Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/324,749

PROCESSING OF COBALT-TUNGSTEN ALLOYS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
May 26, 2023
Examiner
ROE, JESSEE RANDALL
Art Unit
1759
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Abbott Cardiovascular Systems Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
976 granted / 1279 resolved
+11.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
1328
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.2%
-38.8% vs TC avg
§103
51.0%
+11.0% vs TC avg
§102
9.8%
-30.2% vs TC avg
§112
27.4%
-12.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1279 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Status of the Claims Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are currently under examination. Applicant’s election of the Species I as containing Co-Cr-W-(platinum group or precious metal) alloys is currently under examination and was elected without traverse in the Response filed on January 2, 2026. 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, 3-4 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (WO 2019/164062 A1) as evidenced by Luty (Types of cooling media and their properties). In regard to claims 1 and 4, Choi (WO ‘062) discloses a method for processing nickel base alloys comprising 6 to 8 weight percent cobalt (atomic number = 27), 11 to 13 weight percent chromium, tungsten in an amount greater than 5 and less than 10 weight percent, and zirconium (atomic number = 40) in an amount greater than 0 and less than or equal to 0.03 weight percent comprising the steps of maintaining the hot processed product in a range of 1100°C to 1220°C for 10 to 60 minutes and then water cooling, which overlap the ranges of the instant invention, thereby establishing prima facie obviousness (abstract and page 3 of Translation). However, Choi (WO ‘062) does not specify wherein the water cooling would have the alloy at 600°C or less within 5 minutes. Luty teaches that water cooling would have a cooling rate of 102K/s to 120K/s (Table 9.6). Therefore, it would be expected that during the water quenching of Choi (WO ‘062), the cooling rate would be a minimum of 102K/s, as disclosed by Luty (Table 9.6). Thus, it would take a little over 6 seconds to achieve a temperature of 600°C quenching from 1220°C, as disclosed by Choi (WO ‘062), which would be within 5 minutes as claimed. Additionally, since zirconium would have an atomic number greater than cobalt, the alloys disclosed by Choi (WO ‘062) would read on the claim 1. In regard to claim 3, it would take a little over 6 seconds to achieve a temperature of 600°C quenching from 1220°C, as disclosed by Choi (WO ‘062), which would be within 1 minute as claimed. Additionally, since zirconium would have an atomic number greater than cobalt, the alloys disclosed by Choi (WO ‘062) would read on the claim 1. In regard to claim 9, Choi (WO ‘062) discloses 0.02 to 0.08 weight percent carbon and this would overlap the scope of “substantially or entirely free of carbon” as set forth in [0031] of the specification where it indicates that “substantially free” means less than 0.05%. In regard to claim 10, Choi (WO ‘062) does not require the presence of silicon, phosphorus, and sulfur and therefore reads on the claim (abstract and page 3 of Translation). In regard to claim 11, Choi (WO ‘062) does not require the presence of manganese and therefore reads on the claim (abstract and page 3 of Translation). In regard to claim 12, Choi (WO ‘062) discloses up to 0.5 weight percent iron and therefore reads on the claim (Table 1). In regard to claim 13, Choi (WO ‘062) does not require the presence of manganese and discloses up to 0.5 weight percent iron and therefore reads on the claim (abstract, Table 1 and page 3 of Translation). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2, 5-8 and 14-16 are 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 2, Choi (WO ‘062) fails to specify the presence of palladium and therefore claim 2 distinguishes from Choi (WO ‘062). In regard to claim 5, Choi (WO ‘062) discloses a method for processing nickel base alloys comprising 6 to 8 weight percent cobalt (atomic number = 27) (abstract and page 3). Therefore, claim 5 distinguishes from Choi (WO ‘062). In regard to claim 6, Choi (WO ‘062) discloses a method for processing nickel base alloys comprising 11 to 13 weight percent chromium (abstract and page 3). Therefore, claim 6 distinguishes Choi (WO ‘062). In regard to claim 7, Choi (WO ‘062) discloses wherein the balance would be nickel (abstract and page 3). Therefore, claim 7 would be distinguished from Choi (WO ’062). In regard to claim 8, Choi (WO ‘062) discloses 9 to 12 weight percent molybdenum (abstract and page 3). This would not be substantially or entirely free of molybdenum and therefore claim 8 would distinguished from Choi (WO ‘062). In regard to claim 14, neither Choi (WO ‘062) nor Luty specify the presence of platinum and therefore claim 14 distinguishes from Choi (WO ‘062) and Luty. In regard to claims 15-16, neither Choi (WO ‘062) nor Luty specify the presence of platinum or manganese and therefore claim 15 distinguishes from Choi (WO ‘062) and Luty. Claims 17-19 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In regard to claim 17, neither Choi (WO ‘062), Luty nor the other prior specify the presence of platinum with cobalt, chromium and tungsten in a method for production of a cobalt-chromium alloy including heating the alloy to about 1225 to 1275°C for a time period form about 20 minutes to about 40 minutes to remove precipitate inclusions and rapid quenching to 600°C within 5 seconds. Claim 20 is allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In regard to claim 20, neither Choi (WO ‘062), Luty nor the other prior specify the presence of platinum with cobalt, chromium and tungsten in a method for production of a stent formed from a substantially homogenous cobalt-chromium alloy including heating the alloy to about 1225 to 1275°C for a time period form about 20 minutes to about 40 minutes to remove precipitate inclusions and rapid quenching to 600°C within 5 seconds and then drawing the tube or rod to form the stent especially since no stents are formed in Choi (WO ‘062) or Luty. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The most pertinent prior art is of reference in this application as either cited by Applicant or the Examiner and the Examiner does not see a need to cite additional references at this time. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 26, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601035
High Temperature Titanium Alloys
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595521
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR PRODUCING DIRECT REDUCED METAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595535
CAST MAGNESIUM ALLOY WITH IMPROVED DUCTILITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584196
HIGHLY CORROSION-RESISTANT ALUMINUM ALLOY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584194
LOW-OXYGEN ALSC ALLOY POWDERS AND METHOD FOR THE PRODUCTION THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+7.9%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1279 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month