DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 3/10/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8, 11, and 13-20 remain pending in the application. Claim(s) 16-20 have been withdrawn. Claim(s) 9-10 and 12 have been canceled. New claim(s) 21-22 have been added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 depends upon claim 1. Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein both the iron-based alloy and the nickel-based alloy are in a powder form.” Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the iron-based alloy comprises a plurality of iron-based alloy particles, and wherein the nickel-based alloy comprises a plurality of nickel-based alloy particles.” One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that an iron-based alloy in powder form comprises a plurality of iron-based alloy particles. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a nickel-based alloy in powder form comprises a plurality of nickel-based alloy particles. Accordingly, the claim fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parentheses. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
Claims 1-8, 11, 13-15, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoeg (WO 2004030850 A1), previously cited.
Regarding claims 1-2, Hoeg teaches “a method of manufacturing a nozzle” (which reads upon “a method of forming a component”, as recited in the instant claim; page 1). Hoeg teaches that “the first-mentioned method of manufacturing a nozzle according to the invention is characterized in that a second material of a second alloy is also arranged in the mould in an inner area, and that the materials so arranged are treated by isostatic pressing into a consolidated (unified) nozzle blank free of microcracks in the boundary area between the first alloy and the second alloy” (which reads upon “multi-metallic”, as recited in the instant claim; page 2). Hoeg teaches that “an oxygen-restricting diffusion barrier is provided in the nozzle between the first alloy and the second alloy” (page 7). Hoeg teaches that “such diffusion barrier may, for example, be of nickel, copper, or a nickel alloy, as both nickel and copper are suitable for forming a dense and stable coating in connection with the corrosion-resistant alloys which are suitable for use as nozzle materials” (which reads upon “the method comprising: positioning a nickel-based layer between an iron-based alloy and a nickel-based alloy, wherein the nickel-based layer comprises greater than 50% by weight nickel”, as recited in the instant claim; page 4). Hoeg teaches that “the first alloy is a nickel-based alloy, and the second alloy is an iron- based alloy” (which reads upon “between an iron-based alloy and a nickel-based alloy”, as recited in the instant claim; page 7). FIG. 7 shows diffusion barrier 24 between powder of the first alloy 10 and second alloy 11 (FIG. 7). Hoeg teaches that “other examples utilizes the same reference numerals as are used above for details having the same function” (page 16). Hoeg teaches that “first one powder is filled through the associated filling nozzle, whereupon air is evacuated and the nozzle is closed, then the mould is turned upside down and the second powder is filled through the second nozzle, whereupon the air is evacuated from the second chamber” (which reads upon “wherein both the iron-based alloy and the nickel-based alloy are in a powder form”, as recited in the instant claim; page 18). Hoeg teaches that “the isostatic pressing is suitably a HIP treatment, resulting in consolidation of the materials by diffusion without any actual grain growth” (which reads upon “applying heat and pressure to the iron-based alloy and the nickel-based alloy such that the nickel-based layer forms a diffusion bond region between a first region comprising the iron-based alloy and a second region comprising the nickel-based alloy to form the multi-metallic component”, as recited in the instant claim; page 6; HIP is hot isostatic pressing). Hoeg teaches that “the barrier suitably has a thickness in the interval from 5 to 400 μm, preferably from 10 to 100 μm” (page 17). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Here, the claimed range of 15 μm to 50 μm lies inside the range disclosed by the prior art of from 10 to 100 μm. Accordingly, the prior art renders the claim obvious. Hoeg teaches that “the coating may be applied by spraying or by placing a thin foil of the desired material, typically a pure metal, such as nickel” (which reads upon “a thin film or a thin foil”, as recited in the instant claim; page 17). Hoeg teaches that “consolidation (unification) of the different materials by means of isostatic pressing produces a diffusion-conditioned consolidation without any boundary area proper of the kind known from application of a melted material on a solid material” (page 2). Hoeg teaches that “isostatic pressing is suitably a HIP treatment, resulting in consolidation of the materials by diffusion without any actual grain growth, which makes it possible to maintain a fine grained structure resulting from the fact that one or more of the materials is/are of a fine-grained starting material consolidated into a cohesive material without melting” (page 6). Hoeg is silent regarding any prior particle boundary particles. Hoeg teaches that details of the various embodiments and examples may be combined into new embodiments (page 19).
Regarding claim 3, Hoeg teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Hoeg teaches that “the mould is divided inside by a panel partition 23 extending at the interface between the first and the second alloy” (page 18).
Regarding claims 4-8, Hoeg teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Hoeg teaches that “the barrier may be a coating” (page 16). Hoeg teaches that “the coating may be applied by spraying or by placing a thin foil of the desired material, typically a pure metal, such as nickel” (page 17; pure nickel reads on claims 4-8).
Regarding claim 11, Hoeg teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Hoeg teaches that “the barrier suitably has a thickness in the interval from 5 to 400 μm, preferably from 10 to 100 μm” (page 17). Hoeg teaches that “consolidation (unification) of the different materials by means of isostatic pressing produces a diffusion-conditioned consolidation without any boundary area proper of the kind known from application of a melted material on a solid material” (page 2). Hoeg teaches that “the mould is placed in a furnace, and the furnace chamber is pumped up with an inactive gas, such as argon, to a pressure of approximately 200 bar, and heated to a temperature in the interval from 1000 to 1300°C, typically 1150°C” (pages 14-15). Hoeg teaches that “concurrently with the heating the pressure in the furnace chamber rises to approximately 900 to 1100 bar” (page 15). Hoeg is silent regarding a diffusion thickness. Hoeg teaches the claimed invention above but fails to teach wherein the diffusion bond region has a diffusion thickness that is greater than the initial thickness of the nickel-based layer. It is reasonable to presume that the thickness of the diffusion bond region being greater than the initial thickness of the nickel-based layer is inherent to the component of Hoeg. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials and processes which would result in the claimed property. The iron-based alloy, the nickel-based alloy and the nickel based layer are all claimed and disclosed by Hoeg. The parameters of the HIP treatment are claimed in claim 15 and disclosed by Hoeg, as stated above. Accordingly, the same materials, processed in the same manner would result in the claimed diffusion bond region thickness. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the Hoeg product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 13, Hoeg teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Hoeg teaches that “as alloy materials for the second alloy, iron- based alloys are preferred, such as the tool steel AISI H13” (page 11).
Regarding claim 14, Hoeg teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Hoeg teaches that “alloys for use as the corrosion- resistant first alloy material are stated in Table 1” (pages 10-11; Inconel and Hastelloy are nickel based superalloys).
Regarding claim 15, Hoeg teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Hoeg teaches that “the mould is placed in a furnace, and the furnace chamber is pumped up with an inactive gas, such as argon, to a pressure of approximately 200 bar, and heated to a temperature in the interval from 1000 to 1300°C, typically 1150°C” (pages 14-15). Hoeg teaches that “concurrently with the heating the pressure in the furnace chamber rises to approximately 900 to 1100 bar” (page 15; 70 MPa is 700 bar).
Regarding claims 21-22, Hoeg teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Hoeg teaches that the isostatic pressing is suitably a HIP treatment, resulting in consolidation of the materials by diffusion without any actual grain growth, which makes it possible to maintain a fine-grained structure resulting from the fact that one or more of the materials is/are of a fine-grained starting material consolidated into a cohesive material without melting (page 6). The first diffusion subregion within the first region and the second diffusion subregion within the second region can have any arbitrary thicknesses, up to the first region thickness and the second region thickness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that independent claim 1 recites "the iron-based alloy and the nickel-based alloy are both in powder form" and "the nickel-based layer comprises a thin film or a thin foil having an initial thickness of 15 pm to 50 pm." (remarks, page 5). Applicant argues that as such, independent claim 1 requires a first powder and a second powder having a thin nickel-based layer separating the two at an interface (remarks, page 5). Applicant further argues that the nickel-based layer's thickness and composition are tailored to ensure complete diffusion, preventing prior particle boundary particle formation, and maximizing the ultimate tensile strength (remarks, page 5). This is not found convincing because In response to applicant's argument that the nickel-based layer's thickness and composition are tailored to ensure complete diffusion, preventing prior particle boundary particle formation, and maximizing the ultimate tensile strength, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., maximizing the ultimate tensile strength) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that Hoeg discloses a "barrier suitably has a thickness in the interval from 5 to 400 pm (preferably 10 pm to 100 pm)."Hoeg at pg. 17, however, in this embodiment of Hoeg, a first core member 12 (made of the second alloy which has been made in advance) and the diffusion barrier 24 are placed inside the sidewall of the mold 13 (remarks, page 8). Applicant argues that specifically, in the embodiment relied upon in the Office Action as disclosing the thickness of the nickel-based layer, the first core member is a solid first core member and the barrier is present at an interface between the solid and a powder (i.e., the solid-powder embodiment) (remarks, pages 5-6). Applicant further argues that the panel partition 23 may be the oxygen-restricting diffusion barrier made of a third material, however, this panel partition is "relatively thick", so as to prevent diffusion of the second alloy into the first alloy (remarks, page 6). This is not found convincing because FIG. 7 shows diffusion barrier 24 between powder of the first alloy 10 and second alloy 11 (FIG. 7). Hoeg teaches that “other examples utilizes the same reference numerals as are used above for details having the same function” (page 16). Hoeg teaches that “the barrier suitably has a thickness in the interval from 5 to 400 μm, preferably from 10 to 100 μm” (page 17; even 5 or 10 μm is thick enough to be a diffusion barrier).
Applicant argues that the combination set forth in the Office Action relies on two distinct embodiments of Hoeg (i.e., the powder-solid and the powder-powder embodiment described above) without offering a proper rationale to combine, thereby failing to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness (remarks, page 7). This is not found convincing because FIG. 7 shows diffusion barrier 24 between powder of the first alloy 10 and second alloy 11 (FIG. 7). Accordingly, the powder-powder embodiment shows the diffusion barrier 24. Additionally, Hoeg teaches that details of the various embodiments and examples may be combined into new embodiments (page 19).
Applicant argues that combining the two distinct embodiments of Hoeg fails to appreciate the metallurgical benefits of utilizing a nickel-based layer in the form of a thin film or foil for complete diffusion of a dual-powder system, as required by independent claim 1 (remarks, page 6). Applicant argues that the ultimate tensile strength and tensile ductility of the resulting multi-metallic component is improved when a relatively thin Ni-foil (about 25.4 pm) is used, as compared to bimetallic powder HIP without using Ni-foil at the interface (remarks, page 6). Applicant further argues that if the nickel-based layer is too thick, then the diffusion bond region may have relatively low bond strength (e.g., relatively low ultimate tensile strength) and therefore may be a weak point in the resulting unitary multi- metallic component (remarks, page 6). This is not found convincing because the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., maximizing the ultimate tensile strength) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q3: 6/22-6/26/26; Q4: 9/21-9/30/26.
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.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733