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 the Claims Claims 1-7 are pending wherein claims 1-7 have been preliminarily amended. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 5 is 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 5 recites the broad recitation “between 140 µm and 60 µm” , and the claim also recites “between 130 µm and 70 µm” and “between 125 µm and 75 µm ” which are the narrower statement s 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 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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable PLA NO 5719 Factory (CN 110 586 948) (hereinafter referred to as “Factory (CN ‘948)”) . In regard to claim s 1 and 5 , Factory (CN ‘948) discloses a method for manufacturing disks for turbomachines, the method comprising: obtaining a nickel based alloy powder (Example 1) and shaping the powder in order to obtain a disk (Example 1) wherein the step of obtaining the powder comprises producing an electrode made of nickel-based alloy by plasma arc melting cold hearth refining; atomizing an electrode by electrode induction gas atomization using an electrode resulting in a raw powder; and sieving the powder under an inert atmosphere or under a vacuum to a particle size of between 25 and 62 micrometers, which overlaps the range of the instant invention , thereby establishing prima facie evidence of obviousness (Example 1). MPEP 2144.05 I. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable PLA NO 5719 Factory (CN 110 586 948) (hereinafter referred to as “Factory (CN ‘948)”) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Chong-Lin et al. (Innovative technologies for powder metallurgy-based disk superalloys: Progress and proposal). In regard to claim 6, Factory (CN ‘948) discloses a method for manufacturing disks for turbomachines as set forth above, but Factory (CN ‘948) does not specify wherein the powder would be hot densified into a forging blank and manufacturing the disk by isothermal forging, heat treatment and machining. Chong Lin et al. teaches, in the same field of endeavor, hot isostatic pressing the powder (forming a forging blank) and then isothermally forging the product to form pancake shaped forgings in order to improve the degree of densification (026103-6). Chong Lin et al. further discloses solution treating (heat treatment) and Factory (CN ‘948) teaches mechanical roughing/finishing after solution treatment [0011-0012]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to modify the method of manufacturing disks, as disclosed by Factory (CN ‘948), by hot isostatic pressing the powder (forming a forging blank) and then isothermally forging the product to form pancake shaped forgings , as disclosed by Chong Lin et al., in order to improve the degree of densification , as disclosed by Chong Lin et al. (026103-6) . Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 2 -4 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In regard to claim 2, the closest prior art to Factory (CN ‘948) fails to specify wherein the plasma arc melting cold hearth refining would take place in a copper crucible. In regard to claims 3-4 the closest prior art to Factory (CN ‘948) fails to specify contactlessly heating the lowest end of the electrode leading to a thin stream of molten alloy flowing by gravity through a nozzle and injecting an inert gas towards and around the thin stream of molten alloy. In regard to claim 7, neither Factory (CN ‘948) nor Chong Lin et al. specify hot densifying to form a forging blank; isothermally forging, heat treating, machining a blank; placing the powder in a hermetically sealed container; hot compacting the container; extruding the compacted container resulting in a cylindrical bar having an outer layer made of the material of the container and a cylindrical core made of nickel based alloy; eliminating the outer layer; and cutting the cylindrical core into forging blank. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Jessee Roe whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5938 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday thru Friday 7:30 am to 4 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Curt Mayes can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /JESSEE R ROE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759