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 1-11 are pending wherein claims 1-8 have been preliminarily amended and claims 9-11 have been preliminarily added. Claims 1-6, 8-9 and 11 are currently under examination and claims 7 and 10 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected method for manufacturing nickel based alloy product with a recrystallization step carried out between 1000°C and 1025°C for a duration of 1 hour to 10 hours. Applicant’s election of claims 1-6, 8-9 and 11 was made with traverse in the Response filed on September 1, 2026. Applicant traverses on the ground that there would be no additional burden placed on the Examiner. In response, the Examiner notes that Applicant provided no evidence that the species are obvious variants nor did the Applicant clearly admit on the record that that the species are obvious variants and thus addressing two separate heat treatments that would provide different results would be a search burden since two different products would result absent this admission/showing by Applicant. Finally, the Examiner notes that although some of the searching may overlap, to examine both of these species would require not only additional searching but also consideration of additional 112 issues, consideration of the combinability of prior art references the formulation of rejections, etc. Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-2, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blankenship, Jr. et al. (US 5,547,523).
In regard to claims 1-2, Blankenship, Jr. et al. (523) discloses a method of forging an article having a controlled grain size from a nickel base superalloy comprising selecting a forging preform formed from a nickel base superalloy having a microstructure comprising a mixture of gamma and gamma prime phases wherein the gamma prime phase occupies at least 40% by volume of the nickel base superalloy (column 2, lines 3-26). Blankenship further discloses wherein the alloy would be isothermally forged at a temperature that 100°F or less below the γ’ solvus temperature (about 2050°F or about 1121°C) at a strain rate in the range of 0.0001 to 0.01 s-1; forging at least a portion of the at a strain rate of 0.1 to 100 s-1 so as to produce a forged article with retained strain energy; and subsolvus annealing the forged article at a temperature that is 100°F or less below the gamma prime solvus temperature (about 1950°F or about 1065°C) for 8 to 168 hours (column 8). The Examiner notes that initial gamma prime phase, the temperatures and times disclosed by Blankenship, Jr. et al. (‘523) overlap the ranges of the instant invention, which is prima facie evidence of 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 gamma prime phase, the temperatures and times from the amounts disclosed by Blankenship, Jr. et al. (‘523) because Blankenship, Jr. et al. (‘523) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
With respect to the recitation “supplying an ingot of a nickel based alloy” in claim 1, Blankenship, Jr. et al. (‘523) does not specify supplying an ingot, but rather simple forgings and refers to disks or pancakes (column 3). However, merely changing the shape of a prior art product from a disk or pancake to an ingot would not patentably distinguish the instant process from the prior art process. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
In regard to claim 6, Blankenship, Jr. et al. (‘523) discloses wherein the second forging would occur at a strain rate of 0.1 to 100 s-1, which would overlap the range of the instant invention. MPEP 2144.05 I.
In regard to claim 9, Blankenship, Jr. et al. (‘523) discloses wherein the second forging step would be at a strain rate of 0.1 to 100 s-1 so as to produce a forged article with retained strain energy, which overlaps the ranges of the instant invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blankenship, Jr. et al. (US 5,547,523) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nazmy et al. (US 4,612,062).
In regard to claim 5, Blankenship, Jr. et al. (‘523) discloses a process of forging nickel based alloys as set forth above, but Blankenship, Jr. et al. (‘523) does not specify wherein the second forging step would be carried out at a temperature in the range of 900 to 1055°C.
In the same field of endeavor, Nazmy et al. (‘062) discloses a multistep forging process for nickel base alloys wherein the forging temperature during the second step would be 1010°C wherein the final structure would be fine grained with the best possible mechanical properties (columns 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to filing of the instant invention to use a second forging temperature, as disclosed by Nazmy et al. (‘062), when performing the second forging step of Blankenship, Jr. et al. (‘523), in order to achieve a fine grained structure with the best possible mechanical properties, as disclosed by Nazmy et al. (‘062) (columns 1-2).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blankenship, Jr. et al. (US 5,547,523) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miller et al. (US 5,120,373).
In regard to claim 3, Blankenship, Jr. et al. (‘523) discloses processing for nickel base superalloys as set forth above, but Blankenship, Jr. et al. (‘523) does not specify wherein the nickel base superalloy would undergo a vacuum remelting step.
In the same field of endeavor, Miller et al. (‘373) discloses vacuum arc remelting the starting material to produce a cylindrical casting and coating with a glass ceramic coating in order to lubricate and prevent other materials from interacting with the superalloy material (columns 4-5).
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 Blankenship, Jr. et al. (‘523), by previous vacuum arc remelting and coating with a glass ceramic coating, as disclosed by Miller et al. (‘373), in order to lubricate and prevent other materials from interacting with the superalloy material, as disclosed by Millet al. (‘373) (columns 4-5).
In regard to claim 4, Miller et al. (‘373) discloses a true cumulative strain of 1.6 (column 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 11 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 8, Blankenship, Jr. et al. (‘523) discloses subsolvus annealing the forged article at a temperature that is 100°F or less below the gamma prime solvus temperature (about 1950°F or about 1065°C) for 8 to 168 hours (column 8). The time of treatment disclosed in Blankenship, Jr. et al. (‘523) is at least 4 times longer than in the instant claim.
In regard to claim 11, Blankenship, Jr. et al. (‘523) discloses subsolvus annealing the forged article at a temperature that is 100°F or less below the gamma prime solvus temperature (about 1950°F or about 1065°C) for 8 to 168 hours (column 8). The time of treatment disclosed in Blankenship, Jr. et al. (‘523) is at more than 4 times longer than in the instant claim.
Conclusion
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