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 1-20 are pending wherein claims 14-20 are new.
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.
Claims 1 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (US 2014/0314618) alone, or alternatively in view of Allen et al. (US 5,344,510).
In regard to claims 1 and 15, Feng et al. (‘618) discloses nickel based superalloys that would be used in hot path turbine components such as blades and buckets having compositions relative to that of the instant invention as set forth below where oxidation resistance and hot corrosion resistance is a concern ([0004-0007] and [0029]).
Element
Instant Claim
(weight percent)
Feng et al. (‘618)
(weight percent)
Overlap
Al
5.25 – 6.25
about 1.2 – 6.2
5.25 – 6.2
Ta
0.5 – 2.0
0 – about 6.5
0.5 – 2.0
Ti
2.5 – 3.5
0 – about 5
2.5 – 3.5
Co
0 – 7
about 7.5 – 19.2
7/about 7.5
Cr
12.5 – 15.5
about 7 – 22.5
12.5 – 15.5
Element
Instant Claim
(weight percent)
Feng et al. (‘618)
(weight percent)
Overlap
Mo
0.5 – 2.5
0 – about 4
0.5 – 2.5
W
0 – 2
about 2 – 6
2/about 2
Hf
0.05 – 0.15
0 – about 0.15
0.05 – 0.15
Si
0 – 0.15
0
0
S
0 – 2 ppm
-
-
Ni
Balance
Balance
Balance
The Examiner notes that the amounts of aluminum, tantalum, titanium, cobalt, chromium, molybdenum, tungsten, hafnium and silicon disclosed by Feng et al. (‘618) overlap or are close enough to the amounts of the instant invention to establish prima facie obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to select the claimed amounts of aluminum, tantalum, titanium, cobalt, chromium, molybdenum, tungsten, hafnium and silicon from the amounts disclosed by Feng et al. (‘618) because Feng et al. (‘618) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
With respect to the claimed range of sulfur, Feng et al. (‘618) discloses normal impurities, which would include the claimed range of sulfur. Alternatively, Feng et al. (‘618) fails to specify removing sulfur to the degree that it would be present at an upper limit of 2 ppm or 0.5 ppm as in claim 15.
Allen et al. (‘510) teaches a process for removing sulfur from nickel superalloys such that the content of sulfur would have an upper limit of about 1 ppm in order to provide enhanced oxidation resistance (column 2). Allen et al. (‘510) also teaches reducing to levels of sulfur such as 0.5 ppm (column 3).
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 processing of the nickel base superalloys, as disclosed by Feng et al. (‘618), to remove sulfur such that the upper limit would be about 1 ppm or 0.5 ppm, as disclosed by Allen et al. (‘510), in order to provided enhanced oxidation resistance, as disclosed by Allen et al. (‘510) (columns 2 and 3).
In regard to claim 16, Feng et al. (‘618) discloses wherein the rhenium would be from 0 to about 3 weight percent, which would read on the claim (abstract and [0017]).
In regard to claim 17, Feng et al. (‘618) discloses nickel base alloys with substantially similar compositions relative to the instant invention (abstract and [0017]). Therefore, the claimed densities would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
Claims 10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (US 2014/0314618) alone, or alternatively in view of Allen et al. (US 5,344,510) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Bullied et al. (US 2005/0211408).
In regard to claims 10 and 13, Feng et al. (‘618) alone or alternatively in view of Allen et al. (‘510) discloses nickel base superalloys that would be used as blades and buckets of turbine engines as set forth above [0004-0007]. However, Feng et al. (‘618) alone or alternatively in view of Allen et al. (‘510) does not specify wherein the nickel base superalloys would be single crystal.
Bullied et al. (‘408) teaches making nickel base superalloys single crystal in order to improve the production yield and to ensure optimum primary and secondary crystal growth ([0018-0020] and [0024]).
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 manufacture of the nickel base alloys, as disclosed by Feng et al. (‘618) alone, or alternatively in view of Allen et al. (‘510), by making the nickel superalloys single crystal, as disclosed by Bullied et al. (‘408), in order ensure optimum primary and secondary crystal growth, as disclosed by Bullied et al. (‘408) ([0018-0020] and [0024]).
In regard to claim 12, Bullied et al. (‘408) discloses wherein the seed crystals would have a <001> primary and secondary crystallographic orientation [0009].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (US 2014/0314618) alone, or alternatively in view of Allen et al. (US 5,344,510), and further in view of Bullied et al. (US 2005/0211408) and Bossmann et al. (US 2010/0247953).
In regard to claim 11, Feng et al. (‘618) alone or alternatively in view of Allen et al. (‘510), and further in view of Bullied et al. (‘408) discloses single crystal nickel based superalloys as set forth above, but Feng et al. (‘618) alone or alternatively in view of Allen et al. (‘510), and further in view of Bullied et al. (‘408) does not specify a protective coating comprising a metal sublayer deposited on the superalloy and a ceramic thermal barrier deposited on the metal sublayer.
Bossmann et al. (‘953) discloses a bond coat layer bonded to nickel base superalloy substrates and then attaching at least one ceramic layer to the bond coat layer wherein the bond coat layer would be composed of MCrAlY or Co/Ni and/or PtAl and the ceramic layer would be a conventional TBC layer such as yttrium-stabilized zirconium in order to provide thermal protection that is capable of handling high temperatures and harsh environments (abstract, [0022-0023], [0035-0036] and [0051-0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention, to add a bond coat layer of MCrAlY or Co/Ni and/or PtAl and the ceramic layer would be a conventional TBC layer such as yttrium-stabilized zirconium, as disclosed by Bossman et al. (‘953), to the single crystal nickel base superalloys, as disclosed by Feng et al. (‘618) alone or alternatively in view of Allen et al. (‘510), and further in view of Bullied et al. (‘408), in order to provide thermal protection that is capable of handling high temperatures and harsh environments, as disclosed by Bossman et al. (‘953) (abstract, [0022-0023], [0035-0036] and [0051-0053]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (US 2014/0314618) alone, or alternatively in view of Allen et al. (US 5,344,510) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xiong et al. (Effect of Si addition on the creep performance of a Ni-based superalloy).
In regard to claim 14 Feng et al. (‘618) alone, or alternatively in view of Allen et al. (‘510) discloses nickel base alloys with low to no sulfur as set forth above, but Feng et al. (‘618) alone or alternatively in view of Allen et al. (‘510) does not specify wherein silicon would be present in an amount of 0.05 to 0.15 weight percent.
Xiong et al. teaches that adding 0.08 weight percent silicon to nickel base alloys would result in a substantially improved rupture life relative to higher amounts such as 0.30 weight percent (abstract and Figure 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to add 0.08 weight percent silicon, as disclosed by Xiong et al., to the nickel base alloys, as disclosed by Feng et al. (‘618), in order to improve the rupture life, as disclosed by Xiong et al. (abstract and Figure 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9 and 18-20 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.
Claims 2-9 are objected to for the reasons set forth in the Office Action of May 20, 2026.
In regard to claim 18, Feng et al. (‘618) requires the presence of at least 2 weight percent tungsten and therefore claim 18 would distinguish from Feng et al. (‘618) (abstract and [0017]).
In regard to claim 19, Feng et al. (‘618) requires the presence of at least 7.5 weight percent cobalt and therefore claim 19 would distinguish from Feng et al. (‘618) (abstract and [0017]).
In regard to claim 20, Feng et al. (‘618) requires a minimum of 0.05 weight percent carbon, which is times more than the instant claim and therefore claim 20 distinguishes from Feng et al. (‘618) (abstract and [0017]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, the Applicant primarily argues that Feng et al. (‘618) is directed to a cast nickel base superalloy that includes iron where iron is structurally required in an amount of 1% to 6% by weight and Feng et al. (‘618) teaches that iron is added as a direct, substitutional replacement for nickel to reduce the overall cost of the cast product and nowhere does Feng et al. (‘618) indicate that iron is optional. The Applicant additionally argues that the “remainder” in Feng et al. (‘618) also contains amounts of iron that are far beyond what is considered an unavoidable impurity and Feng et al. (‘618) cannot be modified to remove iron, at least because in doing so one of ordinary skill would have to completely eliminate the required 1 to 6% iron.
In response, the Examiner notes that claim 1 utilizes the transitional language “comprising”, which would render the claim open to additional, unrecited elements such as iron and therefore the claim would not exclude the presence of iron. MPEP 2111.03.
Second, the Applicant primarily argues that the Office Action assert an overlap between the applications range of 0 to 7 weight percent and the cobalt range of Feng et al. (‘618) is about 7.5 to 19.1 weight percent and Applicant disagrees and “about 7.5” cannot be reasonably interpreted to encompass values as low as 7.0 or below and a difference by 0.5 points for an amount of 7% would represent an additional amount of 7.14%, which is beyond usual tolerances, especially in metallurgy where small quantities have meaningful, significant impacts on mechanical and physical properties. Additionally, Feng teaches against reducing cobalt to or below 7.5% and Feng et al. (‘618) teaches that cobalt is an essentially addition to “improve the stress and creep-rupture properties of the cast nickel-base superalloy and one of ordinary skill would be taught away from decreasing cobalt below the critical threshold of Feng et al. (‘618) of 7.5%.
In response, the Examiner notes that according to MPEP 2144.05 I. the scope of about 7.5% cobalt as disclosed by Feng et al. (‘618) would overlap or would be close enough to establish prima facie obviousness.
Third, the Applicant primarily argues that the desulfurization process of Allen et al. (‘510) would require heating the alloy to extremely high temperatures for 50 to 200 hours under a high vacuum of
10-6 torr to 100 tor and at these temperatures and low pressures, iron has significantly higher vapor pressure and volatility than nickel and would cause active preferential vaporization of iron from the surface that would severely degrade the chemical composition and surface integrity.
In response, the Examiner notes that the claims under examination are to a product and not a process and the motivation to remove levels of sulfur would not necessarily motivate one to use the exact same process for removal as skilled artisans are equipped with varying knowledge of different processes to achieve the same product as has been shown in various prior arts.
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 Jessee Roe whose telephone number is (571)272-5938. The examiner can normally be reached 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, 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.
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights