DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 1 is currently amended, Claims 2-10 are as previously presented, Claims 11 and 13 are currently withdrawn and amended, Claim 12 is withdrawn, and Claim 14 is new and withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 defines units for Vrmax as K/s. In the previous office action mailed 03/06/2026, the examiner noted that “w” in equation (1) is percentage by weight of zirconium, which has no units, and the other values (9.106 and 4.106) have no units. In applicant’s response mailed 06/08/2026, applicant states the constants in equation (1) are K/s. However, the specification as originally filed does not state that the constants 9.106 and 4.106 have the unit K/s or Vrmax has the unit K/s.
Claims dependent on any of the rejected claims are likewise rejected under this statute.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10-2020-20806 A1, based on the machine translation, in view of Loh et al in International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer.
DE 10-2020-20806 A1 in view of Loh et al is applied as discussed in the office action mailed 03/06/2026.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 9, and 10 are free from prior art rejections but are not in proper form due to the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the previous office action does not provide selecting a cooling rate that is lower than a maximum value defined as a function of zirconium content. Claim 1 recites adding at least 0.7% by weight zirconium during step c) and cooling at a rate based on value of the zirconium composition in equation (1). The selection of the heating rate based on zirconium content yields a specific cooling rate based on the application of equation (1). If the cited prior art can achieve the limitation of the value of cooling rate (Vrmax) as defined by equation (1), then that limitation is neither novel nor non-obvious. The equation, by itself, is an abstract idea and models what is already known in the art. The only way to test the value of Vrmax is by selecting numerical values of a percentage by weight of zirconium in equation (1), and the minimum Vrmax is (0.7)(9 × 106) – 4 × 106, or 2.3 × 106 K/s. Regardless of the value of zirconium of at least 0.7% by weight (the specification exemplifies 0.7-6 wt.%), the value of Vrmax will be greater than Vrmin (106 K/s). The range of Vr must be higher than 106 K/s and less than at least 2.3 × 106 K/s. At 6% Zr, the value of Vrmax is 5.0 × 107 K/s.
In this case, DE ‘086 teaches cooling in the range of 103 K/s and 109 K/s [0035] and 0-10 wt.% Zr [0026], which overlaps the values of Vr and the composition of Zr with an upper limit of Zr within the disclosed range in the specification. Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness based on overlapping ranges by showing the criticality of the claimed range or by showing that the art, in any material respect, teaches away from the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2144.05 III. Loh et al is cited to teach cooling rates the start of solidification at a surface level of the molten bath and a heat flux that causes a high temperature difference between a center region critical distance and outside this critical distance. DE ‘086 and Loh do not need to teach the same reasons for the selection of the cooling rate Vrmax as in the instant claims, but they meet the claim limitations of the cooling rate.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 4:00 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 D. Hendricks can be reached at (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 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.
Tima M. McGuthry-Banks
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/Tima M. McGuthry-Banks/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights