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 1-4 and 14 in the reply filed on 06/16/2026 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Claims 5-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1-4 and 14 are presented for this examination. Claims 5-13 are withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 11/05/2024 and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-4 and 14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The term “for extreme environment” in claims 1-4 and claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “extreme” 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.
The term “relatively low sintering temperature” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively low” 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.
Instant claim 14 fails to recite whether E is also from periodic table refractory transitional metal group IVB through VIB as element A, X, Y, Z and D. For that reason, instant claim 14 is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wang (CN115057706A).
As for claims 1 and 3, instant claimed “for extreme environment” is interpreted as preamble Statements reciting purpose or intended use according to MPEP 2111.02 II.
Because the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than a claim limitation, no patentable weight would be given. See MPEP 2111.02 II
Wang discloses a two-phase high entropy boride with hexagonal (HCP) crystal structure and high entropy carbide with face centered cubic crystal structure. ([0032] and claim 1). Hence, instant claimed dual phase high entropy boride carbide composite is expected. The composite is for ultra-high temperature.
The high entropy boride comprises the following formula : (claim 1)
PNG
media_image1.png
52
195
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
The high entropy carbide comprises the following formula : (claim 1)
PNG
media_image2.png
51
185
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, I and j are between 0-50%, X and Y is one or two or more of W, V, Ti, Cr or Mo.
Hence, if a, b, e, f, g and j are >0 and c, d, h, i are all zero; X and Y are both V and Ti.
The above high entropy boride formula becomes:
(Zr, Hf, V, Ti) B2.
The above high entropy carbide formula becomes
(Zr, Hf, V, Ti) C.
As for claim 2, instant claimed hardness is an inherent property due to similar compositions, microstructure of claimed product according to MPEP 2112.01
When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the prior art products necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) In the instant case, Wang teaches a dual phase high entropy boride carbide compositie with same boride and carbide structure as claimed and same compositions as claimed, instant claimed hardness would be expected absent evidence of the contrary.
As for claim 4, instant claimed wherein clause is product by process limitation in a product claim. Hence, it is not given patentable distincion over prior art according to MPEP 2113.
When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either Section 102 or Section 103 is proper. See MPEP 2113.
According to MPEP 2113, determination of patentability of product is based on the product itself. That is, the patentability of product does not depend on its method of production unless the process of making the claimed product imparts any structural and/or functional limitation and characteristic on the claimed product.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Guo (CN115385696A).
As for claim 14, Guo discloses a dual phase high entropy ceramic comprising a dual phase of high entropy boride and high entropy carbide, where the high entropy boride comprises any five boride powder of the Ti, Zr, Nb, Ta, V, Hf. Inventive Example 2 ([0041]) discloses following formulas of the boride and the carbide.
PNG
media_image3.png
58
649
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hence, the boride formula meets instant claimed (A-X-Y-Z-D-E)B2 where A, X, Y, Z and D having a range of 0.2. E has a range of 0. A,X, Y, Z,D are from Hf, Zr, Ta, Nb and Ti.
Likewise, the carbide formula meets instant claimed (A-X-Y-Z-D-E)C where A, X, Y, Z and D having a range of 0.2. E has a range of 0. A,X, Y, Z,D are from Hf, Zr, Ta, Nb and Ti.
Hence, Guo anticipated instant claim 14.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN115057706A).
As for claim 14, Wang discloses a dual phase high entropy boride and high entropy carbide as indicated in 102/103 rejection of claim 1 above over Wang.
The high entropy boride comprises the following formula : (claim 1)
PNG
media_image1.png
52
195
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
The high entropy carbide comprises the following formula : (claim 1)
PNG
media_image2.png
51
185
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, I and j are between 0-50%, X and Y is one or two or more of W, V, Ti, Cr or Mo. Hence, wang’s boride and carbide formula read on claimed (A-X-Y-Z-D-E)B2 and (A-X-Y-Z-D-E)C.
Given a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, I and j between 0-50%, they overlap instant claimed range of 0.2-0.4.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNY R WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5515. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM-5:00 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 Hendricks can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNY R WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights