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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 22, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13 and 17-21 are pending wherein claims 1, 8, 10, 13 and 18 are amended, claims 2-4, 7, 11 and 14-16 are canceled and claim 21 is new.
Status of Previous Rejections
The previous rejection of claims 1, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshinari et al. (EP 0 637 476 A1) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment to claims 1, 10 and 13.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“4% to 4.0% niobium” is not a valid range. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barker et al. (US 3,576,681).
In regard to claims 1 and 10, Barker et al. (‘681) discloses nickel base alloys that would be used to make gas turbine components (hot gas path components) having compositions relative to that of the instant invention as set forth below (column 1, lines 20-50 and column 3).
Element
Instant Claim
(weight percent)
Barker et al. (‘681)
(weight percent)
Overlap
Cr
13.7 – 14.3
13 – 16
13.7 – 14.3
Co
9 – 9.9
5 – 16
9 – 9.9
Al
4.25 – 5.3
3 – 4
-
Ti
0.5 – 3
2 – 3
2 – 3
W
3.5 – 5
3 – 5
3.5 – 5
Mo
1.4 – 4
3 – 5
3 – 4
Nb
4 – 4.2
3 – 5
3.25 – 4.2
C
0.08 – 0.12
0.1 – 0.2
0.1 – 0.12
Zr
0.005 – 0.04
0.01 – 0.1
0.01 – 0.04
B
0.01 – 0.014
0.01 – 0.02
0.01 – 0.014
Ni
Balance
Balance
Balance
The Examiner notes that the amounts of chromium, cobalt, titanium, tungsten, molybdenum, niobium, carbon, zirconium and boron for the nickel base alloys disclosed by Barker et al. (‘681) overlap the amounts of the instant invention, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to select the claimed amounts of chromium, cobalt, titanium, tungsten, molybdenum, niobium, carbon, zirconium and boron from the amounts disclosed by Barker et al. (‘681) because Barker et al. (‘681) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
With respect to the claimed range of aluminum, the Examiner notes that 4 weight percent aluminum, as disclosed by Barker et al. (‘681) would be close enough to 4 weight percent aluminum to establish prima facie obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. Alternatively, Barker et al. (‘681) identifies aluminum and titanium as strengthening elements based on the aluminum concentration as result effective in stabilizing the cubic structure and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to modify the aluminum content as a result-effective variable in terms of strength and cubic structure stabilization (column 2). MPEP 2144.05 II.
In regard to claim 5, Barker et al. (‘681) discloses 2 to 3 weight percent titanium, which overlaps the ranges of the instant invention (column 3). MPEP 2144.05 I.
In regard to claim 6, Barker et al. (‘681) discloses 3 to 5 weight percent tungsten, which encompasses the range of the instant invention.
In regard to claim 8, Barker et al. (‘681) discloses nickel base alloys having compositions relative to that of the instant invention as set forth below (column 1, lines 20-50 and column 3).
Element
Instant Claim
(weight percent)
Barker et al. (‘681)
(weight percent)
Overlap
Cr
13.9 – 14.1
13 – 16
13.9 – 14.1
Co
9.25 – 9.75
5 – 16
9.25 – 9.75
Al
4.25 – 5.3
3 – 4
-
Ti
1 – 2
2 – 3
2
W
3.75 – 4.9
3 – 5
3.75 – 4.9
Mo
1.5 – 3
3 – 5
3
Nb
4
3 – 5
4
C
0.09 – 0.11
0.1 – 0.2
0.1 – 0.11
Zr
0.01 – 0.03
0.01 – 0.1
0.01
B
0.011 – 0.013
0.01 – 0.02
0.011 – 0.013
Ni
Balance
Balance
Balance
The Examiner notes that the amounts of chromium, cobalt, titanium, tungsten, molybdenum, carbon, zirconium and boron for the nickel base alloys disclosed by Barker et al. (‘681) overlap the amounts of the instant invention, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to select the claimed amounts of chromium, cobalt, titanium, tungsten, molybdenum, carbon, zirconium and boron from the amounts disclosed by Barker et al. (‘681) because Barker et al. (‘681) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
With respect to the claimed range of aluminum in claim 8, Barker et al. (‘681) discloses 3 to 4 weight percent aluminum, which would be close enough to the claimed 4.25 weight percent aluminum to establish prima facie obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. Alternatively, Barker et al. (‘681) identifies aluminum and titanium as strengthening elements based on the aluminum concentration as result effective in stabilizing the cubic structure and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to modify the aluminum content as a result-effective variable in terms of strength and cubic structure stabilization (column 2). MPEP 2144.05 II.
In regard to claims 9 and 12, Barker et al. (‘681) discloses a titanium range of 2 to 3 weight percent. Thus, the range of aluminum based on this range of titanium would be 4 ± 0.05 to 4.5 ± 0.05 or 3.95 to 4.55, which would overlap or would be close enough to the range of aluminum in the instant invention. MPEP 2144.05 I.
In regard to claims 13 and 20, Barker et al. (‘681) discloses a method of forming nickel base alloys that would be used to make gas turbine components (hot gas path components) including casting and heat treating having compositions relative to that of the instant invention as set forth below (column 1, lines 20-50 and column 3).
Element
Instant Claim
(weight percent)
Barker et al. (‘681)
(weight percent)
Overlap
Cr
13.7 – 14.3
13 – 16
13.7 – 14
Co
9 – 9.9
5 – 16
9 – 9.9
Al
4.25 – 5.3
3 – 4
-
Ti
0.5 – 3
2 – 3
2 – 3
W
3.5 – 5
3 – 5
3.5 – 5
Mo
1.4 – 4
3 – 5
3 – 4
Nb
4 – 4.2
3 – 5
4 – 4.2
C
0.08 – 0.12
0.1 – 0.2
0.1 – 0.12
Zr
0.005 – 0.04
0.01 – 0.1
0.01 – 0.04
B
0.01 – 0.014
0.01 – 0.02
0.01 – 0.014
Ni
Balance
Balance
Balance
The Examiner notes that the amounts of chromium, cobalt, titanium, tungsten, molybdenum, niobium, carbon, zirconium and boron for the nickel base alloys disclosed by Barker et al. (‘681) overlap the amounts of the instant invention, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to select the claimed amounts of chromium, cobalt, titanium, tungsten, molybdenum, niobium, carbon, zirconium and boron from the amounts disclosed by Barker et al. (‘681) because Barker et al. (‘681) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
With respect to the claimed range of aluminum in claim 13, Barker et al. (‘681) discloses 3 to 4 weight percent aluminum, which would be close enough to the claimed 4.25 weight percent aluminum to establish prima facie obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. Alternatively, Barker et al. (‘681) identifies aluminum and titanium as strengthening elements based on the aluminum concentration as result effective in stabilizing the cubic structure and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to modify the aluminum content as a result-effective variable in terms of strength and cubic structure stabilization (column 2). MPEP 2144.05 II.
In regard to claim 17, Barker et al. (‘681) discloses 2 to 3 weight percent titanium, which overlaps the ranges of the instant invention (column 3). MPEP 2144.05 I.
In regard to claims 18 and 20, Barker et al. (‘681) discloses a method of forming nickel base alloys that would be used to make gas turbine components (hot gas path components) including casting and heat treating having compositions relative to that of the instant invention as set forth below (column 1, lines 20-50 and column 3).
Element
Instant Claim
(weight percent)
Barker et al. (‘681)
(weight percent)
Overlap
Cr
13.9 – 14.1
13 – 16
13.9 – 14.1
Co
9.25 – 9.75
5 – 16
9.25 – 9.75
Al
4.25 – 5.3
3 – 4
-
Ti
1 – 2
2 – 3
2
W
3.75 – 4.9
3 – 5
3.75 – 4.9
Mo
1.5 – 3
3 – 5
3
Nb
4
3 – 5
4
C
0.09 – 0.11
0.1 – 0.2
0.10 – 0.11
Zr
0.01 – 0.03
0.01 – 0.1
0.01 – 0.03
B
0.011 – 0.013
0.01 – 0.02
0.011 – 0.013
Ni
Balance
Balance
Balance
The Examiner notes that the amounts of chromium, cobalt, titanium, tungsten, molybdenum, niobium, carbon, zirconium and boron for the nickel base alloys disclosed by Barker et al. (‘681) overlap the amounts of the instant invention, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to select the claimed amounts of chromium, cobalt, titanium, tungsten, molybdenum, niobium, carbon, zirconium and boron from the amounts disclosed by Barker et al. (‘681) because Barker et al. (‘681) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
In regard to claim 19, Barker et al. (‘681) discloses a titanium range of 2 to 3 weight percent. Thus, the range of aluminum based on this range of titanium would be 4 ± 0.05 to 4.5 ± 0.05 or 3.95 to 4.55, which would overlap or would be close enough to the range of aluminum in the instant invention. MPEP 2144.05 I.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regard to claim 21, the upper limit of aluminum in Barker et al. (‘681) would be 4 weight percent and 4.6 weight percent as claimed would be sufficiently far from 4 weight percent such that 4 weight percent would not establish prima facie obviousness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 1, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant primarily argues that the claimed composition requires an aluminum content of 4.25 to 5.3 weight percent, which is definitely outside the scope of the teachings of Barker et al. (‘681) and the rejection should be withdrawn.
In response, the Examiner notes that 4 weight percent aluminum would be close enough to 4.25 weight percent aluminum as claimed to establish prima facie obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessee Roe whose telephone number is (571)272-5938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7:30 am to 4 pm.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights