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 .
Response to Amendments and Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed April 9, 2026, are acknowledged. Claims 1, 5, 9, 10, 30, 33 and 37 are amended. Claims 15-16, 18-19, 22-23, 26-27 are cancelled. Claims 38-45 are newly added. No new matter has been added.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 30, 32-33 and 37-45 are currently pending and considered in this office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 33 and Claim 37 are objected to because of the following informalities: “that less than” should be “that is less than” in line 3. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 5, Claim 10 and therefore dependent Claim 41, Claim 32, Claim 37 and Claim 39 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 5, 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 about 20 to 180 hours, and the claim also recites at least about 24 hours, which is the narrower statement 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.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites ‘a first section’ and ‘a second section’. It is unclear if the recited sections are the same first section and same second section recited in independent Claim 1 or not.
Regarding Claim 32, the claim recites wherein the metal oxide mixture is completely reduced, however, Claim 30 from which it depends requires a metal oxide phase. It is unclear how the metal oxide phase may exist when the metal oxide mixture has been completely reduced.
Regarding Claim 37, the claim recites ‘a first section’ and ‘a second section’. It is unclear if the recited sections are the same first section and same second section recited in independent Claim 30 or not.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-10, 39-41 and 44-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia (previously cited, CN 113414386 A, English Machine translation provided) in view of Kenel2020 (previously cited, “Kinetics of alloy formation and densification in Fe-Ni-Mo microfilaments extruded from oxide- or metal-powder inks”).
Regarding Claim 1, Xia discloses preparing a medium to high entropy alloy (para. [0027]), the method comprising:
mixing a feed composition of metal oxide powders (para. [0011]; para. [0020]; para. [0028]-[0029], metal oxides of Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Cr, Mo, W, Ti, Mn or Zn; para. [0050], FeCoNiCrCu),
forming a preform of the metal oxide mixture prior to heat treating (para. [0012]; para. [0022]), and
heat treating the preform at a temperature up to 1200C for up to 10 hours in a hydrogen atmosphere (para. [0016]-[0017]), crushing and screening the heat treated powder and forming a second preform (para. [0013-0014]), and heat treating the second preform at a temperature of 900-1500C for up to 10 hours in a hydrogen atmosphere (para. [0014]; para. [0019]), which reads on the claimed heat treating of the preform comprising the metal oxide mixture by annealing at a temperature of about 900 to about 1600 °C for 10-260 hours.
Xia discloses a hydrogen atmosphere but fails to disclose an atmosphere comprising hydrogen, and further, at least one of nitrogen and/or argon.
Kenel2020 teaches a similar co-reduction wherein Fe2O3, NiO and MoO3 powder blends are co-reduced and sintered, using both a hydrogen atmosphere and an argon atmosphere comprising 5% hydrogen (Abstract). Kenel2020 teaches that while reduced hydrogen amounts increase the reduction start temperatures and requires longer heating times, potentially introducing porosity by the coexistence of metal and oxides during processing, the ability to use a Ar-5%H2 gas mixture has the advantages of using a non-explosive gas, improving safety measures and storage, while reducing the need for specifically equipped furnaces and safety approval for large-scale facilities (Pg. 58, Col. 1, Sect. 4.2; Pg. 59, Col. 1, Sect. 5, Conclusions).
Kenel2020 therefore further recognizes that the annealing/reduction time and the annealing atmosphere (amount of hydrogen) are both result-effective variables, the effect of annealing/reduction time being completion ratio of reducing the oxide to metal, and the amount of hydrogen in the atmosphere being the amount of time required for annealing/reduction and the explosiveness of the gas.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an Ar-5%H2 reducing atmosphere, as taught by Kenel2020, for the hydrogen containing atmosphere and/or inert atmosphere in the invention disclosed by Xia, in order to use a non-explosive gas, improve safety measures and storage, and to further reduce the need for specifically equipped furnaces and safety approval for large-scale facilities.
Xia does not disclose the claimed structure of the medium to high entropy alloy comprising first and second microstructures in first and second sections, the microstructures being different with one microstructure comprising a metal phase and the other comprising a metal oxide phase. However, Xia discloses the claimed metal oxide mixture composition, the claimed step of forming a preform prior to heat treating, and the claimed heat treating times and temperatures, and Xia in view of Kenel2020 further disclose the claimed heat treating atmospheres. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the invention of Xia and Kenel2020 would result in the claimed structure because the composition and process parameters of Xia and Kenel2020 are the same as claimed.
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, 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). See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 2, Xia discloses four or more metal oxides selected from oxides of Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Cr, Ti, Mn or Zn (para. [0029]).
Regarding Claim 4, Xia discloses milling the metal oxide mixture prior to heat treatment for 0.1-120 hours, which reads on the claimed 1-30 hours. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 5, Xia discloses wherein the temperature is about 900C to about 1500C and the annealing time is about 20 hours (para. [0016]-[0017]; para. [0019]; the first and second heat treatments comprise a combined annealing time of 20 hours, and each heat treatment overlaps the claimed temperature; see also 112b rejection above regarding claimed temperature range). While Xia does not disclose at least 24 hours, Kenel2020 explains that the safer Ar-5%H2 atmosphere requires longer annealing times than pure hydrogen, and therefore it would be obvious to extend annealing times to be within the claimed range in order to achieve the same effects.
Kenel2020 thus also teaches wherein the annealing time is a result effective variable (see teaching above in Claim 1), and it has been held that discovering an optimum value or a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 7 and Claim 39, Kenel2020 discloses wherein the atmosphere for the heat treatment is non-flammable and comprises 5% H2 and a remainder of argon (Pg. 58, Col. 1, Sect. 4.2; one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate this to be vol% and therefore equally mol% unless otherwise stated). Kenel2020 does not expressly disclose (Claim 7) about 1-4.5mol% hydrogen, or (Claim 39) no more than about 4.5mol% hydrogen. However 5% is very close to about 4.5mol%, and it is the Examiner’s position that the amounts in question are so close that it is prima facie obvious that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 773. MPEP 2144.05 section I.
Additionally, Kenel2020 teaches wherein the amount of hydrogen is a result-effective variable, the result being the amount of time required for annealing/reduction and the explosiveness of the gas. It would have been obvious to have used a Ar-H2 gas mixture within the claimed ranges for H2 and Ar in order to tailor the gas to be further non-explosive (see teaching above by Kenel2020 in Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 9, Xia does not disclose the claimed structure of the preform after heat treating, including a shell layer and a core. However, Xia discloses the claimed metal oxide mixture composition, the claimed step of forming a preform prior to heat treating, and the claimed heat treating times and temperatures, and Xia in view of Kenel2020 further disclose the claimed heat treating atmospheres. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the invention of Xia and Kenel2020, and the preform after heat treating, would result in the claimed structure because the composition and process parameters of Xia and Kenel2020 are the same as claimed.
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, 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). See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 10 and Claim 41, Xia does not disclose wherein (Claim 10) the metal phase is in the first section and the metal oxide phase is in the second section different from the first section, or (Claim 41) wherein the first section comprises a larger volumetric fraction of metal phase than the second section. However, Xia discloses the claimed metal oxide mixture composition, the claimed step of forming a preform prior to heat treating, and the claimed heat treating times and temperatures, and Xia in view of Kenel2020 further disclose the claimed heat treating atmospheres. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the invention of Xia and Kenel2020 would result in the claimed structure because the composition and process parameters of Xia and Kenel2020 are the same as claimed.
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, 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). See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 40, Xia does not disclose wherein the shell layer has an average thickness of about 100 to about 300um. However, Xia discloses the claimed metal oxide mixture composition, the claimed step of forming a preform prior to heat treating, and the claimed heat treating times and temperatures, and Xia in view of Kenel2020 further disclose the claimed heat treating atmospheres. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the invention of Xia and Kenel2020 would result in the claimed structure because the composition and process parameters of Xia and Kenel2020 are the same as claimed.
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, 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). See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 44, Xia discloses preparing a medium to high entropy alloy (para. [0027]), the method comprising:
mixing a feed composition of metal oxide powders (para. [0011]; para. [0020]; para. [0028]-[0029], metal oxides of Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Cr, Mo, W, Ti, Mn or Zn; para. [0050], FeCoNiCrCu), and
forming a preform and heat treating at a temperature up to 1200C for up to 10 hours in a hydrogen atmosphere to remove up to 99% of oxygen, thereby reducing the mixed oxide compact up to 99% (para. [0016]-[0017]; removing 99% of oxygen reads on reducing), crushing and screening the heat treated powder and forming a second preform (para. [0013-0014]), and heat treating the second preform at a temperature of 900-1500C for up to 10 hours in a hydrogen atmosphere (para. [0014]; para. [0019]), thereby further reducing the pre-reduced mixed oxide mixture.
The first heat treatment of Xia reads on a single isothermal heat treatment step which reduces the metal oxide composition, and the second heat treatment step of Xia also reads on a second, single isothermal heat treatment step which reduces the metal oxide mixture. It is noted that the claims do no prohibit multiple heat treatments, only that a reduction treatment is a single isothermal heat treatment (i.e., isothermally holds at a single temperature). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that in each of the single isothermal heat treatments of Xia, the compact would be reduced, thereby forming a solid-solution medium to high entropy alloy, as claimed.
Xia discloses a hydrogen atmosphere but fails to disclose an atmosphere comprising at least one of nitrogen and/or argon.
Kenel2020 teaches a similar co-reduction wherein Fe2O3, NiO and MoO3 powder blends are co-reduced and sintered, using both a hydrogen atmosphere and an argon atmosphere comprising 5% hydrogen (Abstract). Kenel2020 teaches that while reduced hydrogen amounts increase the reduction start temperatures and requires longer heating times, potentially introducing porosity by the coexistence of metal and oxides during processing, the ability to use a Ar-5%H2 gas mixture has the advantages of using a non-explosive gas, improving safety measures and storage, while reducing the need for specifically equipped furnaces and safety approval for large-scale facilities (Pg. 58, Col. 1, Sect. 4.2; Pg. 59, Col. 1, Sect. 5, Conclusions).
Kenel2020 therefore further recognizes that the annealing/reduction time and the annealing atmosphere (amount of hydrogen) are both result-effective variables, the effect of annealing/reduction time being completion ratio of reducing the oxide to metal, and the amount of hydrogen in the atmosphere being the amount of time required for annealing/reduction and the explosiveness of the gas.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an Ar-5%H2 reducing atmosphere and one which is not explosive as claimed, as taught by Kenel2020, for the hydrogen containing atmosphere and/or inert atmosphere in the invention disclosed by Xia, in order to use a non-explosive gas, improve safety measures and storage, and to further reduce the need for specifically equipped furnaces and safety approval for large-scale facilities.
Xia further discloses wherein the formation of the solid-solution medium to high entropy alloy provides free-energy-of-mixing contribution that increases thermodynamic favorability of reducing the metal oxide mixture relative to reduction of the metal oxides in solution (para. [0031]-[0036]).
Regarding Claim 45, Xia discloses wherein the temperature of the first single isothermal heat treatment is up to 1200C, and wherein the temperature of the second single isothermal heat treatment is about 900C to about 1500C, which reads on the claimed 900-1500C (para. [0016]-[0017]; para. [0019]).
Xia does discloses wherein each treatment is up to 10 hours, but fails to disclose about 20-180 hours as claimed. However, Kenel2020 explains that the safer Ar-5%H2 atmosphere requires longer annealing times than pure hydrogen, and therefore it would be obvious to extend annealing times to be within the claimed range in order to achieve the same effects. Kenel2020 also teaches wherein the annealing time is a result effective variable (see teaching above in Claim 1), and it has been held that discovering an optimum value or a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 8, 38 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia (previously cited, CN 113414386 A, English Machine translation provided) in view of Kenel2020 (previously cited, “Kinetics of alloy formation and densification in Fe-Ni-Mo microfilaments extruded from oxide- or metal-powder inks”), as applied to Claim 1, in further view of Kato (previously cited, US 20170209922 A).
Regarding Claim 8, Xia discloses wherein the temperature of the first heat treatment is up to 1200C and the second heat treatment is 900-1500C, and therefore overlapping of the claimed temperature of about 1200C or less (para. [0016]-[0017] and para. [0019]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Xia discloses wherein the high entropy alloy preferably uses MnO2 (para. [0030]), but does not expressly disclose a final composition with 2-16mol% Mn.
Kato teaches a high entropy alloy composition such as CoCrFeNiMn, comprises mechanical strength, excellent high-temperature strength and also corrosion resistance, wherein each element included (Co, Cr, Fe, Ni and Mn) exists in an amount of 5-30at% (i.e., 5-30mol%) (Abstract; para. [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the high entropy composition CoCrFeNiMn comprising 5-30mol% Mn, which overlaps the claimed 2-16mol%, as taught by Kato, for the invention disclosed by Xia. One would be motivated to do this in order to produce a high entropy alloy with mechanical strength, excellent high-temperature strength, and also corrosion resistance (see teaching above by Kato) and Xia prefers a composition both comprising Mn and Cr (para. [0030]). Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding Claim 38, Xia discloses wherein the feed composition comprises at least cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, iron oxide, chromium oxide and manganese oxide (para. [0011]; para. [0020]; para. [0028]-[0029], metal oxides of Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Cr, Mo, W, Ti, Mn or Zn; para. [0050], wherein 5 elements are used).
Xia however does not expressly disclose the exact combination of Co, Ni, Fe, Cr and Mn oxides.
Kato teaches a high entropy alloy composition such as CoCrFeNiMn, comprises mechanical strength, excellent high-temperature strength and also corrosion resistance, wherein each element included (Co, Cr, Fe, Ni and Mn) exists in an amount of 5-30at% (i.e., 5-30mol%) (Abstract; para. [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the high entropy composition CoCrFeNiMn comprising 5-30mol% of each element, as taught by Kato, for the invention disclosed by Xia. One would be motivated to do this in order to produce a high entropy alloy with mechanical strength, excellent high-temperature strength, and also corrosion resistance (see teaching above by Kato) and Xia prefers a composition both comprising Mn and Cr (para. [0030]). Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding Claim 42, Xia does not disclose wherein the medium to high entropy alloy further comprises a metal oxide phase. However, Xia and Kato discloses the claimed metal oxide mixture composition, Xia discloses the claimed step of forming a preform prior to heat treating, and the claimed heat treating times and temperatures, and Xia in view of Kenel2020 further disclose the claimed heat treating atmospheres. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the invention of Xia, Kato and Kenel2020 would result in the claimed phase structure and comprise a metal oxide phase because the composition and process parameters of Xia, Kato and Kenel2020 are the same as claimed.
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, 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). See MPEP 2112.01.
Claims 30, 32-33, 37 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia (previously cited, CN 113414386 A, English Machine translation provided) in view of Kato (previously cited, US 20170209922 A).
Regarding Claim 30, Xia discloses preparing a medium to high entropy alloy (para. [0027]), the method comprising:
mixing a feed composition of metal oxide powders, wherein the feed composition comprises at least cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, iron oxide, chromium oxide and manganese oxide (para. [0011]; para. [0020]; para. [0028]-[0029], metal oxides of Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Cr, Mo, W, Ti, Mn or Zn; para. [0050], wherein 5 elements are used),
forming a preform of the metal oxide mixture prior to heat treating (para. [0012]; para. [0022]), and
reducing the metal oxide mixture to produce a medium to high entropy alloy (Abstract).
Xia does not expressly disclose the exact combination of Co, Ni, Fe, Cr and Mn oxides.
Kato teaches a high entropy alloy composition such as CoCrFeNiMn, comprises mechanical strength, excellent high-temperature strength and also corrosion resistance, wherein each element included (Co, Cr, Fe, Ni and Mn) exists in an amount of 5-30at% (i.e., 5-30mol%) (Abstract; para. [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the high entropy composition CoCrFeNiMn comprising 5-30mol% of each element, as taught by Kato, for the invention disclosed by Xia. One would be motivated to do this in order to produce a high entropy alloy with mechanical strength, excellent high-temperature strength, and also corrosion resistance (see teaching above by Kato) and Xia prefers a composition both comprising Mn and Cr (para. [0030]). Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Xia does not disclose the claimed structure of the medium to high entropy alloy comprising first section comprising a metal phase and a second section comprising a metal oxide phase, but Xia and Kato discloses the claimed metal oxide mixture composition, and Xia teaches reduction times and temperatures substantially the same as the instant invention. Specifically, Xia teaches wherein reducing includes heat treating up to 1200C for up to 10 hours and further at 900-1500C for up to another 10 hours (Xia, para. [0014]; para. [0019]; instant invention para. [0049]-[0050], 900-1500C for 10-260 hours). Because the composition of Xia and Kato are the same as claimed, and because the formation of the preform and the reduction times and temperatures are the same as the instant invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the invention of Xia and Kato to result in the claimed structure comprising a first section of metal phase and a second section of metal oxide phase.
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, 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). See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 32, Xia discloses wherein the metal oxide mixture may be completely reduced (para. [0041], oxygen content reduced to 0.08wt%, reads on completely reduced, see 112b rejection above).
Regarding Claim 33, Xia discloses heat treating up to 1200C and from 900-1500C, which overlaps the claimed range of 1200C or less and a temperature less than the melting temperature of manganese oxide ([0016]-[0017]; para. [0019]), and Kato discloses wherein each element of the high entropy alloy comprises 5-30mol%, which overlaps with the claimed 2-16mol% Mn metal phase (Kato, para. [0029]).
which reads on the claimed heat treating of the preform comprising the metal oxide mixture by annealing at a temperature of about 900 to about 1600 °C for 10-260 hours.
Regarding Claim 37, Xia discloses heat treating up to 1200C and from 900-1500C, which overlaps the claimed range of a temperature less than the melting temperature of chromium oxide ([0016]-[0017]; para. [0019]).
Additionally, Xia and Kato disclose the claimed composition and the reduction times and temperatures of Xia are the same as the instant invention (see Claim 30 above), and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the invention of Xia and Kato to result in the claimed structure wherein the first section has a larger volumetric fraction of metal phase than the second section. 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, 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). See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 43, Xia discloses wherein the metal oxide mixture is partially reduced (para. [0012], 60-99% oxygen removal/reduction).
Xia does not disclose wherein the high entropy alloy comprises both a metal phase and a metal oxide phase; however, Xia and Kato disclose the claimed composition and the reduction times and temperatures of Xia are the same as the instant invention (see Claim 30 above). Because the composition and reduction times and temperatures are the same as the instant invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the invention of Xia and Kato to result in the claimed phases in the medium to high entropy alloy.
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, 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). See MPEP 2112.01.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed April 9, 2026, with respect to Claims 30, 32 and 37, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Kenel2019, and with respect to Claim 1 and dependent claims thereof, rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kenel2019 in view of Kenel2020 and Fang, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Xia in view of Kenel2020 (Claim 1 and Claim 44) and over Xia in view of Kata (Claim 30), as detailed above.
Applicant’s arguments are deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Regarding Kenel2020:
Applicant argues that Kenel2020 does not disclose that hydrogen and Ar-5%H2 are interchangeable for a reduction process because Kenel2020 teaches that the atmosphere affects the process kinetics.
Applicant appears to argue that Kenel2020 teaches away from Ar-5%H2 because pure hydrogen is preferably for processing and product quality, and because Kenel2020 teaches there is a process penalty to using Ar-5%H2.
This argument is not found persuasive.
Kenel2020 expressly uses Ar-5%H2 because it is non-explosive and safe for handling. While Kenel2020 recognizes some disadvantages, Kenel2020 does not teach away from using this gas because Kenel2020 expressly teaches the desirable advantages from a safety and equipment cost standpoint. Therefore, proper motivation is provided to utilize the reducing atmosphere of Kenel2020.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kenel2020 (previously cited and cited above, “Kinetics of alloy formation and densification in Fe-Ni-Mo microfilaments extruded from oxide- or metal-powder inks”, further teachings): teaches wherein the use of oxide powders, rather than metal powders, lowers the process time/energy, comprises no pyrophoric behavior, reduces contamination and has improved availability in micron and submicron particle sizes (Pg. 58, Col. 2, Sect. 4.5; Pg. 59, Col. 1, Sect. 5, Conclusions). Kenel2020 teaches the direct-co-reduction of oxide powders bypasses long and energy-intensive processing chains needed to achieve final metal powders, including processes such as ore reduction, to melting, alloying and casting to ingots, to remelting and atomization (Pg. 58, Col. 2, Sect. 4.5).
Kenel2019 (previously cited, “3D ink-extrusion additive manufacturing of CoCrFeNi high-entropy alloy micro-lattices”): discloses blending Co3O4, Cr2O3, Fe2O3 and NiO to form a metal oxide composition, forming a 3D printed structure from the powder oxide mixture, which reads on the claimed preform (Pg. 2, Col. 2, 3D ink-extrusion, reduction and sintering of CoCrFeNi HEA”; Fig. 1), and converting the metal oxide blend to metallic CoCrFeNi HEA (high entropy alloy) by co-reduction, interdiffusion and sintering from 1173-1573K (900-1300C) in hydrogen atmosphere for 1 hour (Fig. 4(a), sintering temperatures; Pg. 4, Col. 1, Para. 1).
Fang (previously cited, US 20230138417 A): discloses a metallic oxide co-reduction treatment under partial hydrogen atmosphere for producing an alloy product which is performed up to 24 hours in order to sufficiently reduce metal oxides and titanium oxide and obtain an oxygen content of less than 3wt% (para. [0065], partial hydrogen atmosphere; para. [0083]).
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 CATHERINE P SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00-4:00 MT.
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 Walker can be reached at (571)-272-3458. 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.
CATHERINE P. SMITH
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/CATHERINE P SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights