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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1 (claims 1-5) in the reply filed on 4 February 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search and examination of the entire application could be made without serious burden. This is not found persuasive because a serious search and/or examination burden exists if one of the following apply: the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). In the instant case, the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their classification as Group 1 is classified in C22C30/02 and Group 2 is classified in C22C1/04.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 6-19 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method for producing a high-entropy alloy, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 4 February 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jodi Dennis Edgard et al., "Phase separation and its effect on atomic interactions in CoCrNiCux
medium-entropy alloys," Materials Letters, Elsevier, Amsterdam, NL, VOL. 255, 9 August 2019.
Claim 1 claims a high-entropy alloy, comprising: a multi-element alloy matrix and Cu, wherein the multi-element alloy matrix includes three or more elements among Cr, Co, Ni and Mo, and the high-entropy alloy has a face-centered cubic (FCC)-based single phase.
Jodi teaches phase separation and it effect on atomic interactions in CoCrNiCux medium entropy alloys in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Jodi teaches an alloy composed of Co, Cr, and Ni in equiatomic or near-equiatomic ratios, section[1]. Jodi discloses copper additions, section[2]. Jodi also discloses a single solid solution face-centered cubic (FCC) phase, abstract, section[3]. Therefore, Jodi teaches all limitations of claim 1.
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 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:
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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jodi Dennis Edgard et al., "Phase separation and its effect on atomic interactions in CoCrNiCux
medium-entropy alloys," Materials Letters, Elsevier, Amsterdam, NL, VOL. 255, 9 August 2019.
Claim 2 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the multi-element alloy matrix is expressed by Chemical Formula 1 as follows: [Chemical formula 1] CraCobNicCux ,wherein the Chemical Formula 1 is satisfied by a+b+c+x=1 and O<x ≤0.2.
Jodi teaches an alloy composed of Co, Cr, and Ni in equiatomic or near-equiatomic ratios, section[1]. Jodi discloses copper additions in the molar ratio range of 0 to 1, section[2]. This overlaps with the claimed range for x. 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. Jodi discloses that increased copper additions lead to phase separation causing the formation of a second phase and decreased mechanical properties, section[1,3]. Therefore, Jodi teaches all limitations of claim 2.
Claim 3 further limits claim 2 by claiming that the Chemical Formula 1 x satisfies 0.02 < x ≤ 0.2.
Jodi teaches an alloy composed of Co, Cr, and Ni in equiatomic or near-equiatomic ratios, section[1]. Jodi discloses copper additions in the molar ratio range of 0 to 1, section[2]. This overlaps with the claimed range for x. 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. Jodi discloses that increased copper additions lead to phase separation causing the formation of a second phase and decreased mechanical properties, section[1,3]. Therefore, Jodi teaches all limitations of claim 3.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jodi Dennis Edgard et al., "Phase separation and its effect on atomic interactions in CoCrNiCux
medium-entropy alloys," Materials Letters, Elsevier, Amsterdam, NL, VOL. 255, 9 August 2019, taken as cited above, in view of CN102796936 of Chunchang and further in view of Alshataif Yaser A et al.; "Manufacturing Methods, Microstructural and Mechanical Properties Evolutions of High-Entropy Alloys: A Review," Metals and Materials International, The Korean Institute of Metals and Materials, Seoul, vol. 26, no. 8, 6 December 2019, pages 1099-1133.
Claim 4 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the multi-element alloy matrix is expressed by Chemical Formula 2 as follows: [Chemical formula 2] MoaCobNicCux ,wherein the Chemical Formula 2 is satisfied by a+b+c+x=1 and O<x ≤0.2.
While Jodi teaches Co, Cr, and Ni in equiatomic or near-equiatomic ratios, Jodi is silent on Mo.
Chunchang discloses a copper-nickel-molybdenum-cobalt alloy self-fluxing powder in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Chunchang teaches the elements in the following weight percentages: copper 15%; nickel 40%; molybdenum 20%; cobalt 25%, Para[0009]. These values overlap with the claimed values for a, b, c and x. 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. Chunchang teaches that the copper-nickel-molybdenum-cobalt alloy self-fusible powder of the present invention is a kind of equipment used in coal mining and cement industry, which greatly improves corrosion, wear resistance and hardness, and also saves time and improves production efficiency, Para[0026]. Chunchang is silent on an FCC-based single phase.
Alshataif teaches manufacturing methods, microstructural and mechanical properties evolutions of high-entropy alloys: a review in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Alshataif discloses that Most of the HEAs produces a single phase with FCC, and, or BCC crystal structures. Some HEAs produces HCP crystal structure. Superior mechanical properties of HEAs can be obtained based on the type of crystal structure formation, the number of phases (single phase, two-phase, multiphase) and processing routes, Page[1119].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the alloy disclosed in Jodi with the composition taught by Chunchang with a single FCC-based phase taught by Alahataif in order to improve corrosion/wear resistance and achieve superior mechanical properties. Thus, Jodi in view of Chunchang further in view of Alshataif covers all limitations of claim 4.
Claim 5 further limits claim 4 by claiming that the Chemical Formula 2 x satisfies 0.1< x ≤ 0.2.
Jodi discloses copper additions in the molar ratio range of 0 to 1, section[2]. This overlaps with the claimed range for x. 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.
Chunchang teaches a weight percentage of copper of 15%. This corresponds to an x value of 0.15. This falls within 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. Chunchang teaches that the copper-nickel-molybdenum-cobalt alloy self-fusible powder of the present invention is a kind of equipment used in coal mining and cement industry, which greatly improves corrosion, wear resistance and hardness, and also saves time and improves production efficiency, Para[0026].
Therefore, based on the teachings of Jodi and Chunchang, it would be obvious to produce the alloy disclosed by Jodi with the copper additions taught by Jodi and Chunchang in order to improve corrosion/wear resistance. Thus, Jodi in view of Chunchang further in view of Alshataif covers all limitations of claim 5.
Conclusion
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