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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 21, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 13, 15 and 18-20 are pending with claim 13 being independent. Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: "resistent" should be spelled "resistant" (line 6). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 13, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukaya et al. (JP 2004281392 A herein referring to the Google Patents November 27, 2025 machine translation), hereinafter '392 (translation provided herewith, original of record in the application) in view of Defense Metals Information Center (“Summary of the Second and Third Technical Briefings on Refractory Metal Alloy Structural Fasteners”), hereinafter Defense (copy provided herewith).
Regarding claims 13, 15, 18, ‘392 teaches a metal material of molybdenum (or a molybdenum alloy; i.e. one of ordinary skill in the art understands plain “molybdenum” to be substantially only this element, overlapping with 70% or more by weight molybdenum) with an oxide surface layer of yttria, covering at least one surface (Pg. 3 [9]; i.e. a component), with an oxide film layer thickness of 10-300 micron (Pg. 3 [11]) that can be used in a high temperature region of 1000-1850⁰C (Pg. 4 [22]; i.e. temperature resistant in this range) and to prevent a fusion adhesion of an object processed (Abstract, i.e. remain non-destructively detachable after use at high temperatures). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I)). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements. As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
‘392 does not specifically teach the component being a threaded component formed with a thread, nor detachable from a screw connection. Defense is in a similar field of endeavor of nuts and bolts of molybdenum-base alloys (Pg. 2 [2]) with coatings (Pg. 2 [5]) for high-temperature service (actual page 2 [1]). Defense teaches threaded fasteners of refractory metals for use at 2000⁰F (Pg. A-5 [1]), including molybdenum nuts and bolts that are coated, tested by torquing (together) at 2500⁰F and then separated without seizure of the mating threads (non-destructively detachable from a screw connection of the nut) (Pg. A-1 [5] to Pg. A-2 [1]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify ‘392 to incorporate the structures and usage of Defense. The motivation for doing so would have been simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I B). The prior art of ‘392 contained the product that differed from the claimed device only by the type of element claimed (including detachable from a screw connection) (finding 1). As cited above the substituted components were known in the art and the functions of the materials are known in the art (finding 2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Defense in a similar field of endeavor for substitutions available for elements coated, and the substitution of the element of Defense would have been predictable (finding 3). Both Defense and ‘392 seek to solve a problem of preventing binding of a coated molybdenum material to another material at overlapping temperature ranges, and one of ordinary skill in the art would look from ‘392 to Defense for what elements this could apply to. (‘392 teaches molybdenum with an oxide surface layer of yttria, (Pg. 3 [9]) that can be used in a high temperature region of 1000-1850⁰C (Pg. 4 [22]) and prevent a fusion adhesion of an object processed (Abstract); and Defense teaches coated molybdenum, tested by torquing (together) at 2500⁰F and then separated without seizure of the mating threads (Pg. A-1 [5] to Pg. A-2 [1]).
Regarding claim 19, ‘392 in view of Defense teaches each limitation of claim 13, as discussed above and ‘392 further teaches oxide surface layer of yttria, covering at least one entire surface (Pg. 3 [9]; i.e. a component).
Regarding claim 20, ‘392 in view of Defense teaches each limitation of claim 13, as discussed above and ‘392 further teaches the exposure of the base material is 1% or less of the unit area of the oxide film layer (Pg. 4 [24]; .i.e. up to 1% of the component is surface is not covered, this overlaps partially coated).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 13, 15 and 18-20 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE CHRISTY whose telephone number is (303)297-4363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-4pm MT.
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.
/KATHERINE A CHRISTY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784