DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 3/16/26 has been entered. Claims 1-15 and 17-24 remain pending in the application. Claim(s) 1-12 have been withdrawn. Claim(s) 16 and 25 have been canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 14-15 depend from claim 13. Claim 13 includes the limitation “wherein the step of depositing the transition portion includes one or both of: (i) forming a compositional gradient by depositing, in the build direction, successive layers each including a blend of the first alloy and the transition material wherein a ratio of the first alloy to the transition material decreases in the build direction; and (ii) forming a compositional gradient by depositing, in the build direction, successive layers each including a blend of the second alloy and the transition material wherein a ratio of the second alloy to the transition material increases in the build direction”. Claim 13 requires that the transition portion includes the transition material and one or both of the first and second alloy. Claim 14 contains the limitation “wherein the step of depositing the transition portion includes depositing only the transition material on the first portion”. Claim 15 contains the limitation “wherein the transition portion is formed of only the transition material”. Claims 14-15 do not alloy the first alloy or the second alloy in the transition portion. Accordingly, the claims fail to include all the limitations of the claim upon which they depend. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parenthesis. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
Claims 13-15, 17-18, 20, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yousefiani et al. (US 20090269497 A1).
Regarding claims 13-15 and 17, due to the 112(d) rejections above, the limitations of claims 14-15 will be interpreted as being met if the limitations of claim 13 are met. Yousefiani teaches “a method for creation of the graded CTE composite structure” (which reads upon “a method of fabricating a composite article, the method comprising”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0003]). Yousefiani teaches that “in an exemplary application where the intention is to attach a very high CTE member (e.g. one made from Inconel 718) to a very low CTE member (e.g. one made from an advanced extreme environment material such as a ceramic matrix composite) in an assembly which will be cycled between room temperature and 1200 F, the graded materials could be selected from Kovar, designated element 12, for a first layer, Alloy 42, designated element 14, for a second layer, Alloy 48, designated element 16, for a third layer, 15-5 PH, designated element 18, for a fourth layer and Inconel 718, designated element 20, for a fifth layer” (which reads upon “providing a first alloy having a first composition and a second alloy having a second composition, wherein the second composition is different than the first composition”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0040]). Yousefiani teaches that “a first attachment layer having a surface for attachment to a first structural component with a first CTE is defined 302 and a second attachment layer having a second surface for attachment to a second structural component with a second CTE is defined 304” (paragraph [0042]). Yousefiani teaches that “one or more layers of material each having a predetermined CTE intermediate the first attachment layer and the second attachment layer are provided 306 and build up of the first attachment layer, the intermediate layer(s), and the second attachment layer in graded order of CTE to create a composite billet or near net shape perform is accomplished” (which reads upon “depositing a first portion comprising the first alloy depositing a transition portion on the first portion, the transition portion comprising a transition material having a composition that is different than both the first composition of the first alloy and the second composition of the second alloy; and depositing a second portion comprising the second alloy on the transition portion such that the transition portion is sandwiched between the first portion and the second portion in a build direction from the first portion through the transition portion to the second portion whereby the transition portion comprising the transition material joins the first portion comprising the first alloy to the second portion comprising the second alloy”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0042]; the first attachment layer reads on the first alloy, the intermediate layer(s) reads on the transition portion, and the second attachment layer reads on the second alloy; see also FIG. 3A and associated discussion). Yousefiani teaches “gradually blending compositions at an alloy A-alloy B interlayer using mixed metal interlayers 58 a-58 c, and that a first interlayer 58 a adjacent the alloy A layer of 75% alloy A and 25% alloy B, a second interlayer 58 b of 50% of alloy A and alloy B and a third interlayer 58 c of 25% alloy A and 75% alloy B adjacent the alloy B layer are shown as examples” (which reads upon “wherein the step of depositing the transition portion includes one or both of: (i) forming a compositional gradient by depositing, in the build direction, successive layers each including a blend of the first alloy and the transition material wherein a ratio of the first alloy to the transition material decreases in the build direction; and (ii) forming a compositional gradient by depositing, in the build direction, successive layers each including a blend of the second alloy and the transition material wherein a ratio of the second alloy to the transition material increases in the build direction”, as recited in the instant claim; which reads upon instant claim 17; paragraph [0047]; a 50/50 blend of alloy A and alloy B reads on the transition material). Yousefiani teaches “gradually blending compositions at an alloy A-alloy B interlayer using mixed metal interlayers 58 a-58 c” (paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 18, Yousefiani teaches the method of claim 13 as stated above. Yousefiani teaches “the graded materials could be selected from Kovar, designated element 12, for a first layer, Alloy 42, designated element 14, for a second layer, Alloy 48, designated element 16, for a third layer, 15-5 PH, designated element 18, for a fourth layer and Inconel 718, designated element 20, for a fifth layer” (paragraph [0048]; Kovar reads on an extreme-temperature material; Inconel 718 reads on a high-strength material).
Regarding claim 20, Yousefiani teaches the method of claim 13 as stated above. Yousefiani teaches “a transition ring 76 with three layers, titanium 78, alloy 42 80 and Kovar 82” (paragraph [0053]; titanium 78 is a Ti-based alloy).
Regarding claims 22-23, Yousefiani teaches the method of claim 13 as stated above. Yousefiani teaches that “build-up fabrication processes using typical metal deposition techniques are employed in a first embodiment to create a composite billet or near net shape with graded CTE materials” (paragraph [0041]). Yousefiani teaches that “laser assisted near net shape manufacturing, laser sintering, spray forming or thermal spray forming nominally shown as bolts 29 a are employed to produce the CTE-graded layered composite near net shape preform 30 a” (paragraph [0041]; laser assisted near net shape manufacturing reads on a directed energy deposition process).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yousefiani et al. (US 20090269497 A1), as applied to claims 13 and 18 above, and further in view of Kestler et al. (US 20170189962 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Yousefiani teaches the method of claim 18 as stated above. Yousefiani teaches “the graded materials could be selected from Kovar, designated element 12, for a first layer, Alloy 42, designated element 14, for a second layer, Alloy 48, designated element 16, for a third layer, 15-5 PH, designated element 18, for a fourth layer and Inconel 718, designated element 20, for a fifth layer” (paragraph [0048]; Kovar reads on an extreme-temperature material; Inconel 718 is a Ni-based superalloy).
Yousefiani is silent regarding the extreme-temperature material is a Nb-based refractory alloy.
Kestler is similarly concerned with providing a powder formed of particles and solidifying the powder under the action of a laser beam or electron beam (paragraph [0001]). Kestler teaches that “suitability for this purpose is possessed, for example, by selective laser sintering (SLS), selective laser melting (SLM), laser metal deposition (LMD), electron beam melting (EBM) or powder bed and also inkjet head 3D printing” (paragraph [0007]; laser metal deposition (LMD) reads on a directed energy deposition process). Kestler teaches that “at present, refractory metals are not yet being solidified/compacted via additive manufacturing processes on an industrial scale” (paragraph [0020]). Kestler teaches that “one of the reasons why additive manufacturing processes have not yet become widely established for these materials is the limited availability of powders suitable for these manufacturing processes, and that with the powders used at present, the resulting materials properties and operational properties are of insufficient quality for a broad application of these manufacturing methods” (paragraph [0020]). Kestler teaches that “the object of the present invention, therefore, is to provide a process that allows the production of components from refractory metals with at least one of the following properties high surface quality high accuracy low wall thickness high density, and low error density, such as pores/pore clusters high static and dynamic strength high ductility fine-grained structure low inherent stresses” (paragraph [0023]). Kestler teaches that “the term refractory metal encompasses the metals based on niobium, tantalum, chromium, molybdenum, tungsten and rhenium, and that the refractory metal content of the refractory metal alloys of the invention is >50 at %, preferably >70 or >80 at %” (which reads upon “a Nb-based refractory alloy”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0034]). Kestler teaches that “with more particular preference the refractory metal content is >90, >95 or 99 at %” (which reads upon “a Nb-based refractory alloy”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0034]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the Kovar of Yousefiani with a Nb-based refractory alloy, as taught by Kestler because recent advances in powder metallurgy now allow for powders suitable for these manufacturing processes using refractory metals including niobium resulting in at least one of the following properties high surface quality high accuracy low wall thickness high density, and low error density, such as pores/pore clusters high static and dynamic strength high ductility fine-grained structure low inherent stresses. It has been held that obviousness exists where the selection of a known material was based on its suitability for its intended use. MPEP § 2144.07. Here, Kestler teaches that niobium is suitable as a refractory material for use with additive manufacturing processes. Accordingly, the prior art renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 21, Yousefiani teaches the method of claim 13 as stated above. Yousefiani teaches “a transition ring 76 with three layers, titanium 78, alloy 42 80 and Kovar 82” (paragraph [0053]).
Yousefiani is silent regarding wherein the transition material is one of a Ti64 alloy and elemental Mo.
Kestler is similarly concerned with providing a powder formed of particles and solidifying the powder under the action of a laser beam or electron beam (paragraph [0001]). Kestler teaches that “suitability for this purpose is possessed, for example, by selective laser sintering (SLS), selective laser melting (SLM), laser metal deposition (LMD), electron beam melting (EBM) or powder bed and also inkjet head 3D printing” (paragraph [0007]; laser metal deposition (LMD) reads on a directed energy deposition process). Kestler teaches that “at present, refractory metals are not yet being solidified/compacted via additive manufacturing processes on an industrial scale” (paragraph [0020]). Kestler teaches that “one of the reasons why additive manufacturing processes have not yet become widely established for these materials is the limited availability of powders suitable for these manufacturing processes, and that with the powders used at present, the resulting materials properties and operational properties are of insufficient quality for a broad application of these manufacturing methods” (paragraph [0020]). Kestler teaches that “the object of the present invention, therefore, is to provide a process that allows the production of components from refractory metals with at least one of the following properties high surface quality high accuracy low wall thickness high density, and low error density, such as pores/pore clusters high static and dynamic strength high ductility fine-grained structure low inherent stresses” (paragraph [0023]). Kestler teaches that “the term refractory metal encompasses the metals based on niobium, tantalum, chromium, molybdenum, tungsten and rhenium, and that the refractory metal content is >90, >95 or 99 at %” (which reads upon “elemental molybdenum (Mo)”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0034]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the Kovar of Yousefiani with elemental molybdenum (Mo), as taught by Kestler because recent advances in powder metallurgy now allow for powders suitable for these manufacturing processes using refractory metals including niobium resulting in at least one of the following properties high surface quality high accuracy low wall thickness high density, and low error density, such as pores/pore clusters high static and dynamic strength high ductility fine-grained structure low inherent stresses. It has been held that obviousness exists where the selection of a known material was based on its suitability for its intended use. MPEP § 2144.07. Here, Kestler teaches that elemental molybdenum (Mo) is suitable as a refractory material for use with additive manufacturing processes. Accordingly, the prior art renders the claim obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 is allowed. The closest prior art is Yousefiani et al. (US 20090269497 A1), in view of Kestler et al. (US 20170189962 A1), as applied to claim 19 above. The art of record does not teach the combination of the first alloy being one of a Ni-based superalloy and a Nb-based refractory alloy, the second alloy being the other of the Ni-based superalloy and the Nb-based refractory alloy, and the transition material being one of: (i) a Ti-based alloy: (ii) a refractory element; and (iii) a refractory alloy other than a Nb-based alloy, with the other elements of the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that while Yousefiani discloses some embodiments in which the intermediate layers are gradient layers of a mixture of two alloys (see paragraph [0047] of Yousefiani), Yousefiani does not disclose or fairly suggest intermediate layers as previously recited in claim 16 and now recited in claim 13 (remarks, page 9). Applicant argues that Yousefiani does not disclose or fairly suggest that the intermediate gradient at one end is a gradient of the material of the first alloy and a transition material, and the intermediate gradient at the other end is a gradient of the material of the second alloy and the transition material, as claim 13 now requires (remarks, page 9). Applicant further argues that Yousefiani does not disclose that either of the two dissimilar alloys are blended with the transition material in the intermediate gradient (remarks, page 8). This is not found convincing because a 50/50 mixture of alloy A and alloy B reads on the transition material, as stated above. Claim 13 requires “transition material having a composition that is different than both the first composition of the first alloy and the second composition of the second alloy”. A 50/50 mixture of alloy A and alloy B has a composition that is different than both the first composition of the first alloy and the second composition of the second alloy.
Applicant argues that Yousefiani specifically teaches joining two materials having vastly different coefficients of thermal expansion (CTEs), i.e., joining a material having a high CTE and a material having a low CTE (see paragraphs [0006], [0008], and [0039]), and therefore, the Kovar layer, which has a relatively low CTE, would not be replaced with a niobium-based alloy, which has a medium to relatively high CTE that is close to the other joined layer in Yousefiani, i.e. Inconel 718 which has a relatively high CTE (remarks, page 14). Applicant argues that such a substitution negates the CTE mismatch that is fundamental to the disclosure of Yousefiani (remarks, page 14). This is not found convincing because the CTE of Kovar 5 × 10⁻⁶ /°C at room temperature and the CTE of Niobium is 7.3×10⁻⁶ /°C at 25 °C. The CTE of Inconel 718 is 13.0 × 10⁻⁶ /°C at 25 °C. Accordingly, the CTE of Niobium is much closer to Kovar than to Inconel, and such a substitution would not negate the CTE mismatch that is fundamental to the disclosure of Yousefiani.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q3: 6/22-6/26/26; Q4: 9/21-9/30/26.
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.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights