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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 5 November 2025 is acknowledged. Claim s 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5 November 2025 . The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Information Disclosure Statement On the Examiner-initialed IDS corresponding to the IDS filed on 12 July 2023, citation NPL No. 7 has been crossed out as not having been considered because it is a duplicate of citation NPL No. 6 which has been initialed as having been considered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.— The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding Claim 1, it is unclear what is meant by “mean sintering temperature in powdered form” in its various usages. A metal and/or metal alloy powder typically sinters at a range of temperatures below the melting point of the metal and/or alloy . The temperature at which it can begin to sinter would be expected to be dependent on conditions, such a pressure, duration, atmosphere, heating rate, and perhaps others. Thus, it is unclear what defines the sintering temperature since it would be expected that there could be a range of temperatures at which the powder would sinter for any given condition and , assuming the definition relates to beginning to sinter temperature, there are a range of conditions that could be utilized. None of the conditions is characterized nor is the possible range of conditions. As well, it is unclear how to ascertain a mean value . It is unclear whether “mean” refers to average for a particular set of conditions, for the range of conditions, or something else. If for a particular set of conditions, it is unclear how the mean is to be evaluated. If for a range, it is unclear how to assess the mean for each condition and then for the range of conditions. The Specification does not provide any apparent guidance on how this terminology is defined. To the extent applicant is relying on a standard in the art, it is unclear what that standard is. This indefiniteness applies to all dependent claims that further refer to this phrase and to independent Claim 10 which also uses this phrase. Regarding Claim 1, to the extent that any of the respective wall sections are each formed from more than one alloy powder, it is unclear what is the requirement regarding “mean sintering temperature”. Does it relate to any of the alloys, to the mean value of all of the alloys, to the mean value with respect to conditions with respect to any of the alloys or to all of the alloys, or to something else? This rejection applies to all claims. Regarding Claim 1, it is unclear whether the claimed second wall section is necessarily radially disposed with respect to the first wall section or whether it could be axially disposed in view of phrase “disposed adjacent and affixed to the first wall section about the channel”. Rejection also applies to Claims 2-8. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a ) (1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hunsche et al. USPA 2016/0312668. Hun s che teaches valve guide (which can be considered a type of bushing) [Figure 1] that is formed of axially disposed sections of Fe based first alloy [paragraphs 26-31] and second alloy [paragraphs 43-49]. It is noted that the claims appear to be drafted to encompass such axial disposition despite much of the Specification being dedicated to radial configurations. Hun s che teaches forming by powder metallurgy of the materials to form the respective sections [paragraph 58], which would constitute metal alloys. Hun s che teaches that the materials of the respective sections differ slightly in Cr content but does not expressly refer to “mean sintering temperature” characteristic. Firstly, it would be expected that the materials of the respective sections could have difference in sintering temperature since they would be expected to have slightly different melting temperatures due to the slight difference in Cr content and since melting temperature can affect sintering temperature. See L. Dreval, “Thermodynamic assessment of the Cu-Fe-Cr phase diagram” in Chem. Met. Alloys 3 (2010) 132-139 (Mar. 2011) [ Figure 5 , lower right portion, which shows the liquidus temperature for Fe-Cu alloy having Cr content of second material and having no Cr content of first material ] . Secondly, since sintering temperature is not a property inherent to any given powder material, there is no reason to expect that the articles encompassed by the claims necessarily do not encompass those of Hun s che. In other words, the powders used in the respective sections could be sintered under conditions that derive from respective claimed differences being obtained since sintering temperatures can be affected by various sintering conditions as mentioned in the section 112, paragraph (b) rejections above and the claims do not specify what these conditions are or even that they need be the same with respect to the first and second metal alloys. It is noted that these requirements are not interpreted as being product-by-process limitation of a sintering process used to make the claimed bushing. Thirdly, the resulting articles in Hun s che, even if the claimed “mean sintering temperature” requirement is not satisfied by Hun s che’s powders, would be expected to be indistinguishable from articles that had been since Hun s che’s sintered product of metal alloys in respective sections could have been achieved by using powder compositions and sizes or other conditions that would lead to articles that are the same as or substantially the same as those in Hun s che. This is expected since the composition and porosity could be achievable using a range of powders. For example, should the respective powders require closer amounts of Cr or greater difference in amount of Cr, suitable adjustments to originating compositions of respective compositions could have been used. Alloy powders having half as much additional Cr and other powders having Cr such that overall same Cr content is achieved would still be expected to lead to final products that are indistinguishable from Hun s che since the Cr of the other powder would be expected to diffuse through the material. Likewise, should greater difference be needed, alloy powder with greater Cr content and some alloy powder with less alloy powder such that overall content is the same could have been used and the resulting products would still be expected to lead to final products that are indistinguishable from Hunche since the Cr would be expected to diffuse through the material comparably to how it diffused in Hun s che. Regarding Claims 5 and 6, the sintering temperature is not specified in Hun s che. However, as seen in Dreval , the melting temperatures would be expected to be ca. 1530 o C , from which it follows that mean sintering temperature could be in the range claimed since sintering temperature can be significant 60-70% fraction of melting temperature. However, even if there is a discrepancy, for the reasons addressed above, it would be expected that the resulting articles would be indistinguishable since conditions can be adjusted to achieve claimed sintering temperature but such adjustments would not be expected to necessarily lead to compositional or structural differences in the resulting articles. Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a ) (1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Dunn USPN 3,761,257. Dunn teaches composite bushing [Figures 4 and 5] that is formed of radially disposed sections of Fe based nickel containing alloy [col. 3, lines 70-75] and second Fe based nickel free alloy [col. 4, lines 4-9]. Dunn teaches forming by powder metallurgy of the materials to form the respective sections [col. 2, l ines 35-65], which would constitute metal alloys. Dunn teaches that the materials of the respective sections differ slightly in Ni content but does not expressly refer to “mean sintering temperature” characteristic. Firstly, it would be expected that the materials of the respective sections could have difference in sintering temperature since they would be expected to have slightly different melting temperatures due to the slight difference in Ni content and since melting temperature can affect sintering temperature. Secondly, since sintering temperature is not a property inherent to any given powder material, there is no reason to expect that the articles encompassed by the claims necessarily do not encompass those of Dunn. In other words, the powders used in the respective sections could be sintered under conditions that derive from respective claimed differences being obtained since sintering temperatures can be affected by various sintering conditions as mentioned in the section 112, paragraph (b) rejections above and the claims do not specify what these conditions are or even that they need be the same with respect to the first and second metal alloys. It is noted that these requirements are not interpreted as being product-by-process limitation of a sintering process used to make the claimed bushing. Thirdly, the resulting articles in Dunn, even if the claimed “mean sintering temperature” requirement is not satisfied by Dunn’s powders, would be expected to be indistinguishable from articles that had been since Dunn’s sintered product of metal alloys in respective sections could have been achieved by using powder compositions and sizes or other conditions that would lead to articles that are the same as or substantially the same as those in Dunn. This is expected since the composition and porosity could be achievable using a range of powders. This applies to both the sintered intermediate product and the forged final product. For example, should the respective powders require closer amounts of Ni or greater difference in amount of Ni, suitable adjustments to compositions of respective compositions could have been used since Ni would be expected to diffuse through the material comparably to how it diffused in Dunn. Regarding Claims 5 and 6, the sintering temperature is not specified in Dunn . However, the melting temperatures would be expected to be close to that of steel of 1400 o C to 1500 o C, from which it follows that mean sintering temperature could be in the range claimed since sintering temperature can be significant 60-70% fraction of melting temperature. However, even if there is a discrepancy, for the reasons addressed above, it would be expected that the resulting articles would be indistinguishable since conditions can be adjusted to achieve claimed sintering temperature but such adjustments would not be expected to necessarily lead to compositional or structural differences in the resulting articles. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claim (s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunsche et al. USPA 2016/0312668 in view of Dunn USPN 3,761,257. Hunsche is relied upon as set forth above in the section 102/103 rejection over Hunsche. Hunsche may not teach sintering temperature. Dunn teaches iron based alloy can be sintered at 1500 to 2100 o F (col. 2 , line 71 though col. 3, line 1). It would be expected that Hunsche’s alloy, which is also iron based would sinter in this temperature range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to sinter the article of Hunsche at effective temperature for iron based alloy, which would lead to claimed range. However, even if there is a discrepancy, for the reasons addressed above, it would be expected that the resulting articles would be indistinguishable since conditions can be adjusted to achieve claimed sintering temperature and such adjustments would not be expected to necessarily lead to compositional or structural differences in the resulting articles. Claim (s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunn USPN 3,761,257 . Dunn is relied upon as set forth above in the section 102/103 rejection over Dunn. Dunn may not teach sintering temperature. Dunn teaches iron based alloy can be sintered at 1500 to 2100 o F (col. 2 , line 71 though col. 3, line 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to sinter the article of Dunn at effective temperature for iron based alloy, which would lead to claimed range. However, even if there is a discrepancy, for the reasons addressed above, it would be expected that the resulting articles would be indistinguishable since conditions can be adjusted to achieve claimed sintering temperature and such adjustments would not be expected to necessarily lead to compositional or structural differences in the resulting articles. Claim (s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farthing USPN 10,563,695. Farthing teaches composite bushing [Figure 6] that is formed of inner radially disposed sections of Co based alloy [Figure 6, 220; col. 5, line 35; col. 7, line 18-21] and Fe based stainless steel alloy [Figure 6, 222; col. 5, lines 36-37; col. 7, lines 21-24]. Farthing teaches forming by powder metallurgy the materials to form the respective sections [col. 7, lines 38-44], which would constitute metal alloys. Farthing may not teach this configuration but teaches that it may be effective. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to prepare bushing in this configuration since Farthing suggests that it may be desirable. Farthing teaches that the materials of the respective sections differ but does not expressly refer to “mean sintering temperature” characteristic. Firstly, it would be expected that the materials of the respective sections could have difference in sintering temperature since they are generally respectively comparable to those of applicant , which achieve this characteristic . See Specification ( paragraphs 22 and 23 ). As well, Whitaker teaches that cobalt based alloys comparable to those of Farthing sinter at 1170 o C. See Whitaker USPA 2004/0237712 (paragraph 38; Table 1). As well, Kazior teaches that stainless steel alloys comparable to those of Farthing sinter at range from 1240 to 1340 o C. See J. Kazior, "Sintering atmosphere, temperature, and solution-annealing treatment, ..." downloaded from thermalprocessing.com (June 2023) pp.29-35 on 29 March 2025 [Figure 5]. Secondly, since sintering temperature is not a property inherent to any given powder material, there is no reason to expect that the articles encompassed by the claims necessarily do not encompass those of Farthing. In other words, the powders used in the respective sections could be sintered under conditions that lead to respective claimed differences being obtained since sintering temperatures can be affected by various sintering conditions as mentioned in the section 112, paragraph (b) rejections above and the claims do not specify what these conditions are or even that they need be the same with respect to the first and second metal alloys. It is noted that these claimed requirements are not interpreted as being product-by-process limitation of a sintering process used to make the claimed bushing. Thirdly, the resulting articles in Farthing, even if the claimed “mean sintering temperature” requirement is not satisfied by Farthing’s powders, would be expected to be indistinguishable from articles that had been since Farthing’s sintered product of metal alloys in respective sections could have been achieved by using powder compositions and sizes or other conditions that would lead to articles that are the same as or substantially the same as those in Farthing. This is expected since the composition and porosity could be achievable using a range of powders. For example, should the respective powders require closer compositional characteristics to achieve claimed mean sintering temperature requirement, suitable adjustments to compositions of respective compositions could have been used by making powders meeting requirement and others taking on the balance of necessary ingredients which others in the balance would be expected to diffuse through the material comparably to how diffus ion in Farthing occurs . Regarding Claims 5, 6, and 10, the sintering temperature is not specified in Farthing. However, since the materials are comparable to those of applicant, it would be expected that they could sinter at comparable temperatures and thus meet the claimed requirements of mean sintering temperature. However, even if there is a discrepancy, for the reasons addressed above, it would be expected that the resulting articles would be indistinguishable since conditions can be adjusted to achieve claimed sintering temperature but such adjustments would not be expected to necessarily lead to compositional or structural differences in the resulting articles. Regarding Claims 7, 8, and 10, Farthing teaches suggests claimed compositions as addressed above. Claim (s) 5, 6, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farthing USPN 10,563,695 in view of Dunn USPN 3,761,257. Farthing is relied upon as set forth above in the section 103 rejection over Farthing. Farthing may not teach sintering temperature. Dunn teaches iron based alloy can be sintered at 1500 to 2100 o F (col. 2, line 71 though col. 3, line 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to sinter the article of Farthing at effective temperature for iron based alloy, which would lead to claimed range. It would lead to sintering at claimed temperatures for Co alloy as well since they overlap as claimed and since Dunn’s temperature includes the overlapping temperature. However, even if there is a discrepancy, for the reasons addressed above, it would be expected that the resulting articles would be indistinguishable since conditions can be adjusted to achieve claimed sintering temperature and such adjustments would not be expected to necessarily lead to compositional or structural differences in the resulting articles. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MICHAEL E. LA VILLA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1539 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon. through Fri. from 9:00 a.m. ET to 5:30 p.m. ET . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Humera N. Sheikh, can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /MICHAEL E. LA VILLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784 2 9 March 2026