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 Arguments
The claim objection and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant traverses the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Olejnik (US 2022/0213581) on the following grounds:
A) Olejnik does not recognize average particle size or weight ratio of WC as a result-effective variable and thus does not provide motivation to select within the disclosed range. This argument is not persuasive. The previous Office Action does not represent that the claimed ranges are obvious due to routine optimization. The prior art discloses a range which overlaps the claimed range. This alone creates a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Further, it should be noted that Olejnik specifies the average particle size is within the range of 4-18 μm (¶ 66) and discloses an example having an average particle size of 10 μm (see Fig. 4). It should also be noted that Olejnik specifies examples containing 74% vol WC (¶ 75). Assuming the matrix steel in Ojelnik has a density of approximately 8 g/cm3 and given WC’s density of 15.6 g/cm3, this corresponds to a weight ratio of about 80% WC. Applicant’s arguments that Olejnik’s examples fail to teach examples within the claimed ranges is therefore unsupported by any evidence.
B) Olejnik does not disclose simultaneous satisfaction of both the average particle size and weight ratio of WC. This argument is not persuasive. A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. The disclosure of a prior art reference is not limited to its examples. See MPEP 2123. Simultaneous and non-simultaneous satisfaction of both average particle size and WC weight ratio disclosed by Olejnik would have been reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. Applicant identifies no evidence to the contrary.
C) There is no expectation of success for selecting within the prior art’s disclosed broad ranges. This argument is not persuasive. Olejnik sets forth the scope within which its invention is practical. The selection of any value within the prior art’s disclosed range is presumed to be enabled, and therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have an expectation of success in making the prior art product according to the disclosed prior art parameters. Applicant has presented no evidence to establish this is not the case. The assertion that there is no reasonable expectation of success is therefore unsupported by any evidence.
D) Applicant’s data shows unpredictable and non-linear behavior. This argument is not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to this point are entirely conclusory and do not discuss how the data in the specification actually demonstrate unexpected results or are otherwise “unpredictable and non-linear”. See MPEP 716.02(b). Table 2 of the specification, for example, illustrates hardnesses for composite materials having WC particles within the claimed average grain size and outside of the claimed average grain size. The respective hardnesses, however, are comparable to each other and do not demonstrate the claimed ranges achieve results distinguishable from those outside the claimed ranges. In fact, the hardnesses of most comparative examples falls within the claimed hardness range of claim 4. This demonstrates that having WC particles within the claimed grain size is not required to achieve the claimed hardness.
Table 3 of the specification measures wear rate of the composite materials, but only gives two data points and thus cannot be relied upon to support Applicant’s argument. Applicant’s specification (see Table 1) contains insufficient data to make a determination as to whether the claimed weight ratio of WC achieves “unpredictable and non-linear results). Sufficient examples both within and without the range are required to demonstrate criticality of a claimed range. See MPEP 716.02(d). Table 1 lacks any datapoints on weight ratio of WC outside of the claimed range. Thus, Applicant’s assertion that “the claimed technical effect is achieved only when both parameters fall within their respective claimed ranges” is unsupported by any evidence.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Olejnik (US 2022/0213581) is therefore maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5-6 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olejnik (US 2022/0213581).
Regarding claims 1, 5-6 and 11, Olejnik discloses a composite formed by in situ casting that is reinforced with tungsten carbide particles (¶ 1). Olejnik teaches the casting alloy is manganese steel (¶¶ 59-60). Fig. 19b shows one embodiment of Olejnik which includes a reactive compact that forms the composite zone including WC (corresponding to the claimed reinforcing zone), and the casting alloy which surrounds the composite zone (corresponding to the claimed manganese steel zone). The cast alloy forms a matrix around the WC particles (¶ 36). The size of the WC crystals is between 0.5 and 30 μm (¶ 12). The average crystal size is thus within this range, and Olejnik discloses an average particle size of 4-18 μm (¶ 66). This overlaps the claimed range, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I. Although Olejnik does not expressly disclose an interface layer between the composite zone and the manganese steel zone, since Olejnik makes the composite in the same way as the process for making the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the presence of an interface zone with the same characteristics as those claimed, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
With respect to the wt% of WC, Olejnik teaches the volume ratio of tungsten carbide within the composite zone is 15%-90% (¶ 11). This is expected to overlap the claimed range, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 10, Olejnik teaches the composite zones are fixed in place within the casting mold at specific locations (¶ 42). It would have been obvious at the effective time of invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to place the composite zones within a certain distance from each other to provide optimal wear resistance in accordance with the purpose of Olejnik, which is to produce an article having increased wear resistance (¶ 1).
Claims 3-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olejnik (US 2022/0213581), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Chen et al. (CN 113416891).
Regarding claim 3, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed above. Olejnik does not expressly disclose the claimed manganese steel composition for the composite material as claimed. Chen discloses a wear resistant composite material comprising WC and a manganese steel composition having 1.20%-1.5% C; 0.35%-0.85% Si; 18%-24% Mn; 1.5%-4.0% Cr; 0.2%-0.5% Ni; and 0.25%-0.35% Mo (p. 1, ¶¶ 5-7). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the manganese steel composition of Chen for the composite material of Olejnik because the prior art recognizes Chen’s manganese steel as a steel for making wear resistant WC-containing materials and there is an expectation of success in substituting known prior art elements.
Regarding claims 4 and 7, the present specification recognizes the claimed alloy as meeting the claimed hardness values and wettability (see Spec., ¶¶ 52-55). Since the material of the prior art combination is the same as that claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the composite material of the prior art combination to have the same hardness values and wettability as that claimed, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olejnik (US 2022/0213581), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Melk (WO 2022/008038).
Regarding claim 8, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed above. Olejnik teaches the composite zones are of “proper dimension” for inserting in the casting mold (¶ 42), but does not teach or suggest a particular volume size. Melk is directed to wear parts having localized composite wear zones made of carbides (p. 3, lines 1-11). These wear zones, in an embodiment, have a volume of 30 mm3 (p. 10, lines 23-26). It would have been obvious at the effective time of invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to make composite zones of Olejnik of an appropriate dimension for a wear resistant article, and to rely on the teachings of Melk as a starting point for composite zones of a “proper dimension”.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olejnik (US 2022/0213581), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Zhu et al. (CN 101376931).
Regarding claim 9, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed above. Olejnik does not expressly teach at least 95% of the WC grains have a triangular prismatic shape. Zhu teaches for WC composites, hardness and toughness is improved when the WC grains have a triangular prism shape (p. 1, ¶ 3). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the WC grains of Olejnik to be triangular prisms, as taught by Zhu, to achieve improved hardness and toughness properties. A triangular prism, by definition, has 5 faces, 6 vertices, and 9 edges.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olejnik (US 2022/0213581), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Grozdanich (US 2016/0318026).
Regarding claim 12, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed above. Olejnik teaches a process of making the composite material by mixing powders of tungsten within the weight range 90%-97%, carbon within the range 3%-10%, and a remainder catalyst (¶¶ 15-16). After preparing the powder mixture, the powders are compacted and the compact is inserted into a mold (¶ 27). A molten iron alloy is then poured into the mold which then initiates an in situ, self-propagating, high temperature reaction (¶ 27). This casting alloy is manganese steel (¶¶ 59-60). Compacting is performed at 100-650 MPa, which overlaps the claimed range, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Olejnik does not expressly teach heat treating or quenching the resulting cast article. Grozdanich teaches performing heat treatments on cast composite articles, including annealing and quenching, for the purposes of reducing internal stresses to reduce cracking or voids, and to implement phase changes in the metal to provide better wear resistance (¶ 86). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to perform annealing and quenching on the cast article of Olejnik in order to obtain a cast article having improved properties as taught by Grozdanich.
Regarding claim 13, Olejnik teaches the catalyst may be Mo (¶ 16).
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 XIAOBEI WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5705. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/XIAOBEI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784