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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 07/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/02/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 1-17 are presented for this examination. Claims 18-19 are withdrawn.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 03/11/2024 and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The term “high-entropy” in claims 1-17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what is defined as high entropy. In view of lack of clear definition of high entropy alloy, instant claimed HEA is interpreted as alloy containing at least 5 elements with concentration between 5-35 atomic percent according to High-entropy alloy - Wikipedia.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the phase fraction" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haftlang (NPL document “Extraordinary combination of strength and ductility in an additively manufactured Fe-based medium entropy alloy through in situ formed η-nanoprecipitate and heterogeneous microstructure” published on 01/20/2023 from IDS 03/11/2024).
As for claims 1, 3-4 and 12-17, Haftlang discloses a medium entropy alloy Fe65Ni15Co8Mn8Ti3Si (Abstract) printed by laser based direct energy deposition (DED) using laser power of 220 W, laser scan speed of 850 mm/min and hatch spacing of 0.3 mm. The pre-alloyed Fe65Ni15Co8Mn8Ti3Si powder with an average particle size of 66 micron and spherical morphology were first gas atomized in an argon atmosphere. (Page 2 Col 1 Section 2 Materials and methods paragraph). Haftlang’s medium entropy alloy Fe65Ni15Co8Mn8Ti3Si is interpreted as HEA since it contains at least 5 elements with concentration between 5-35 atomic percent according to claim interpretation above. More importantly, Haftlang’s alloy composition meets instant claim 4 required compositions requirement.
The formation of the dual phase heterogeneous microstructure, including large and elongated austenite (FCC) and semi-equiaxed fine martensite (BCC) grains were detected in the phase map of the DED-processed sample (Figure 3b) (Page 3 Col 1 Section 3.1 Microstructure investigation paragraph 1). The formation of in situ formed η nanoprecipitate, cellular structure, and elemental segregation generated is also formed during the DED process.
Hence, instant claim 1 is anticipated.
The EBSD results in Fig. 4 f and g show continuous nucleation of semi-equiaxed BCC grains that occurred in the dendritic regions and partitioned the parent elongated FCC phase. (Page 3 Col 2 paragraph 2). Hence, instant claim 3 is met.
Fe65Ni15Co8Mn8Ti3Si meets instant claim 4 required alloy atomic elemental compositions.
The high entropy alloy Fe65Ni15Co8Mn8Ti3Si also have a high potential for the formation of Fe2SiTi and Ni3Ti nanoprecipitates upon an aging treatment. (Page 2 Col 1 paragraph 3 lines 4-6) Hence, instant claim 12 is met.
Figure 3 (b) illustrated phase fraction of 0.894 for FCC which suggests 89.4% based on 100% of the phase fraction. Hence, instant claim 13 is met.
GND values obtained from FCC and BCC maps of the EBSD result are 22.9x1012 and 44.2x1012 m-2 respectively. Hence, the absolute value of a difference in GND between the BCC and FCC phase is (44.2-22.9) x1012 m-2 which suggest 21.3 x1012 m-2
Since 21.3 x1012 m-2 meets instant claim 14 claimed 10 x1012 m-2 or more, instant claim 14 is met.
When strain is applied to the DED-processed alloy, deformation induced phase transformation from patent FCC phase into the BCC occurs. (Page 8 Col 2 Section 3.3.1 The role of nanoprecipitate during train accommodation) Hence, instant claim 15 is met.
The DED processed alloy shows a YS of 563 MPa, a UTS of 1836 MPa. (Page 6 Col 1 paragraph 1 line 4). Hence, instant claims 16-17 are met.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Haftlang.
As for claims 2 and 5-11, they are inherent structure and property limitations due to the same high entropy alloy as required by instant claim 1 produced by using the same precursor alloy composition and processed by DED with same process parameters such as laser output, laser scan speed and hatch spacing as required by instant application.
When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the prior art products necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
In the instant case, Since high entropy alloy product of Haftlang with same dual phase FCC and BCC , a cell and nanoprecipitate as required by instant claim 1 has compositions that meet the instant application composition and is made from a similar DED process with same laser output, laser scan speed and hatch spacing as required by instant application , it is therefore reasonable to believe that the claimed structure and property limitations would have naturally flowed following the suggestion of Haftlang absent evidence of the contrary. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNY R WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5515. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM-5:00 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, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNY R WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights