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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 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 “0.11% - 0.13%, and the claim also recites “more particularly 0.12%” 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.
Claim 1 contains multiple instances of a broad limitation followed by a narrow limitation, and is indefinite for each of these instances.
Each of claims 2, 3, and 4, directed to a powder, a method, and a component, respectively, also includes multiple instances of a broad limitation followed by a narrow limitation, and each claim is indefinite.
Claim 3 recites a method of “using an alloy based on nickel.” Attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process generally raises an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In this case applicant may consider adding one or more required and defined steps in the method claim. The verb “using” in claim 3 is not considered to positively invoke any step. It is not clear what processes would or would not fall under the purview of “a process of using” the nickel alloy. The point of infringement of claim 3 cannot be determined.
Conclusion
NO claims are allowable. NO rejection is made over the prior art at this time.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 4169742 A is considered representative of the René family of alloys, which generally includes greater amount of refractory metals (W, Ta, etc.) than the instant claimed alloy. US 4608094 A teaches a nickel superalloy with generally overlapping composition, but greater amounts of Zr and lower amounts of Hf than claimed. US 10385426 B2 teaches a nickel superalloy with generally overlapping composition, but greater amounts of Zr than claimed and no amount of Hf. US 20210340644 A1 corresponds to EP 3685942 A1 (cited by applicant), and teaches a ”softened” nickel alloy powder used for powder metallurgy with broad overlapping composition. GB 2153845 A (cited by applicant) teaches a nickel superalloy with broad overlapping composition. US 20080240972 A1 teaches a nickel superalloy with broad overlapping composition.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6510. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
CHRISTOPHER S. KESSLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1759