DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20 are pending and currently under review. 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. Claim Interpretation The term “refractory” as recited throughout the claims is interpreted to merely refer to an austenitic alloy including Ni, Cr, and Fe as expressly defined in [0003 instant spec.] 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-20 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation that iron is included in an amount to balance the alloy elements, and the claim also recites that iron is included in an amount of 4 to 18 weight percent, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. The examiner interprets the instant claims to be met by the broader limitation. Claims 2-5, 9-11, 13-17, and 19 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. These claims recite amounts of V, Al, N, C, and reactive elements respectively, without reciting upper limits of the ranges. The examiner notes that these claims are dependent ultimately on claim 1, which does recite a range (ie. upper and lower limits) of V, Al, N, C, and reactive elements. Therefore, it is unclear to the examiner whether these claims intend to either: 1) narrow the scope of claim 1, or 2) broaden the scope of claim 1 by omitting upper limits of the elemental ranges. The examiner interprets the aforementioned claims under interpretation 1) above such that no further 112(d) rejections are required. 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. Claim (s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kousu et al. (JP2009144203, machine translation referred to herein) . Regarding claim 1, Kousu et al. discloses an austenitic alloy having high temperature properties [p.1, 5-6]; wherein said alloy has a composition as seen in table 1 below [ p.3-4 ]. The examiner notes that the alloy of Kousu et al. reasonably meets the limitation of a refractory alloy based on the above claim interpretation section. The examiner notes that the overlap between the composition of Kousu et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Although Kousu et al. does not expressly teach the first and second criteria as claimed, the examiner notes that these criteria merely further limit the Al, S, Cr, N, V, Ti, Si, Ni, Nb, Mn, and C amounts, which still overlap with the disclosure of Kousu et al. and is still obvious. Table 1. Element (wt.%) Claim 1 (wt.%) Kousu et al. (wt.%) Cr 25 – 32 18 – 50 Ni 50 – 61 20 – 80 Al 1 – 6 0.001 – 5 Nb 0.15 – 1.5 0 – 3 C 0.05 – 0.6 0.3 – 2 RE and/or Hf 0.01 – 0.06 0 – 0.3 Si 0 – 0.3 0 – 4 Mn 0 – 0.3 0.1 – 3 Ti 0 – 0.4 0 – 3 N 0.015 – 0.2 0 – 0.3 V 0.005 – 1 0 – 2 Fe Balance Balance Zr Not present or 0 – 0.03 0 – 1 W Not present or 0 – 0.01 0 – 10 S Not present or 0 – 0.006 0 – 0.03 Regard ing claims 2-20, Kousu et al. discloses the alloy of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the V, Al, S, N, Cr, C, and RE of Kousu et al. above further overlaps with the claimed ranges. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (408)918-7576 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT usually M-Th: 7-5 . 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 Jonathan Johnson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712721177 . 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. /NICHOLAS A WANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734