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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the relevant question, with respect to Skoog’s disclosure of up to 1% rhenium and the claimed 1.5 to 2.8 wt% rhenium, is not whether 1.5% is close to 1%, but whether the skilled person would increase the rhenium content disclosed by Skoog to reach the claimed range; and that the skilled in the art would not make the change because the expression up to 1% teaches away from exceeding 1% rhenium, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The MPEP 2144.05 I provides various examples of when a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. One of the examples is directed to how a claim recitation of no less than 120° was found obvious over a prior art disclosure of up to 90° (emphasis added; In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205-206 (CCPA 1946) (prior art showed an angle in a groove of up to 90° and an applicant claimed an angle of no less than 120°)). Note that similar to the instant application rejection, prior art Skoog discloses an “up to” value that is merely close to a claimed value and the MPEP supports that a prima facie case of obviousness exist.
Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that increasing the rhenium content from 1% to 1.5 wt% in Skoog represent a 50% increase relative to the initial percentage of 1% (and a 100% increase to reach 2 wt% rhenium) and that said increase may have a significant impact of the properties of the resulting product of Skoog, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The MPEP 2144.05 I provides various examples of when a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. One of the examples is directed to how a claim recitation of acid concentration between 25% and 70% was found obvious over a prior art disclosure of an acid concentration of 10% (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%)). Note that in the MPEP example, a prima facie case of obviousness was found in a 150% increase relative to the prior art initial acid concentration. With respect to the increase “may have a significant impact of the properties”, the examiner points out that the argument is speculative since no evidence or support is provided of how exactly Skoog’s product may have a significant impact of its properties.
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8 and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skoog et al – hereafter Skoog – (US 6,210,791 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Skoog teaches a nickel-based superalloy (column 5 line 33-45, note “nickel-base superalloys”) comprising, in weight percentages, 6.0 to 7.0% of aluminum (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 6.5 percent aluminum”), 1.0 to 4.0% of tantalum (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 9 percent tantalum”), 0.50 to 2.5% of titanium (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 5.5 percent titanium”), 3.0 to 7.0% of cobalt (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 40 percent cobalt”), 8.0 to 10.0% of chromium (column 5 line 33-45, note “5 to 22 percent chromium”), 1.5 to 2.5% of molybdenum (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 10 percent molybdenum”), 0 to 2.5% of tungsten (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 15 percent tungsten”), up to 1% of rhenium (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 1 percent rhenium”), 0.05 to 0.25% of hafnium (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 2 percent hafnium”), 0 to 0.15% of silicon (column 5 line 33-45, note “minor amounts of … silicon”), a remainder consisting of nickel (column 5 line 33-45, note “10 to 80 percent nickel”) and unavoidable impurities (column 5 line 33-45, note “small amounts of impurities of sulfur, copper, and phosphorus”).
However, does not explicitly disclose 1.5 to 2.5% of rhenium.
Note that “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists and “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close” (MPEP 2144.05 I). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the nickel-based superalloy of Skoog to include the claimed ranges because Skoog clearly discloses ranges that overlap or lie inside the claimed ranges.
Furthermore, the disclosed nickel-based superalloy of Skoog comprises, in percentage, a [secondary reaction zone (ZRS)]1/2 of -67.0 to -50.0. Note below selected examples of the disclosed element compositions of the nickel-based superalloy by Skoog in weight percentages, also included for purposes of the calculation of the atomic percentages, is the atomic weight (accessed on 21 April 2025 via https://www.britannica.com/science/atomic-weight) of each element in the compositions. Note the formula at the bottom (accessed on 21 April 2025 via https://plasmaterials.com/converting-atomic-percent-to-weight-percent-and-vice-versa/) was used as a guideline to calculate the atomic percentages of each element and the right most column includes values of the secondary reaction zone based on the formula disclosed by Walston et al (US 5,270,123 A) which fall within the claimed range.
PNG
media_image1.png
418
796
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Skoog further teaches in weight percentages, 5.5 to 6.5% of aluminum (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 6.5 percent aluminum”), 1.0 to 3.0% of tantalum (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 9 percent tantalum”), 0.50 to 1.5% of titanium (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 5.5 percent titanium”), 3.0 to 7.0% of cobalt (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 40 percent cobalt”), 0.5 to 1.5% of tungsten (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 15 percent tungsten”), 0.05 to 0.25% of hafnium (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 2 percent hafnium”), 0 to 0.15% of silicon (column 5 line 33-45, note “minor amounts of … silicon”), the remainder consisting of nickel (column 5 line 33-45, note “10 to 80 percent nickel”) and unavoidable impurities (column 5 line 33-45, note “small amounts of impurities of sulfur, copper, and phosphorus”).
Note that “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists” (MPEP 2144.05 I). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the nickel-based superalloy of Skoog to include the claimed ranges because Skoog clearly discloses ranges that overlap or lie inside the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 3, Skoog further teaches in weight percentages, 6.5 to 7.0% of aluminum (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 6.5 percent aluminum”), 1.0 to 3.0% of tantalum (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 9 percent tantalum”), 0.50 to 1.5% of titanium (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 5.5 percent titanium”), 3.0 to 7.0% of cobalt (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 40 percent cobalt”), 0.5 to 1.5% of tungsten (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 15 percent tungsten”), 0.05 to 0.25% of hafnium (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 2 percent hafnium”), 0 to 0.15% of silicon (column 5 line 33-45, note “minor amounts of … silicon”), the remainder consisting of nickel (column 5 line 33-45, note “10 to 80 percent nickel”) and unavoidable impurities (column 5 line 33-45, note “small amounts of impurities of sulfur, copper, and phosphorus”).
Note that “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists” (MPEP 2144.05 I). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the nickel-based superalloy of Skoog to include the claimed ranges because Skoog clearly discloses ranges that overlap or lie inside the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 5, Skoog further teaches in weight percentages, 6.0% of aluminum (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 6.5 percent aluminum”), 2.0% of tantalum (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 9 percent tantalum”), 1.0% of titanium (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 5.5 percent titanium”), 5.0% of cobalt (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 40 percent cobalt”), 1.0% of tungsten (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 15 percent tungsten”), 0.10% of hafnium (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 2 percent hafnium”), minor amounts of silicon (column 5 line 33-45, note “minor amounts of … silicon”), the remainder consisting of nickel (column 5 line 33-45, note “10 to 80 percent nickel”) and unavoidable impurities (column 5 line 33-45, note “small amounts of impurities of sulfur, copper, and phosphorus”).
However, does not explicitly disclose 0.10% of silicon.
Note that “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists and “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close” (MPEP 2144.05 I). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the nickel-based superalloy of Skoog to include the claimed ranges because Skoog clearly discloses ranges that overlap or lie inside the claimed ranges and with respect to silicon, the claimed amount is merely close to the disclosed amount by Skoog.
Regarding claim 6, Skoog further teaches in weight percentages, up to 6.5% of aluminum (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 6.5 percent aluminum”), 2.0% of tantalum (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 9 percent tantalum”), 1.0% of titanium (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 5.5 percent titanium”), 5.0% of cobalt (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 40 percent cobalt”), 1.0% of tungsten (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 15 percent tungsten”), 0.10% of hafnium (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 2 percent hafnium”), minor amounts of silicon (column 5 line 33-45, note “minor amounts of … silicon”), the remainder consisting of nickel (column 5 line 33-45, note “10 to 80 percent nickel”) and unavoidable impurities (column 5 line 33-45, note “small amounts of impurities of sulfur, copper, and phosphorus”).
However, does not explicitly disclose 7.0% of aluminum and 0.10% of silicon.
Note that “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists and “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close” (MPEP 2144.05 I). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the nickel-based superalloy of Skoog to include the claimed ranges because Skoog clearly discloses ranges that overlap or lie inside the claimed ranges and with respect to aluminum and silicon, the claimed amounts are merely close to the disclosed amounts by Skoog.
Regarding claim 7, Skoog further teaches in weight percentages, 6.5% of aluminum (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 6.5 percent aluminum”), 3.0% of tantalum (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 9 percent tantalum”), 1.0% of titanium (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 5.5 percent titanium”), 5.0% of cobalt (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 40 percent cobalt”), 9.0% of chromium (column 5 line 33-45, note “5 to 22 percent chromium”), 1.5% of molybdenum (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 10 percent molybdenum”), 2.0% of tungsten (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 15 percent tungsten”), up to 1% of rhenium (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 1 percent rhenium”), 0.10% of hafnium (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 2 percent hafnium”), minor amounts of silicon (column 5 line 33-45, note “minor amounts of … silicon”), the remainder consisting of nickel (column 5 line 33-45, note “10 to 80 percent nickel”) and unavoidable impurities (column 5 line 33-45, note “small amounts of impurities of sulfur, copper, and phosphorus”).
However, does not explicitly disclose 2.0% of rhenium and 0.10% of silicon.
Note that “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists and “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close” (MPEP 2144.05 I). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the nickel-based superalloy of Skoog to include the claimed ranges because Skoog clearly discloses ranges that overlap or lie inside the claimed ranges and with respect to rhenium and silicon, the claimed amounts are merely close to the disclosed amounts by Skoog.
Regarding claim 8, Skoog further teaches in weight percentages, 6.5% of aluminum (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 6.5 percent aluminum”), 2.0% of tantalum (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 9 percent tantalum”), 2.0% of titanium (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 5.5 percent titanium”), 5.0% of cobalt (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 40 percent cobalt”), 9.0% of chromium (column 5 line 33-45, note “5 to 22 percent chromium”), 2.0% of molybdenum (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 10 percent molybdenum”), up to 1% of rhenium (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 1 percent rhenium”), 0.10% of hafnium (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 2 percent hafnium”), minor amounts of silicon (column 5 line 33-45, note “minor amounts of … silicon”), the remainder consisting of nickel (column 5 line 33-45, note “10 to 80 percent nickel”) and unavoidable impurities (column 5 line 33-45, note “small amounts of impurities of sulfur, copper, and phosphorus”).
However, does not explicitly disclose 2.0% of rhenium and 0.10% of silicon.
Note that “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists and “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close” (MPEP 2144.05 I). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the nickel-based superalloy of Skoog to include the claimed ranges because Skoog clearly discloses ranges that overlap or lie inside the claimed ranges and with respect to rhenium and silicon, the claimed amounts are merely close to the disclosed amounts by Skoog.
Regarding claim 13, Skoog teaches the superalloy according to claim 1, and further teaches the superalloy could include up to 1.5 percent vanadium (column 5 line 33-45, note “up to 1.5 percent vanadium”) however, does not explicitly disclose, which does not comprise vanadium.
Note that “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists and “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close” (MPEP 2144.05 I). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the nickel-based superalloy of Skoog to not include vanadium because Skoog clearly discloses ranges that overlap or lie inside the claimed ranges.
Regarding claims 14-15, Skoog further teaches the superalloy according to claim 1, having a volumetric mass less than or equal to 8.50 g/cm3 and less than or equal to 8.20 g/cm3. Note screenshots below from the alloy density calculator from handymath.com. Since the calculator does not accept 0 values, for the calculation, molybdenum was assigned a weight percent value of 0.000000001, which is a negligible amount for this calculation. Furthermore, the weight percent values used for the calculation came from ¶65, Table 1, Ex 1, said weight percent values are covered by the obvious disclosed ranges of Skoog. In the calculated example, the volumetric mass (density) of the superalloy resulted in 8.04 g/cm3
PNG
media_image2.png
844
786
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to screenshots above, weights entered have weight percent values and densities (volumetric masses) entered have g/cm3 units. Similarly, the resultant weight and density (volumetric mass) calculate in the screenshot below have weight percent values and g/cm3 units, respectively. Finally, note that 8.04 g/cm3 is less than or equal to 8.50 g/cm3 and less than or equal to 8.20 g/cm3.
PNG
media_image3.png
568
787
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Skoog further teaches the superalloy has a y' solvus temperature of at least 1200°C. Note that “where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103.” In the current instance, the prior art composition and the claimed composition of the nickel-based superalloy is the same. Furthermore, applicant’s disclosure states that the y' solvus temperature is obtained via a calculation using software based on the composition of the superalloy (see applicant’s specification ¶83-85. Therefore, a person of ordinary skills in the art would be expected to obtain the calculated y' solvus temperature being at least 1200°C for the prior art disclosed superalloy composition and the obvious claimed superalloy composition; compositions of the superalloy as discussed in the claim rejections above.
Regarding claim 17, Skoog further teaches the superalloy has a heat treatment interval of at least 50°C. Note that “where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103.” In the current instance, the prior art composition and the claimed composition of the nickel-based superalloy is the same. Furthermore, applicant’s disclosure states that the heat treatment interval is obtained via a calculation using software based on the composition of the superalloy (see applicant’s specification ¶86-88. Therefore, a person of ordinary skills in the art would be expected to obtain the calculated heat treatment interval being at least 50°C for the prior art disclosed superalloy composition and the obvious claimed superalloy composition; compositions of the superalloy as discussed in the claim rejections above.
Regarding claim 18, Skoog further teaches the superalloy has a volume fraction of y' phase of at least 40% at 1100°C. Note that “where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103.” In the current instance, the prior art composition and the claimed composition of the nickel-based superalloy is the same. Furthermore, applicant’s disclosure states that the volume fraction of y' phase is obtained via a calculation using software based on the composition of the superalloy (see applicant’s specification ¶89-92. Therefore, a person of ordinary skills in the art would be expected to obtain the calculated volume fraction of y' phase being at least 40% at 1100°C for the prior art disclosed superalloy composition and the obvious claimed superalloy composition; compositions of the superalloy as discussed in the claim rejections above.
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skoog et al – hereafter Skoog – (US 6,210,791 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hazel et al – hereafter Hazel – (US 20100254822 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Skoog further teaches a blade (Fig.1; ) for a turbomachine (column 1 line 24-26, note “turbines in aircraft gas turbine engines”) comprising a superalloy according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above), however, does not explicitly teach the blade being a single-crystal blade.
Hazel teaches a nickel-based superalloy with a similar composition to the nickel-based superalloy of Skoog, with respect to the elements in addition to nickel (abstract), and said nickel-base superalloy composition being used in single-crystal superalloy articles such a turbine blades (Fig.1; abstract).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the nickel-based superalloy of Skoog by having it being a single-crystal superalloy based on the teachings of Hazel because said nickel-based single-crystal superalloys could be used for turbine blades for a gas turbine engine.
Regarding claim 10, Skoog and Hazel further teach a protective coating comprising a metal sub-layer (Skoog Fig.2, 24; column 6 line 20-27, note “bond coat 24 may optionally be applied overlying and contacting a surface of the substrate 22”) deposited on the superalloy and a ceramic thermal barrier (Skoog Fig.2, 26; column 6 line 50-54, note “thermal barrier coating 26 may optionally be applied overlying the bond coat 24 … thermal barrier coating 26 is preferably yttria-(partially) stabilized zirconia, which is a zirconium oxide-base ceramic material”) deposited on the metal sub-layer (Skoog Fig.2).
Regarding claim 11, Skoog and Hazel further teach the blade according to claim 9 (see claim 9 above), however, do not explicitly teach the blade having a structure oriented in a <001> crystallographic direction.
Hazel further teaches the nickel-based superalloy being directionally solidified with the intent of being used high pressure turbine blade applications for a gas turbine engine (Hazel abstract), therefore, the crystallographic direction (i.e., directional solidification) is recognized as a result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the nickel-based superalloy of Skoog and Hazel by having a structure oriented in a <001> crystallographic direction via routine optimization because "It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." (MPEP 2144.05 II A). In the current instance, Hazel has recognized directional solidification which results in crystallographic direction as a result effective variable, and claiming a specific form or degree of the crystallographic direction is not an invention that will sustain a patent.
Regarding claim 12, Skoog and Hazel further teach a turbomachine (Skoog column 1 line 24-26, note “turbines in aircraft gas turbine engines”) comprising a blade (Skoog Fig.1) according to claim 9 (see claim 9 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN G FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-3486. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:30pm Pacific Time.
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, Nathan E Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JUAN G FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745