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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 2 February 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4 were amended and remain pending in the application. New claims 5-7 have been added. . Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 12 January 2026.
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.
Claim 3 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 3 contains the limitation “irradiating a powder comprising an alloy based on nickel”. The instant specification does not provide proper support for the claimed subject matter, i.e. “irradiating a powder”. The term “irradiating” is not included in the instant specification.
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.
Claims 3 and 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.
As amended, claims 3 and 4 both recite 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),the alloy based on nickel further consisting of a balance of nickel (Ni) and residual impurities to 0.1%.
The transitional phrase "consisting of" excludes any element, step, or ingredient not specified in the claim. "Consisting of" is defined as "closing the claim to the inclusion of materials other than those recited except for impurities ordinarily associated therewith", see MPEP 211.03. As “consists of” closes the alloy to any elements not specified, it is unclear how the alloy could be “further consisting of” a balance of nickel when the previous “consists of” in the claim would exclude any elements not included in the initial element list.
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 1-4 and new claims 5 -6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2020377987 of Han.
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 claims including claims 3 and 4 , which exclude other elements not mentioned in the claim, see claim interpretation above.
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.
Therefore, Han covers all limitations of claims 1-6.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2020377987 of Han in view of GB2587635 of Crudden.
Claim 7 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the alloy contains 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 Crudden covers all limitations of claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to tungsten, applicant argues, (remarks, Page 7), that because Han’s lowest upper range for tungsten is 5.0 wt% which is greater than the claimed upper limit of 3.6 wt%, Han did not recognize that the 3.4 wt% upper limit is a turning point at which excessive precipitation begins to form.
Examiner asserts that Han discloses that an excessive amount of tungsten results in the formation of harmful intermetallic compound phase, Para[0064]. Therefore, Han was aware of the excessive precipitation caused by an excessive amount of tungsten and the upper limit of 5.0 wt% was set with this factor in mind. Also, applicant does not provide any supporting explanation as to why the specific amount of 3.4 wt% of tungsten results in excessive precipitation. Applicant does not define how much precipitation is considered to be “excessive” and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised to the meaning of “excessive”, especially in comparison to the prior art. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
With respect to Molybdenum, applicant argues, (remarks, Page 8), that because Han’s lowest upper range for Mo is 5.0 wt% which is greater than the claimed upper limit of 1.7%, Han did not appear to recognize that molybdenum’s effect is lower than tungsten’s and therefore the amount of molybdenum should be limited.
Han discloses that tungsten and molybdenum both contribute to the solid solution strengthening and excessive amounts of each result in the formation of intermetallic compound phases, Para[0058,0064]. This shows that Han was aware of the effect of molybdenum and tungsten on the alloy when setting the upper limits. Examiner asserts that if the effect of molybdenum is lower than that of tungsten, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to add a larger amount (not necessarily a smaller amount) of molybdenum than tungsten in order to avoid the harmful precipitation effect while maintaining the solid solution strengthening effect. This supports Han’s higher range for Molybdenum. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
With respect to titanium, applicant argues, (remarks, Page 8), that because Han’s lower limit for Ti is 0.8 wt% which is lower than the claimed lower limit of 1.5%, Han did not appear to recognize that titanium’s lower limit was too low for the properties disclosed by applicant to be suitable.
Applicant states at paragraph [0018] of the instant specification that titanium is present in the γ’ phase, serving to improve high-temperature strength, but the excessive addition thereof makes the γ’ phase unstable and causes a reduction in the strength.
Han discloses that Titanium (Ti) forms a γ′ phase and increases high-temperature strength through solid solution strengthening of the γ′ phase, similarly to Al. However, an excessive amount of Ti makes the γ′ phase unstable and coarse at a high temperature and forms a harmful η (eta) phase to deteriorate hot workability during the raw material production, Para[0061]. Given that Han discloses the same reasons for setting the lower limit and upper limit as applicant, it appears that Han’s range for titanium would be suitable for the properties disclosed by applicant. Han also discloses that considering a balance with other γ′ generating elements and an Ni matrix, a lower limit of the Ti content is preferably 0.6%, more preferably 0.7%, and still more preferably 0.8%, Para[0061]. Han discloses that Nb and Al also form a γ’ phase contributing to strengthening, Para[0059,0065]. Therefore, one following the teachings of Han would still be able to achieve the strengthening with the γ’ phase by replacing some amount of Ti with Nb or Al. This supports Han’s lower range for titanium. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
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 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