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 of Group I, Claims 1-10 and 15, in the reply filed on 1/16/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 11-14 and 16 are withdrawn from consideration.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 9/22/2023. These drawings are accepted.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 are as originally filed.
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 and 15 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, the phrase "0.04 to 0.10% carbon, typically 0.04 to 0.7% carbon" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation “typically 0.04 to 0.7% carbon” is part of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the phrase "less than 5.0% iron, typically less than 0.7% iron" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation “typically less than 0.7% iron” is part of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation of “a ratio of tantalum to the sum of aluminum, niobium, and titanium” in line 24 does not have sufficient antecedent basis since niobium was not previously recited.
Regarding Claim 4, the phrase "any unwanted secondary phases, in particular any η phase" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation “in particular any η phase” is part of the claimed invention.
The term “a reduced γ’ solvus temperature in contrast to at least one of comparable and conventional alloys” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a reduced γ’ solvus temperature in contrast to” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is no temperature range to which one of ordinary skill could compare the reduced γ’ solvus temperature to ascertain if it is “reduced” or lower.
Claims dependent on any of the rejected claims are likewise rejected under this statute.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2268937 A.
GB 2268937 A (GB ‘937) teaches a nickel-based superalloy for gas turbines (page 1, line 23) that is represented below in the table.
Elements in wt%
Claim 1
Claim 6
Claim 7
Claim 8
GB '937
C
0.04-0.10
0.02-0.15
Ta
8-13
9-10
10-12
4.0-9.0
Cr
12-20
17-21
11.0-15.0
Co
3-25
8-10
2.0-11.0
Mn
< 0.03
reads on zero
Si
< 0.06
reads on zero
Mo
0-6
0-3
Fe
< 5.0
reads on zero
Al
2-4
3.0-5.5
Mg
< 0.01
reads on zero
V
< 0.02
reads on zero
W
0-6
3.5-10
Ti
< 1
0.8-3.5
Yt
< 0.03
reads on zero
B
0.005-0.015
0-0.05
S
< 0.003
reads on zero
Zr
0.005-0.04
0-0.05
Nb
n/a
reads on zero
Hf
< 3
reads on zero
Mo+W
4-10
3.5-15.5
Ta/(Al+Nb+Ti)
1.6-6.5
0.44-2.37
Mn+Si
< 0.07
0.00
Cr/Al
3-10
2-5
Zr+B
0.01-0.045
0-0.10
GB ‘937 teaches overlapping 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 because the prior art discloses the utility of the composition over the entire disclosed range. See MPEP § 2144.05. With respect to an argument regarding the overlapping and broader ranges in toto, In re Peterson (65 USPQ2d 1379) states that a "[p]rior art reference that discloses composition range encompassing somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish prima facie case of obviousness for claimed range; existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts burden to patent applicant to show that claimed invention would not have been obvious.” This case is relevant because the claims in this case were drawn to a “nickel-base superalloy having special utility in the production of single crystal gas turbine engine blades.”
Regarding Claim 3, GB ‘397 does not teach other elements not recited above.
Regarding Claim 4, GB ‘397 does not teach any other phase than the gamma and gamma’ phases.
Regarding Claim 5, the chromium content in GB ‘397 reads on the claimed range, so the property of “to form a stable chromium oxide layer” is taught by GB ‘397.
Regarding Claim 8, GB ‘397 teaches a Zr+B range of 0-0.3, which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 10, the limitation of the reduced γ’ solvus temperature does not have any limits with respect to at least one of “comparable and conventional alloys.” Since GB ‘397 reads on the claimed range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that GB ‘397 would read on the claimed property of the reduced γ’ solvus temperature.
Further regarding Claim 15, the γ’ phase can be completely dissolved (page 8, lines 24-33).
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0 240 451 A2.
EP 0 240 451 A2 (EP ‘451) teaches a nickel base superalloy for gas turbines (page 2, line 9) as represented below in the table:
Elements in wt%
Claim 1
Claim 6
Claim 7
Claim 8
EP '451
C
0.04-0.10
C+B+Zr+Hf
0.002-0.5
Ta
8-13
9-10
10-12
0-15
Cr
12-20
17-21
3-18
Co
3-25
8-10
0-20
Mn
< 0.03
reads on zero
Si
< 0.06
reads on zero
Mo
0-6
0-4
Fe
< 5.0
reads on zero
Al
2-4
3-8
Mg
< 0.01
reads on zero
V
< 0.02
reads on zero
W
0-6
0-18
Ti
< 1
0-5
Yt
< 0.03
0-7
B
0.005-0.015
see above
S
< 0.003
reads on zero
Zr
0.005-0.04
see above
Nb
n/a
0-5
Hf
< 3
see above
Mo+W
4-10
0-22
Ta/(Al+Nb+Ti)
1.6-6.5
0-5
Mn+Si
< 0.07
reads on zero
Cr/Al
3-10
0.375-6
Zr+B
0.01-0.045
0.002-0.5
EP ‘451 teaches overlapping 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 because the prior art discloses the utility of the composition over the entire disclosed range. See MPEP § 2144.05. With respect to an argument regarding the overlapping and broader ranges in toto, In re Peterson (65 USPQ2d 1379) states that a "[p]rior art reference that discloses composition range encompassing somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish prima facie case of obviousness for claimed range; existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts burden to patent applicant to show that claimed invention would not have been obvious.” This case is relevant because the claims in this case were drawn to a “nickel-base superalloy having special utility in the production of single crystal gas turbine engine blades.”
Regarding Claim 3, EP ‘451 does not teach other elements not recited above.
Regarding Claim 4, EP ‘451 teaches one grain and a single crystal (page 2, line 17), which reads on no secondary phases.
Regarding Claim 5, the chromium content in EP ‘451 reads on the claimed range, so the property of “to form a stable chromium oxide layer” is taught by EP ‘451.
Regarding Claim 6, EP ‘451 teaches the claimed range of Co.
Regarding Claim 7, EP ‘451 teaches the claimed range of Ta and Co.
Regarding Claim 8, EP ‘451 teaches the claimed range of the sum of Zr and B.
Regarding Claim 10, the limitation of the reduced γ’ solvus temperature does not have any limits with respect to at least one of “comparable and conventional alloys.” Since EP ‘451 reads on the claimed range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that EP ‘451 would read on the claimed property of the reduced γ’ solvus temperature.
Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins et al (US 3,802,938).
Collins et al teaches a nickel base superalloy for turbines (column 1, lines 50 and 51) as represented below in the table:
elements in wt%
Claim 1
Claim 6
Claim 7
Claim 8
Collins et al
C
0.04-0.10
0.08-0.15
Ta
8-13
9-10
10-12
0-12
Cr
12-20
17-21
5.0-25
Co
3-25
8-10
5.0-25
Mn
< 0.03
reads on zero
Si
< 0.06
reads on zero
Mo
0-6
0-12
Fe
< 5.0
reads on zero
Al
2-4
1-7
Mg
< 0.01
reads on zero
V
< 0.02
reads on zero
W
0-6
0-15
Ti
< 1
0.5-6
Yt
< 0.03
reads on zero
B
0.005-0.015
0-0.4
S
< 0.003
reads on zero
Zr
0.005-0.04
0-0.3
Nb
n/a
0-4
Hf
< 3
0-5
Mo+W
4-10
0-32
Ta/(Al+Nb+Ti)
1.6-6.5
0-8
Mn+Si
< 0.07
0.00
Cr/Al
3-10
0.71-25
Zr+B
0.01-0.045
0-0.7
Collins et al teaches overlapping 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 because the prior art discloses the utility of the composition over the entire disclosed range. See MPEP § 2144.05. With respect to an argument regarding the overlapping and broader ranges in toto, In re Peterson (65 USPQ2d 1379) states that a "[p]rior art reference that discloses composition range encompassing somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish prima facie case of obviousness for claimed range; existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts burden to patent applicant to show that claimed invention would not have been obvious.” This case is relevant because the claims in this case were drawn to a “nickel-base superalloy having special utility in the production of single crystal gas turbine engine blades.”
Regarding Claim 3, Collins et al does not teach other elements not recited above, since “Re to 1” in column 2, line 48 reads on zero.
Regarding Claim 4, Collins et al teaches one grain and a single crystal (page 2, line 17), which reads on no secondary phases.
Regarding Claim 5, the chromium content in Collins et al reads on the claimed range, so the property of “to form a stable chromium oxide layer” is taught by Collins et al.
Regarding Claim 6, Collins et al teaches the claimed range of Co.
Regarding Claim 7, Collins et al teaches the claimed range of Ta and Co.
Regarding Claim 8, Collins et al teaches the claimed range of the sum of Zr and B.
Regarding Claim 9, Collins et al teaches a powder (abstract).
Regarding Claim 10, the limitation of the reduced γ’ solvus temperature does not have any limits with respect to at least one of “comparable and conventional alloys.” Since Collins et al reads on the claimed range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Collins et al would read on the claimed property of the reduced γ’ solvus temperature.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of Collins et al, EP ‘451 or GB ‘937 suggest a magnesium composition of about 0.001% as in Claim 2. Konter et al (US 6,419,763 B1) teaches it is known that conventionally cast nickel-base superalloys can be provided with additions of magnesium, calcium, cerium or other rare earths, which influence the carbide morphology. The abovementioned elements have a high reactivity, so that although they are suitable forecast nickel-base superalloys alloys, owing to the short contact times with the shell mold, they are unsuitable for casting of directionally solidified microstructure and single crystal alloys, in which the molten alloy is in contact with the shell mold at high temperatures for a long time, since these additions reduce the silicon content in the shell mold and lead to slag formation on the cast surface. Moreover, the quantitative proportions of these additions vary adversely over the height of the casting, smaller quantities being present in that part of the casting which solidified last. This is undesirable, since as a result the carbide morphology varies over the length of the casting (column 2, lines 15-31). There is no basis to suggest modifying the alloys in Collins et al, EP ‘451 and GB ‘937 with the addition of magnesium as claimed.
Cairns et al (US 3,746,581) teaches a nickel superalloy powder as represented below in the table:
elements in wt%
Claim 1
Claim 2
Collins et al
C
0.04-0.10
0.04-0.070
0-0.75
Ta
8-13
9-12
0-10
Cr
12-20
14-16
5-60
Co
3-25
8-21
Ni+Cr bal
Mn
< 0.03
< 0.01
0-2
Si
< 0.06
~ 0
0-2
Mo
0-6
2-3
0-15
Fe
< 5.0
< 0.7
reads on zero
Al
2-4
3-3.5
0.5-6.5
Mg
< 0.01
~ 0.001
0-0.2
V
< 0.02
~
0-3
W
0-6
2-3
0-20
Ti
< 1
~ 0
0.5-6.5
Yt
< 0.03
0-0.01
reads on zero
B
0.005-0.015
0.005-0.01
0-0.1
S
< 0.003
0-~0
reads on zero
Zr
0.005-0.04
0.015-0.025
0-1
Nb
n/a
n/a
0-10
Hf
< 3
< 3
0-6
Mo+W
4-10
0-35
Ta/(Al+Nb+Ti)
1.6-6.5
0-10
Mn+Si
< 0.07
0-4
Cr/Al
3-10
0.77-9.23
Zr+B
0-1.1
However, Cairns et al teaches a titanium concentration of 0.5-6.5, which is outside of the range of virtually zero in Claim 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 4:00 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, Keith D. 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.
Tima M. McGuthry-Banks
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/TIMA M. MCGUTHRY-BANKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733