DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 4 May 2026 has been entered. Claims 23-47 remain pending in the application. Claims 31, 33, and 37 have been amended. No new claim(s) have been added. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 4 May 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2 February 2026 and 2 March 2026 were considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 37 claims that crushed nickel aluminide is ground into nickel aluminide having a smaller average particle size than the crushed nickel aluminide. While the instant specification discloses that the nickel aluminide is ground, page 18 of the specification does not provide a specific recitation of an overall “smaller average particle size” of the entire ground nickel aluminide. The previous claim language does not imply that there was a prior state of “crushed nickel aluminide”, or multiple forms of crushed nickel aluminide. The newly amended language attempts to provide for the presence of at least two separate amounts of crushed nickel aluminide, which is not specifically stated or supported in the specification.
Therefore, this additional limitation is not adequately supported.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 23, 24, 42, 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP62311 of Nishigaki.
Claim 23 claims a method for producing a cemented carbide body, comprising: combining a tungsten carbide powder and a metallic binder material comprising cobalt, nickel, and aluminum to form a powder mixture; adding nickel aluminide to the powder mixture; forming a green compact from the powder mixture; sintering the green compact at a first temperature and a first pressure; and cooling the compact to form a cemented carbide body comprising a binder phase and an intermetallic phase.
Nishigaki teaches a tungsten carbide-based hard alloy for hot-working apparatus members in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Nishigaki discloses tungsten carbide, cobalt, nickel, aluminum, and Ni-Al alloy starting powders, Para[0003],[0006]. Nishigaki also teaches compression molding of the powder mixture, Para[0021], which is equivalent to forming a green compact. Nishigaki also discloses sintering and cooling, Para[0022]. Therefore, Nishigaki anticipates all limitations of claim 23.
Claim 24 further limits claim 23 by requiring that the tungsten carbide powder and the metallic binder material are combined in a mixing process or a milling process.
Nishigaki teaches a mixing of the powdery starting material, Para[0021], and also teaches mixing under conventional conditions, Para[0024]. Therefore, Nishigaki anticipates all limitations of claim 24.
Claim 42 further limits claim 23 by further comprising adding Nb, Ti, Ta, Mo, V, Cr, or a combination thereof to the powder mixture, such that the metallic binder material further comprises the Nb, Ti, Ta, Mo, V, Cr or the combination thereof.
Nishigaki teaches Nb, Ta, and V as components in the tungsten carbide-based alloy, Para[0019]. Therefore, Nishigaki anticipates all limitations of claim 42.
Claim 43 further limits claim 42 but requiring the Nb, Ti, Ta, Mo, V, Cr or the combination thereof to be dissolved in the binder phase.
Nishigaki teaches homogeneous dispersion together with WC throughout the binder phase, Para[0019]. Therefore, Nishigaki anticipates all limitations of claim 43.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP62311 of Nishigaki in view of CN106756393 of Yang.
Claim 25 further limits claim 24 by stating that the mixing process or the milling process is a multi-stage process comprising at least a first mixing or milling step and a second mixing or milling step, and wherein the nickel aluminide is added before a final mixing or milling step.
Nishigaki teaches a tungsten carbide-based hard alloy for hot-working apparatus members in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Nishigaki does not teach multiple mixing steps with nickel aluminide being added before the final mixing or milling step.
Yang teaches a high-strength super abrasion-resistant steel in a similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Yang discloses a multi-step process where the nickel aluminide is added before the final mixing step, Para[0016-0020]. Yang teaches that the present invention is not only effective in ensuring high hardness and high fracture toughness, the cost of the alloy is more affordable, Para[0022]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the alloy disclosed in Nishigaki under the conditions taught in Yang to ensure high hardness and fracture toughness in the alloy, while saving costs. Thus, Nishigaki in view of Yang covers all limitations of claim 25.
Claim 26 further limits claim 24 by stating that the tungsten carbide powder and the metallic binder material are combined in a wet milling process.
Nishigaki teaches a tungsten carbide-based hard alloy for hot-working apparatus members in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Nishigaki does not teach a wet milling process.
Yang teaches a high-strength super abrasion-resistant steel in a similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Yang teaches a liquid grinding media involved in the disclosed milling process and that the liquid grinding media is added into the ball mill for milling, milling time 2h, ball than the ratio of 4: 1, the rate of 78%, after milling to get the mixture, Para[0031]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the alloy disclosed in Nishigaki using the wet milling process disclosed in Yang in order to obtain a mixture.
Claims 27, 32, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP62311 of Nishigaki in view of EP3369831 of Ishii.
Claim 27 further limits claim 23 by stating that at least a portion of the intermetallic phase comprises (M,Y)3(AI,X), wherein M is Ni, Y comprises Co, and X comprises W.
Nishigaki teaches a tungsten carbide-based hard alloy for hot-working apparatus members in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. While Nishigaki teaches the Ni3Al phase, Para[0005], the Co3Al phase is not specifically disclosed.
Ishii teaches a sintered compact and method for producing the same in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Ishii discloses an intermetallic compound phase of (Co, Ni)3 (Al, W, V, Ti), Para[0010]. Ishii discloses that a hardness at a high temperature of the sintered material can thus be enhanced. The intermetallic compound phase refers to a precipitated phase having excellent high-temperature strength, Para[0010]. Therefore, based on the teaching of Nishigaki and Ishii it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce an alloy with the claimed intermetallic phase in order to achieve excellent high-temperature strength and hardness. Thus, Nishigaki in view of Ishii covers all limitations of claim 27.
Claim 32 further limits claim 23 by further comprising a preparation step, the preparation step comprising combining the nickel aluminide with a milling liquid and coarse-grained tungsten carbide to form a milling mixture and mixing the milling mixture such that crushed nickel aluminide is formed from the nickel aluminide.
Nishigaki teaches a tungsten carbide-based hard alloy for hot-working apparatus members in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Nishigaki does not specifically teach crushed nickel aluminide or a milling liquid.
Ishii teaches a sintered compact and method for producing the same in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Ishi teaches that the metallic binder phase was crushed with a bead mill with the use of alumina beads having a diameter of 0.5 mm, Para[0038]. Ishi discloses a slurry, Para[0052]. Ishii teaches that the obtained slurry was dried in the atmosphere to obtain powders of the metallic binder phase, Para[0038]. Therefore, based on the teaching of Nishigaki and Ishii it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the crushed nickel aluminide with a milling liquid to obtain powders for the metallic binder phase of the alloy. Thus, Nishigaki in view of Ishii covers all limitations of claim 32.
Claim 39 further limits claim 38 by stating that the cobalt and the intermetallic phase are at least partially dissolved in each other in a melt during the liquid phase sintering process, wherein, when cooling the compact or during a thermal treatment step subsequent to the sintering process, the intermetallic phase material is formed in the binder phase, and wherein the intermetallic phase material has a structural formula of (M,Y)s(AI,X), wherein M is Ni, Y comprises Co, and X comprises tungsten.
Nishigaki teaches a tungsten carbide-based hard alloy for hot-working apparatus members in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. While Nishigaki teaches the same raw materials and teaches a Ni3Al phase, a Co is not specifically mentioned in the intermetallic phase with Al.
Ishii teaches a sintered compact and method for producing the same in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Ishii teaches an intermetallic compound phase expressed as (Co, Ni)3 (Al, W, V, Ti), Para[0011]. Ishii discloses that an expression as (Co, Ni)3 (Al, W, V, Ti) shows an optimal intermetallic compound phase, Para[0012]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the alloy disclosed in Nishigaki in view of Ishii using an intermetallic compound phase expressed as (Co, Ni)3 (Al, W, V, Ti), to achieve the optimal intermetallic compound phase. Thus, Nishigaki in view of Ishii covers all limitations of claim 39.
Claims 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP62311 of Nishigaki in view of US20170306460 of Lin.
Claim 28 further limits claim 23 by requiring that when cooling the compact, the sintered body is kept at a temperature range between 400°C and a solvus temperature of the sintered body for a period ranging from 0.25 to 24 hours.
Nishigaki teaches a tungsten carbide-based hard alloy for hot-working apparatus members in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. While Nishigaki teaches cooling in the range of 600 to 900 °C, to promote the precipitation of the intermetallic phase, Para[0022], Nishigaki does not specifically teach a temperature below a solvus temperature.
Lin teaches FCC materials of aluminum, cobalt, chromium, and nickel and products made therefrom in a similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Lin discloses that cooling the solid product to below a solvus temperature of a precipitate phase of the mixture, thereby forming a precipitate phase within the fcc solid solution structure of the solid product, wherein the mixture comprises a sufficient amount of the Al, the Co, the Cr, and the Ni to realize the precipitate phase within the fcc solid solution structure, Para[0016]. Therefore, based on the teachings of Nishigaki and Lin, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to cool the sintered body in the range between 400 °C and below the solvus temperature in order to realize the precipitate phase within the structure of the product. Thus, Nishigaki in view of Lin covers all limitations of claim 28.
Claim 30 further limits claim 23 by stating that the nickel aluminide is produced in a smelting process or added as a material produced in a melt process.
Nishigaki teaches a tungsten carbide-based hard alloy for hot-working apparatus members in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Nishigaki does not teach a smelting process or melt process.
Lin teaches FCC materials of aluminum, cobalt, chromium, and nickel and products made therefrom in a similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Lin teaches that particles of the same or different compositions may melt (e.g., rapidly melt) and then solidify (e.g., in the absence of homogenous mixing). Thus, products having a homogenous or non-homogeneous microstructure may be produced, Para[0030]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the alloy taught in Nishigaki by the melting process taught in Lin to obtain the desired microstructure. Thus, Nishigaki in view of Lin covers all limitations of claim 30.
Claims 29, 45, 46, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP62311 of Nishigaki.
Claim 29 further limits claim 23 by stating wherein the green compact comprises tungsten carbide in an amount ranging from 70 wt% to 95 wt% of the green compact, cobalt in an amount ranging from 1 wt% to 19 wt% of the green compact, and nickel aluminide in an amount ranging from 1 wt% to 28 wt% of the green compact.
Nishigaki teaches a tungsten carbide-based hard alloy for hot-working apparatus members in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Nishigaki discloses WC as the principal ingredient, corresponding substantially to the remainder of the alloy other than the above components, which preferably occupies 50% or more, especially 60% or more, of the alloy, Para[0020]. Nishigaki teaches a Co content of 2.5 to 15 wt %, Para[0012]. Nishigaki teaches a nickel aluminide in the range of 5.1-33 wt %, Para[0005]. These ranges overlap with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, Nishigaki covers all limitations of claim 29.
Claim 45 further limits claim 23 by stating that the binder phase contains 15 at% or less combined Nb, Ti, Ta, Mo, V, and Cr content.
Nishigaki teaches a tungsten carbide-based hard alloy for hot-working apparatus members in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Nishigaki teaches these components in the range of 0.1 – 2 wt %, Para[0019]. This would correspond to a range of less than 2 at%. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, Nishigaki teaches all limitations of claim 45.
Claim 46 further limits claim 23 by stating that the tungsten carbide is present in the cemented carbide material as grains having a mean particle diameter ranging from 1µm to 15µm.
Nishigaki teaches a tungsten carbide-based hard alloy for hot-working apparatus members in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Nishigaki teaches an average particle diameter of 2 to 8 µm. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, Nishigaki teaches all limitations of claim 46.
Claim 47 further limits claim 23 by stating that the binder phase comprises less than 5 wt% Fe.
Nishigaki teaches a tungsten carbide-based hard alloy for hot-working apparatus members in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Nishigaki does not teach Iron. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, Nishigaki teaches all limitations of claim 47.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP62311 of Nishigaki in view of CN106756393 of Han.
Claim 31, as currently amended, further limits claim 23 by stating that the wherein the nickel aluminide added to the powder mixture has a mean particle size of less than 70µm.
Nishigaki teaches a tungsten carbide-based hard alloy for hot-working apparatus members in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. . Nishigaki does not teach a specific particle size for the nickel aluminide.
Han teaches a high strength super abrasion resistant steel in a similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Han discloses a pre-alloy NiAl powder with particle size of less than 15 µm, Para[0016]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Han teaches that excessive coarseness will cause uneven mixing with the WC powder, or prolonged ball milling time will lead to reduced production efficiency. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the alloy disclosed in Nishigaki using nickel aluminide with a particle size disclosed in Han to achieve even mixing with the WC powder, and increased production efficiency.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP62311 of Nishigaki in view of EP3369831 of Ishii further in view of CN106756393 of Yang.
Claim 33, as currently amended, further limits claim 32 by requiring the tungsten carbide added to the powder mixture to have a mean particle size of greater than 20 µm.
Nishigaki teaches a tungsten carbide-based hard alloy for hot-working apparatus members in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Ishii teaches a sintered compact and method for producing the same in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. While Nishigaki and Ishii both teach tungsten carbides, neither of them discloses a particle size.
Yang teaches a high-strength super abrasion-resistant steel in a similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Yang discloses a WC particle size of 16 to 20 µm, Para[0012]. This borders the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, see MPEP 2144.05. Yang teaches this size in order to effectively guarantee the hardness and fracture toughness of the inner cemented carbide, Para[0013]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the powder disclosed in Nishigaki with tungsten carbide particles with a particle size of greater than 20 µm in order to effectively guarantee the hardness and fracture toughness of the cemented carbide. Thus, Nishigaki in view of Ishi further in view of Yang covers all limitations of claim 33.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP62311 of Nishigaki in view of EP3369831 of Ishii further in view of CA2662996 of Lockwood.
Claim 34 further limits claim 32 by stating that the tungsten carbide is macrocrystalline tungsten carbide, monocrystalline tungsten carbide, or a combination thereof.
Nishigaki teaches a tungsten carbide-based hard alloy for hot-working apparatus members in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Ishii teaches a sintered compact and method for producing the same in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. While Nishigaki and Ishii both teach tungsten carbides, neither of them specifically disclose macrocrystalline or monocrystalline tungsten carbide.
Lockwood teaches matrix powder for matrix body fixed cutter bits in a similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Lockwood discloses macrocrystalline tungsten carbide in the form of single crystals, Para[0006]. Single crystals are considered equivalent to monocrystalline. Lockwood teaches that the type (e.g., cast, cemented, or macrocystalline tungsten carbide), shape, and/or size of carbide particles used in the formation of a matrix bit body may affect the material properties, including, for example, fracture toughness, transverse rupture strength, and wear and erosion resistance, Para[0038]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the alloy disclosed in Nishigaki in view of Ishii with macrocrystalline or monocrystalline tungsten carbide to control the fracture toughness, transverse rupture strength, and wear and erosion resistance of the product. Thus, Nishigaki in view of Ishii further in view of Lockwood covers all limitations of claim 34.
Claims 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP62311 of Nishigaki in view of EP3369831 of Ishii further in view of US9422616 of Swingley.
Claim 36 further limits claim 32 by stating that the milling mixture comprises nickel aluminide in an amount ranging from 8 wt% to 59 wt%.
Nishigaki teaches a tungsten carbide-based hard alloy for hot-working apparatus members in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Ishii teaches a sintered compact and method for producing the same in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. While Nishigaki and Ishii both teach tungsten carbides, neither of them specifically disclose a range for nickel aluminide in the milling mixture.
Swingley teaches an abrasion-resistant weld overlay in a similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Swingley discloses nickel aluminide as a second metal particle, Para[0029]. Swingley also teaches that the second metal particle component typically constitutes between about 3% and about 20% of the material blend, Para[0027]. This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Swingley discloses that the second particle has the effect of reducing the chemical activity of chromium in the molten metal, allowing the tungsten carbide particles to remain essentially intact, Para[0028]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the alloy disclosed in Nishigaki in view of Ishii with nickel aluminide in the range disclosed in Swingley in order to allow the tungsten carbide particles to remain essentially intact. Thus, Nishigaki in view of Ishii further in view of Swingley covers all limitations of claim 36.
Claim 37, as currently amended, further limits claim 32 by further comprising a milling step subsequent to the preparation step, wherein tungsten carbide powder is added to the milling mixture until the milling mixture contains an amount of tungsten carbide ranging from 70 wt% to 95 wt%, and wherein the crushed nickel aluminide is ground into nickel aluminide having a smaller average particle size than the crushed nickel aluminide.
Nishigaki teaches a tungsten carbide-based hard alloy for hot-working apparatus members in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Ishii teaches a sintered compact and method for producing the same in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. While Nishigaki and Ishii both teach tungsten carbides, neither of them specifically disclose a range for tungsten carbide in the milling mixture or finely-crushed nickel aluminide.
Swingley teaches an abrasion-resistant weld overlay in a similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Swingley discloses that the carbide particle component typically constitutes between about 50% and about 80% of the material blend, Para[0032]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Swingley teaches this range in order to avoid an undesirable reaction between the tungsten carbide and nickel alloy in material blends comprising both powders. Such a reaction is detrimental to the alloy's wear resistance, Para[0011]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the alloy disclosed in Nishigaki in view of Ishii using an amount of tungsten carbide disclosed in Swingley to avoid the reaction that is detrimental to the wear resistance of the alloy. Thus, Nishigaki in view of Ishii further in view of Swingley covers all limitations of claim 37.
Claims 38, 41, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP62311 of Nishigaki in view of US2021138546 of Garcia.
Claim 38 further limits claim 23 by stating that the green compact is sintered at a temperature of 1350°C to 1550°C using a liquid phase sintering process.
Nishigaki teaches a tungsten carbide-based hard alloy for hot-working apparatus members in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. While Nishigaki teaches sintering, a specific temperature range is not disclosed.
Garcia teaches a cemented carbide with alternative binder in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Garcia discloses liquid phase sintering in the temperature range of 1350°C to 1550°C, Para[0052],[0053]. This is the same range claimed. Garcia teaches that the raw materials and sintering process are required to achieve a binder phase of the desired composition, Para [0043]. Said composition of binder phase contains nickel aluminide, Co, and tungsten carbide such as the claimed invention, Para[0004],[0006]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the alloy disclosed in Nishigaki with the sintering conditions disclosed in Garcia in order to obtain the desired composition of the binder phase of the alloy. Thus, Nishigaki in view of Garcia covers all limitations of claim 38.
Claim 41 further limits claim 23 by stating that the nickel aluminide is present as an intermetallic phase material.
Nishigaki teaches a tungsten carbide-based hard alloy for hot-working apparatus members in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. While Nishigaki teaches nickel aluminide, the term intermetallic phase is not specifically taught.
Garcia teaches a cemented carbide with alternative binder in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Garcia teaches nickel aluminide as the intermetallic phase material, Para[0006],[0010],[0013]. Garcia discloses that Ni3 Al is an intermetallic with high hardness and melting point, Para[0006]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the alloy disclosed in Nishigaki using nickel aluminide as an intermetallic phase material in order to achieve high hardness and melting point. Thus, Nishigaki in view of Garcia covers all limitations of claim 41.
Claim 44 further limits claim 23 by stating that a carbon content of the cemented carbide material is stoichiometric or substoichiometric, and wherein the carbon content in the cemented carbide material ranges from Cstoich (wt%) -0.003*binder content (wt%) to Cstoich (wt%) -0.012*binder content wt%.
Nishigaki teaches a tungsten carbide-based hard alloy for hot-working apparatus members in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Nishigaki does not teach a carbon content of the cemented carbide material, and does not specifically mention the terms stoichiometric or substoichiometic.
Garcia teaches a cemented carbide with alternative binder in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Garcia discloses that the cemented carbide has a substoichiometric carbon content so that eta phase is formed, Para[0020]. Garcia also discloses a total carbon content of the cemented carbide, Para [0010]. Garcia teaches that it has been discovered that by lowering the total carbon content in the cemented carbide, so that eta phase is present in the microstructure, a cemented carbide containing a hard phase (principally WC) embedded in a Ni—Al substitutional solid solution that contains y′-Ni3 Al-precipitates finely dispersed in the binder matrix can be produced. The mechanical properties of such a cemented carbide combine adequate hardness/toughness behavior by having a hard phase containing a ductile binder phase strengthened by y′-Ni3 Al-precipitates, Para[0012]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the alloy disclosed in Nishigaki with the total carbon content in the cemented carbide in the range disclosed in Garcia to obtain adequate hardness/toughness behavior. Thus, Nishigaki in view of Garcia covers all limitations of claim 44.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP62311 of Nishigaki in view of US2021138546 of Garcia further in view of EP3369831 of Ishii.
Claim 40 further limits claim 23 by stating that at least a portion of the intermetallic phase material has a maximum particle size of 1500 nm and wherein at least a portion of the intermetallic phase material has an L12 crystal structure.
Nishigaki teaches a tungsten carbide-based hard alloy for hot-working apparatus members in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Nishigaki does not teach a particle size of the intermetallic material or an L12 crystal structure.
Garcia teaches a cemented carbide with alternative binder in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Garcia teaches that by intermetallic y′-Ni3 Al-precipitate is herein meant a semi-coherent precipitate with a cubic crystal structure (space group Pm-3m), and a particle size between 10 to 1000 nm, Para[0013],[0014]. This overlaps with the claimed range for particle size. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. It is well known in the art that the L12 structure belongs to the Pm-3m space group. Garcia discloses that the mechanical properties of such a cemented carbide combine adequate hardness/toughness behavior by having a hard phase containing a ductile binder phase strengthened by y′-Ni3 Al-precipitates, Para[0012].
Ishii teaches a sintered compact and method for producing the same in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Ishii discloses that the intermetallic compound phase refers to a precipitated phase having excellent high-temperature strength characteristics such as an L12 structure (a γ' phase) represented by Ni3 Al, Para[0010]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the alloy disclosed in Nishigaki with the intermetallic phase material disclosed in Garcia and Ishii with a maxium particle size of 1500 nm and L12 crystal structure to obtain adequate hardness/toughness behavior and excellent high-temperature strength. Thus, Nishigaki in view of Garcia further in view of Ishii.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4 may 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that (remarks, pages 9-13 of 16) primary reference EP0062311 of Nishigaki does not teach nickel aluminide in the mixture prior to compaction and sintering. Applicant argues that although nickel aluminide is disclosed in the final composition of the alloy taught by Nishigaki, this does not mean that the alloy is prepared from a mixture to which Ni-Al starting powder is added. This is not found persuasive as paragraph [0006] of Nishigaki states that when Al powders or Ni-Al alloy powders are employed as starting powders as in the conventional processes, fine Al2 O3 particles are inevitably formed and dispersed in the binder phase of the sintered product, Para[0006]. Therefore, Nishigaki does in fact disclose that Ni-Al powders are conventionally used as starting powders in the powdered metallurgy process. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use nickel aluminide as a starting powder.
Additionally, Applicant argues that this disclosure of Nishigaki explicitly teaches away from Ni-Al powders. This is not found persuasive because while Nishigaki discloses that fine Al2O3 particles are formed and dispersed decreasing the properties of the final product, Para[0003], this is not teaching away from Ni-Al powder, it is merely teaching a preference. In fact, Nishigaki discloses that it is preferable to use chromium nitride (hereinafter indicated by Cr2 N) powder as Cr source, and aluminum nitride (hereinafter indicated by AlN) powder as Al source, Para[0006]. However, the teachings of Nishigaki would still allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to find the use of nickel aluminide as an obvious starting powder for this final product since Nishigaki teaches that they are conventionally used. Therefore, it is clear that the nickel aluminide powder disclosed by Nishigaki would not change the principle of operation of the prior art. Thus, the teachings of Nishigaki are sufficient to render the use of Ni-Al starting powders obvious. Therefore, the 102 and 103 rejections of the non-final action mailed on 5 February 2026 are maintained.
Furthermore, prior art reference CN106756393 of Yang, which was cited in the 103 rejection of claims 25 and 23 in the non-final rejection mailed on 5 February 2026, teaches that in the second step, the liquid grinding medium is added into the ball mill in the ZrH-2 powder, and the milling time is 1 ~ 2h and the rotational rate is 35% ~ 40%. After the milling, the mixture and Ni3Al are added, Para[0018]. Yang then teaches in Step 4, the mixed powder is pressed and then made into sintered, Para[0020]. Therefore, Yang in addition to Nishigaki, discloses adding nickel aluminide to the mixture before compaction and sintering.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JACOB BENJAMIN STILES whose telephone number is (571)272-0598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JACOB BENJAMIN STILES/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights