DETAILED ACTION
The claims 1-7, 9, 11-13, 15-16, 19-20, 32-33, and 44 are pending and presented for the examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/05/2023 and 10/25/2023 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 15 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 15, the formula of the claim is given as “FX3B” in the preamble, but “FX3Bb” in the claim body. In claim 19, five formulas are listed in the preamble, but formula FX3Fa is listed twice, while FX3Da, which is listed in the claim body, is absent. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 6 is 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. Claim 6 fails to further limit claim 1, from which it depends, because it recites the same limitations to concentration ranges for the HEMA and HECA components in the composite.
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.
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 1-7, 9, 11, 13, 15-16, 19, and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al (CN 110423930 A).
Regarding claim 1, Dai et al teaches a high entropy ceramic-metal composite material comprising a high entropy alloy (HEMA) as a metal binder phase and a high entropy ceramic (HEC) as a hard phase. Dai et al teaches that the high entropy alloy is composed of five metal elements comprising iron, cobalt, chromium, nickel, and aluminum with equimolar ratio, and the high entropy ceramic is composed of five carbides comprising molybdenum carbide, titanium carbide, tungsten carbide, niobium carbide, and zirconium carbide with equimolar ratio. The content of the high entropy ceramic in the composite material is 88-94 wt%, and content of the high entropy alloy is 6-12 wt% (see claims 1-2).
The atomic percentages of each of the metallic elements are therefore each within 10% of the other metallic elements, and likewise the atomic percentages of each of the metal elements in the ceramic are each within 10% of the other elements, each of the HEMA and HEC being equimolar. The HEMA content range falls within the corresponding range of the instant claim, and that for the HEC overlaps and thus renders obvious the corresponding range of said claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
The Dai et al material is a composite, indicating that there are HEMA and HEC regions. Dai et al does not explicitly teach that the HEMA regions are free of the HEC material and likewise each HEC region is free of the HEMA material. However, there is no disclosure that there exists in either the metal alloy or ceramic regions any content of the other composite component. The Dai et al teach must therefore be taken as a teaching of a material wherein the two phases (metallic and ceramic) are single-material, and there is no content of the other component presupposed to be existent in said phases.
Each limitation of instant claim 1 is thus met by the teachings of Dai et al, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 2, the Dai et al would necessarily have a microstructure such that the HEMA regions are polycrystalline and made up of multiple crystallites, or monocrystalline and would each constitute a single crystallite. The further limitation of claim 2 is therefore met by the Dai et al teachings.
Regarding claim 3, the Dai et al would necessarily have a microstructure such that the HEC regions are polycrystalline and made up of multiple crystallites, or monocrystalline and would each constitute a single crystallite. The further limitation of claim 3 is therefore met by the Dai et al teachings.
Regarding claim 4, Dai et al teaches that the inventive superfine crystalline material has phases of metal alloy and ceramic. In such embodiments, the grains of ceramic (HEC) would necessarily be present in at least two regions and would constitute a crystallite, and likewise the grains of metal alloy (HEMA) would necessarily be present in at least two regions and would constitute a crystallite.
Regarding claim 5, Dai et al teaches each component, HEC and HEMA, as separate entities, and thus the Dai et al document would be taken to teach a material wherein the HEMA regions and HEC regions are each homogenous compositions.
Regarding claim 6, as discussed above, the Dai et al composite comprises 88-94 wt% high entropy ceramic and 6-12 wt% high entropy alloy. The ranges overlap those of the instant claim, thus rendering obvious the limitations of said claim.
Regarding claim 7, the sum volume percent of the high entropy ceramic and high entropy alloy regions of the Dai et al composite is 100 vol%.
Regarding claim 9, as discussed above, Dai et al teaches an equimolar metal alloy comprising 5 metals. This alloy would be characterized by a formula FX1Aa such that each limitation pertaining to Mi, I, n, and the relative difference between the 1/n values is met. Each value mi is equal for these 5 metal element Mi contents, and the total of the mi values is 1. Each content thus differs from the content mi of the other elements by less than 10%, and further differs by less than 10% from the mean elemental content.
Regarding claim 11, as discussed above, Dai et teaches an equimolar metal alloy comprising 5 metals. This alloy would contain an atomic fraction for each element of 0.2, and the Dai et al alloy would thus be characterized by a formula FX1Ca. Each further limitation of claim 11 is therefore met by the teachings of Dai et al.
Regarding claim 13, as discussed above Dai et al teaches a ceramic comprising carbide of five elements. Thus the Dai et al HEC is characterized b a formula FX3A wherein each of said element is a M variable, A is non-metal element carbon, and the k and p variable ranges are met.
Regarding claim 15, the equimolar Dai et al carbide is represented by formula FX3B, with j and u being 5, each M variable being a refractory metal element present in an amount rj that is equal to each other amount, r, values, and all values being equal to 1/u (equally divided composition). The carbon portion of the Dai et al carbide would constitute the A value of the claimed formula. As such, the Dai et al HEC is representable by a formula meeting each limitation of instant claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, the A value in the Dai et al HEC is C.
Regarding claim 19, as shown above, the Dai et al HEC is representable by formula FX3Da.
Regarding claim 32, as discussed above, Dai et al teaches a composite material meeting each limitation of instant claim 1. This material has obvious use in a device, as the term device does not impart any particular structural limitations on the nature of the claimed article. Dai et al therefore also renders obvious said claim 32.
Regarding claim 33, as discussed above, Dai et al teaches a high-entropy metal alloy, high-entropy ceramic composite that meets each product limitation of the instant claim 1 and also of instant claim 33. Dai et al teaches that the inventive material is prepared by first forming powders of the high-entropy alloy and high-entropy ceramic components, mixing said components, and thereafter sintering to form the composite material. Said metal alloy powder and ceramic powder constitute metallic and ceramic precursors. The Dai et al composite has HEMA and HEC regions, and the Dai et al sintering step is necessarily sufficient to form the desired and inventive composite from the powder precursors. As such, each process limitation of instant claim 33 is also met by the Dai et al teachings, and the claim is not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al (CN 110423930 A) in view of Hong et la (US 2017/0314097 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the claim differs from Dai et al as applied above because Dai et al teaches that the high entropy alloy is FeCoCrNiAl, and does not teach an alloy that is one of those recited in the instant claim. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Dai et al in view of Hong et al in order to use the alloy components taught therein, because Hong et al teaches a high-strength high-entropy alloy material used as a composite matrix, and provides a broader teaching as to the elements that can be included in the multi-element metallic alloy. Hong et al teaches that the inventive high-entropy alloy can be made up of Fe, Co, Cr, Ni, and Al as candidate elements (see Abstract), and thus teaches that the inventive alloy could be equivalent to that taught by Dai et al. Hong et al further teaches that the elements can include Mo, Zr, Ti, Nb, Ta, and further Hf and W (see Abstract). Thus, Hong et al also teaches alloys that, when five of the aforementioned elements are chosen for the inventive alloy, would constitute alloys meeting formulas FX2F, FX2G, FX2H, and FX2I of the instant claim. One of ordinary skill would have had motivation to consult Hong et al for the teachings of alloy compositions for high-entropy alloys for use with the Dai et al composite because Dai et al teaches only a single alloy candidate, and one of ordinary skill would have realized that further options were available for this alloy component, and that experimenting with different HEMA compositions would be beneficial in terms of adjusting and optimizing properties. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification because Dai et al and Hong et al are each drawn to material comprising high-entropy metal alloys comprising multiple elements. The further limitations of claim 12 are thus met by the teahcings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 20, the claim differs from Dai et al as applied above because Dai et al teaches that the high entropy ceramic is (Mo0.2Ti0.2W0.2Nb0.2Zr0.2)C, and does not teach a composition that is one of those recited in the instant claim. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Dai et al in view of Hong et al in order to use the ceramic components taught therein, because Hong et al teaches a high-strength high-entropy alloy material used as a composite matrix, and further comprising a multi-element ceramic reinforcing phase that can be a carbide of multiple elements. Hong et al provides a broader teaching as to the elements that can be included in the multi-element ceramic. Hong et al teaches that the inventive high-entropy ceramic can be made up of Hf, Zr, Ta, Ti, W, Mo, Nb (see claim 2), and thus teaches that the inventive ceramic could be equivalent to that taught by Dai et al. The Hong et al elements also lead to carbides meeting the formula limitations for FX4A, FX4B, FX4C, and FX4D of the instant claim. One of ordinary skill would have had motivation to consult Hong et al for the teachings of compositions for high-entropy ceramics for use with the Dai et al composite because Dai et al teaches only a single alloy candidate, and one of ordinary skill would have realized that further options were available for this ceramic component, and that experimenting with different HEC compositions would be beneficial in terms of adjusting and optimizing properties. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification because Dai et al and Hong et al are each drawn to material comprising high-entropy ceramic phases comprising multiple elements. The further limitations of claim 20 are thus met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al (CN 110423930 A) in view of Zhang et al (CN 109763125 B).
Regarding claim 44, the claim differs from Dai et al as applied above because Dai et al does not teach a device comprising the inventive material that is one of those listed in the instant claim. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Dai et al in view of Zhang et al in order to use the Dai et al material in a device type taught therein. Zhang et al teaches a high-entropy alloy coating material further comprising a ceramic phase, and as such teaches a material similar to that taught by Dai et al. Zhang et al teaches that the coating material is used in such device applications as rotator devices like turbines. This specific use teaching would motivate one of ordinary skill to use the Dai et al material as such, because it provides a concrete application for these types of materials, the likes of which is not provided for in Dai et al. As such, one would have been motivated to look to teachings such as that provided by Zhang et al to find uses for the material. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification because Dai et al and Zhang et al are each drawn to composites of high-entropy alloy and high-entropy ceramic. Each limitation of claim 44 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Conclusion
14. No claim is allowed.
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. 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.
/NOAH S WIESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
NSW20 February 2026