DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 6/18/26 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-8, 11, and 13-22 remain pending in the application. Claim(s) 16-20 have been withdrawn. Claim(s) 2-3, 9-10, and 12 have been canceled. New claim(s) 23 has been added. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(d) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 3/18/26.
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 parenthesis. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11, 13-15, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoeg (WO 2004030850 A1), previously cited.
Regarding claim 1, Hoeg teaches “a method of manufacturing a nozzle” (which reads upon “a method of forming a multi-metallic component, the method comprising”, 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 “the first alloy is a nickel-based alloy, and the second alloy is an iron- based alloy” (which reads upon “loading a first powder into a containment vessel, the first powder comprising an iron- based alloy, positioning a nickel-based layer on the first powder”, 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 “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 “wherein the nickel-based layer comprises greater than 50% by weight nickel”, as recited in the instant claim; page 4). 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 “loading a second powder into the containment vessel onto the nickel-based layer, the second powder comprising a nickel-based alloy”, 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 first powder, the second powder, and the nickel-based layer such that the nickel-based layer diffuses into the first powder and the second powder and 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 “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 4-6, indicating a lace of carbide and nitride forming elements). Hoeg teaches that details of the various embodiments and examples may be combined into new embodiments (page 19).
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.
Regarding claim 23, Hoeg teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. Examples of claim language that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim include wherein and whereby. The court in Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005), noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). See MPEP § 2111.04 I. Here, the limitation wherein the multi-metallic component exhibits a cross-interface tensile failure location within the first region or the second region is interpreted as simply expressing the intended result of a process step or steps positively recited.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Applicant respectfully traverses the Office Action's rejection as it relies on impermissible hindsight reconstruction that improperly pieces together isolated elements from distinct, incompatible embodiments within Hoeg (remarks, page 6). Applicant argues that the Office Action relies on combining the thinner foil from Hoeg's solid-powder embodiment with the dual-powder process of Hoeg's FIG. 7 (remarks, page 6). Applicant further argues that substituting the thin foil from the solid-powder embodiment for Hoeg's thick partition would cause the foil to deform, rupture, or collapse under the weight of the first powder bed during the "turn upside down" step (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). 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 amended claim 1 is directed to preventing prior particle boundary (PPB) formation, a problem that Hoeg fails to recognize, let alone solve (remarks, page 7). Applicant argues that this PPB decoration is a "unique microstructure weakness encountered only in HIP bonding that involves at least one powder metal" which is known to "degrade mechanical properties at the bonding interface" [0020]. (remarks, page 7). Applicant argues that Hoeg is entirely silent on this feature, and instead Hoeg is directed to the formation of a component free of microcracks, a different and more general problem (remarks, page 7). Applicant further argues that since Hoeg does not recognize the PPB problem addressed by Applicant, a person of ordinary skill would have no motivation, absent impermissible hindsight, to modify Hoeg to arrive at the claimed solution (remarks, page 7). 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). 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 lacks elements that would form carbides and nitrides in the diffusion bond region. Hoeg teaches that a pure metal, such as nickel is typically used. Thus no impermissible hindsight is required to arrive at the claimed method, whether or not Hoeg is concerned with the PPB problem addressed by Applicant.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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. Q4: 9/21-9/30/26; Q1: 1/4-1/8/27.
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
Prosecution Insights