/3/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 11/3/2025, with respect to the rejections of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Stanford Advanced Materials (“MU0088 Molybdenum Fastener”) and China Tungsten (“TZM High Temperature Fasteners”).
The objection to claim 14 for containing allowable subject matter but depending from a rejected claim is withdrawn in view of the above newly cited references.
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 12, 14, 17-18, 20, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanford (“MU0088 Molybdenum Fastener”) in view of Metalgesellschaft (GB 851208).
Regarding claims 12, 20 and 22-23, Stanford teaches a molybdenum fastener for use in devices that perform in high temperature applications (p. 1). The fastener includes screws, nuts, and bolts (p. 1), and comprises at least 99.95% molybdenum (p. 1). Since the fastener includes at most 0.05% other elements, it can be considered to consist of Mo (with inevitable impurities). Stanford does not expressly teach coating the fastener with a layer of titanium diboride.
Metalgesellschaft teaches a base material made of at least one metal such as Mo (p. 2, lines 23-51) having a titanium boride which is deposited by chemical vapor deposition (p. 2, lines 6-22 and 53-65). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a titanium boride coating, as taught by Metagesellschaft, on the molybdenum fastener of Stanford because Metalgesellschaft teaches that a titanium boride coating provides a hard, wear resistant coating having excellent sliding properties (p. 3, lines 77-125), thus providing the molybdenum fastener of Stanford with a wear resistant coating with good sliding properties. While Stanford in view of Metalgesellschaft does not expressly disclose the titanium boride layer enables the threaded component to be nondestructively released after use at temperatures above 1400°C, this is presumed to be an inherent property of a molybdenum fastener which has a titanium diboride coating thereon, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 merely further restricts the composition of the claimed component when it consists of an alloy and does not actually require the claimed component to consist of said alloy (i.e., claim 14 in independent form would recite “…the component consisting of a metal selected from the group consisting of zirconium…and an alloy of said metals, wherein said alloy comprises at least 70% by weight molybdenum”). Accordingly, the prior art is considered to read on claim 14.
Regarding claim 17, Metalgesellschaft teaches the thickness of the titanium boride layer is at least 2 µm (p. 1, lines 60-64). This overlaps the claimed range, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 18, Metalgesellschaft teaches examples of molybdenum articles whose entire surface is coated (p. 4, lines 90-121).
Claims 12, 14, 17-18, 20, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over China Tungsten (“TZM High Temperature Fasteners”).
Regarding claims 12, 14, 20 and 22-23, China Tungsten teaches a molybdenum alloy fastener for use in devices that perform in high temperature applications (p. 1). The fastener includes at least nuts, and the molybdenum alloy is one such as Ta-10W molybdenum alloy (p. 1). China Tungsten teaches the presence of a silicide coating, but does not expressly teach coating the fastener with a layer of titanium diboride.
Metalgesellschaft teaches a base material made of at least one metal such as Mo (p. 2, lines 23-51) having a titanium boride which is deposited by chemical vapor deposition (p. 2, lines 6-22 and 53-65). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a titanium boride coating, as taught by Metagesellschaft, in place of the silicide coating of China Tungsten because Metalgesellschaft teaches that a titanium boride coating provides a hard, wear resistant coating having excellent sliding properties (p. 3, lines 77-125), thus providing the molybdenum fastener of China Tungsten with a wear resistant coating with good sliding properties. While China Tungsten in view of Metalgesellschaft does not expressly disclose the titanium boride layer enables the threaded component to be nondestructively released after use at temperatures above 1400°C, this is presumed to be an inherent property of a molybdenum fastener which has a titanium diboride coating thereon, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 17, Metalgesellschaft teaches the thickness of the titanium boride layer is at least 2 µm (p. 1, lines 60-64). This overlaps the claimed range, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 18, Metalgesellschaft teaches examples of molybdenum articles whose entire surface is coated (p. 4, lines 90-121).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOBEI WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5705. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/XIAOBEI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784