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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. The Amendment filed 22 May 2026 has been entered. Claims 3-7 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-2 has/have been canceled. New claims 8-10 have been added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09 April 2026 was considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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.
Claim 4 is 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 4 claims a component comprising a substrate; however, applicant does not mention a substrate in the detailed description. Therefore, the specification does not provide proper support for a substrate and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the scope of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 5, 6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2020377987 of Han in view of US2011052443 of Hanlon.
Claim 3 claims a process comprising: casting a component comprising an alloy based on nickel wherein the alloy based on nickel comprises the elements in wt% as shown in Table A below.
Han discloses a method for manufacturing super-refractory nickel-based alloy and super-refractory nickel-based alloy in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. The alloy disclosed in comparison to the claimed invention is shown in Table A below.
Table A
Element
Instant Invention, wt%
US2020377987 (Han) , wt%
Carbon
0.07-0.09
0-0.25
Chromium
9.0-10.0
8.0-25.0
Cobalt
9.7-10.5
0-28.0
Molybdenum
1.2-1.8
0-8.0
Tungsten
2.8-3.6
0-6.0
Titanium
1.7-2.5
0.4-7.0
Aluminum
5.6-6.3
0.5-8.0
Boron
0.008-0.012
0-0.30
Zirconium
0.01-0.012
0-0.30
Tantalum
1.0-1.4
0-3.0
Niobium
0.7-1.1
0-4.0
Vanadium
0.8-1.0
0-1.2
Hafnium
1.2-1.4
0-3.0
Silicon
Up to 0.011
0
Rhenium
0
0
Ruthenium
0
0
Nickel
Balance
Balance
Han discloses overlapping ranges for all elements of the claimed invention. The only additional element taught by Han is Iron as an optional element to replace Ni or Co for reducing cost, Para.[0067]. Therefore, Han reads on all compositional limitations of the claimed invention.
Han discloses an overlapping range of carbon, see Table A above. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Han also teaches that carbon remains as carbides in a structure of the cast Ni-based alloy, and a part of carbon forms coarse eutectic carbides, Para[0054]. Han discloses that the coarse carbides become a starting point and progress route of cracking. Therefore, a reduction of the amount of carbon is extremely important for Ni-based alloy, Para[0055]. Therefore, based on the teachings of Han it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add carbon to a nickel-based alloy in the claimed range.
Han discloses an overlapping range of chromium, see Table A above. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Han also teaches that chromium improves oxidation resistance and corrosion resistance. Therefore, based on the teachings of Han it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add chromium to a nickel-based alloy in the claimed range.
Han discloses an overlapping range of cobalt, see Table A above. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Han also teaches that cobalt improves stability of the alloy structure. On the other hand, Co is expensive and thus increases cost of the alloy, Para[0063]. Therefore, based on the teachings of Han it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add cobalt to a nickel-based alloy in the claimed range.
Han discloses an overlapping range of tungsten and molybdenum, see Table A above. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Han discloses that tungsten contributes to solid solution strengthening of a matrix, similarly to Mo. However, an excessive amount of W results in the formation of a harmful intermetallic compound phase to deteriorate high-temperature strength, Para[0064]. Han also teaches that molybdenum (Mo) contributes to solid solution strengthening of a matrix, and has an effect of improving high-temperature strength. However, an excessive amount of Mo results in formation of an intermetallic compound phase to deteriorate high-temperature strength, Para[0058]. Therefore, based on the teachings of Han it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add tungsten and molybdenum to a nickel-based alloy in the claimed range.
Han discloses an overlapping range of titanium, see Table A above. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Han also teaches that Ti forms a y’ phase and increases high-temperature strength through solid solution strengthening of the y’ phase, Para[0061]. Therefore, based on the teachings of Han it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add titanium to a nickel-based alloy in the claimed range.
Han discloses an overlapping range of aluminum, see Table A above. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Han also discloses that aluminum forms a y’ phase, and improves high-temperature strength. However, an excessive amount of Al deteriorates hot workability, Para[0059]. Therefore, based on the teachings of Han it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add aluminum to a nickel-based alloy in the claimed range.
Han discloses an overlapping range of zirconium and boron, see Table A above. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Han discloses that boron increases grain boundary strength and improves creep strength and ductility. However, boron has an effect of lowering a melting point, Para[0070]. Han also teaches that zirconium has an effect of increasing grain boundary strength, similar to boron. However excessive Zr also lowers a melting point to deteriorate high-temperature strength, Para[0071]. Therefore, based on the teachings of Han it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add zirconium and boron to a nickel-based alloy in the claimed range.
Han discloses an overlapping range of niobium and tantalum, see Table A above. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Han teaches that both niobium and tantalum increase high temperature strength through solid solution strengthening of the y’ phase, and that excessive amounts will deteriorate hot workability, Para[0065,0066]. Therefore, based on the teachings of Han it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add niobium and tantalum to a nickel-based alloy in the claimed range.
Han discloses an overlapping range of hafnium, see Table A above. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Han also discloses that hafnium is effective for improvement of oxidation resistance, Para[0069]. Therefore, based on the teachings of Han it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add hafnium to a nickel-based alloy in the claimed range.
While Han teaches as-cast alloys, the alloy specifically disclosed by Han is hot extruded after casting.
Additionally, Hanlon discloses Nickel-based superalloys and articles in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Hanlon teaches a nickel-based superalloy is provided herein comprising a unique combination of alloying elements that result in the alloy being particularly adapted for casting and directional solidification to provide articles, e.g., gas turbine buckets, having a combination of improved mechanical properties, as well as improved resistance to oxidation and hot corrosion, Para[0014]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use the alloy taught by Han in a casted gas turbine application as taught by Hanlon due to the improved mechanical properties and oxidation/corrosion resistance. Thus, Han in view of Hanlon covers all limitations of claim 3.
Claim 5 further limits claim 3 by claiming that the alloy based on nickel comprises (in wt%): nickel-based alloy of claim 1, comprising (in wt%):carbon (C): 0.08% - 0.09%, and chromium (Cr): 9.3% - 9.7%.
Han teaches overlapping ranges for C and Cr as seen in Table A above. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, Han in view of Hanlon covers all limitations of claim 5.
Claim 6 further limits claim 3 by claiming that the alloy based on nickel comprises (in wt%):nickel-based alloy of claim 5, comprising (in wt%):carbon (C): 0.08%,chromium (Cr): 9.5%,cobalt (Co): 10.0%,molybdenum (Mo): 1.5%,tungsten (W): 3.2%, titanium (Ti): 2.1%,aluminum (Al): 5.9%,boron (B): 0.01%,zirconium (Zr): 0.01%,tantalum (Ta): 1.2%, niobium (Nb): 0.9%,vanadium (V): 0.9%, and hafnium (Hf): 1.3%.
Han teaches overlapping ranges for all the claimed elements as seen in Table A above. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, Han in view of Hanlon covers all limitations of claim 6.
Claim 8 further limits claim 3 by claiming that the alloy based on nickel comprises niobium (Nb) 0.7 wt%.
Han teaches an overlapping range for niobium as seen in Table A above. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, Han in view of Hanlon covers all limitations of claim 8.
Claim 10 further limits claim 3 by claiming that the component is a component of a turbine.
Han teaches that the alloy can be used in gas turbines, Para[0002]. Therefore, Han teaches the additional limitation of claim 10. Thus, Han in view of Hanlon covers all limitations of claim 10.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2020377987 of Han in view of KR20150095880 (machine translation) of Burbaum.
Claim 4 claims a component, more particularly comprising a substrate, the substrate comprising: a nickel-based alloy which consists of (in wt%):carbon (C): 0.07% - 0.09%,chromium (Cr): 9.0% - 10.0%,cobalt (Co): 9.7% - 10.5%,molybdenum (Mo): 1.2% - 1.8%,tungsten (W): 2.8% - 3.6%, titanium (Ti): 1.7% - 2.5%,aluminum (Al): 5.6% - 6.3%, boron (B): 0.008% - 0.012%,zirconium (Zr): 0.01% - 0.012%,tantalum (Ta): 1.0% - 1.4%, niobium (Nb): 0.7% - 1.1%, vanadium (V): 0.8% - 1.0%, hafnium (Hf): 1.2% - 1.4%, silicon (Si): up to 0.011%,no rhenium (Re) and no ruthenium (Ru), and the nickel-based alloy further consisting of a balance of nickel (Ni) and residual impurities to 0.1%1 wherein the substrate comprises columnar grains.
Han teaches overlapping ranges for all the claimed elements as seen in Table A above. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Han does not specifically teach a substrate with columnar grains.
Burbaum teaches deposition welding with prior remelting in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Burbaum discloses a substrate with columnar grain shape, Para[0008]. Burbaum teaches that columnar substrates are found in nickel-based superalloys in turbine blades, Para[0002]. Therefore, it would be obvious to use the columnar grain structure taught by Burbaum in the alloy disclosed by Han as Han teaches turbine blades. Thus, Han in view of Burbaum covers all limitations of claim 4.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2020377987 of Han in view of US2011052443 of Hanlon, as cited above, further in view of GB2587635 of Crudden.
Claim 7 further limits claim 3 by claiming that the alloy based on nickel comprises silicon (Si).
Han is silent on Silicon.
Crudden teaches a nickel-based alloy in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Crudden discloses 0.0 to 0.5% silicon, Para[0010]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Crudden teaches that it has been shown that additions of silicon to nickel based superalloys at levels up to 0.5 wt.% are beneficial for oxidation properties, Para[0103]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add silicon up to 0.5% to achieve beneficial oxidation properties. Thus, Han in view of Hanlon and Crudden covers all limitations of claim 7.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2020377987 of Han in view of GB2587635 of Crudden.
Claim 9 claims a process, comprising applying a laser beam to a powder comprising an alloy based on nickel during a laser powder bed process, wherein the alloy based on nickel comprises (in wt%):carbon (C): 0.07% - 0.09%,chromium (Cr): 9.0% - 10.0%,cobalt (Co): 9.7% - 10.5%,molybdenum (Mo): 1.2% - 1.8%,tungsten (W): 2.8% - 3.6%,Atty Docket: 2021P03374WOUS (1312) titanium (Ti): 1.7% - 2.5%,aluminum (AI): 5.6% - 6.3%, boron (B): 0.008% - 0.012%,zirconium (Zr): 0.01% - 0.012%,tantalum (Ta): 1.0% - 1.4%, niobium (Nb): 0.7% - 1.1%, vanadium (V): 0.8% - 1.0%, hafnium (Hf): 1.2% - 1.4%, silicon (Si): up to 0.011%,no rhenium (Re) and no ruthenium (Ru), and a balance of nickel (Ni) and residual impurities to 0.1%.
Han teaches overlapping ranges for all the claimed elements as seen in Table A above. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Han does not teach a laser powder bed process.
Crudden teaches that the present invention relates to a nickel-based superalloy composition designed for application in additive manufacturing (AM) processes, examples of such processes including but not limited to, powder-bed based AM methods (e.g. selective laser melting, electron beam melting), direct metal deposition methods (e.g. powder deposition and wire-based methods), Para[0001]. Crudden also teaches that currently, there has been a tendency to migrate nickel-based superalloys which have been successfully manufactured in cast form or wrought form to the AM process, Para[0002]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the nickel-based superalloy disclosed by Han in a laser powder bed process as disclosed by Crudden as this is the tendency of the art. Thus, Han in view of Crudden covers all limitations of claim 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that (remarks, page 8 of 11) since Han does not disclose casting a component, Han does not anticipate or render claim 3 obvious. This is not found persuasive as Han does in fact disclose casting, Para[0003]. Applicant argues that since Han’s alloy goes through the additional step of hot extrusion after casting that Han would not render casting obvious and Han would not be concerned with the problems associated with casting, and therefore the narrower range for Hafnium is critical. This is not found persuasive as a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments, and a known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use, see MPEP 2123. Thus, the casting disclosed by Han would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art even though additional processing steps were performed after the casting. Additionally, Han teaches that an excessive amount of Hafnium may be unstable at a high temperature during a manufacturing process, Para[0069]. This shows that Han is concerned with the problems associated with manufacturing processes such as casting, and Han would have been motivated by this while setting the range for Hafnium. Therefore, applicant’s narrower range for Hafnium is not seen as critical.
Additionally, secondary reference Hanlon teaches casting of turbine blades, Para[0003, 0005]. Since Han teaches turbine blades, the casting of said turbine blades would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Hanlon.
Applicant argues that (remarks, page 9 of 11) the claimed invention is novel because Han does not disclose columnar grains. This argument is moot because secondary reference Burbaum describes that columnar grain structure is found in Nickel based superalloys in turbine blades, Para[0002]. Since Han teaches turbine blades, the columnar grain structure in these turbine blades, taught by Burbaum, would be obvious and expected to be present. Therefore, the narrower range of Hafnium claimed by applicant to produce the columnar grains is not seen as critical.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BENJAMIN STILES whose telephone number is (571)272-0598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JACOB BENJAMIN STILES/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights