CTNF 18/777,659 CTNF 82980 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Drawings 06-37 AIA The drawings were received on 19 July 2024 . These drawings are accepted . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 16-17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 16 recites that a consolidation temperature is at least 50% of a melting temperature of the refractory alloy. There is no basis for this limitation. It is not clear if this refers to 50% on a Celsius scale, 50% of an absolute temperature, or some other temperature. The point of infringement of claim 16 cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite. Similarly claim 17 recites that the temperature of consolidation is 50-90% of a melting temperature of the refractory alloy. It is not clear if this refers to temperature on a Celsius scale, an absolute temperature, or some other temperature. The point of infringement of claim 17 cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 106435323 A (hereinafter “Liu”), in view of CN 101948970 A (cited by applicant; machine translation provided by examiner; hereinafter “Lin”) . Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches a Oxide dispersion strengthened high entropy alloy (See title). Liu teaches that this may be a FeaCobNicCrdLe metal alloy or a TiaZrbHfcNbdMe alloy, wherein M is one or more of V, Ta, Mo, and W (see [0010]-[0013]) or claims 1-2. This TiaZrbHfcNbdMe alloy is a base refractory -based alloy as required by claim 1. Liu does not describe any example including this material, and all examples use the iron group base metal instead. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen the TiaZrbHfcNbdMe alloy material in order to make the invention because Liu teaches that this is one of two base materials for the ODS High entropy alloy. Liu teaches that in production, a mechanical alloying takes place to dissolve the oxide Y 2 O 3 in the matrix, which oxide is then precipitated during sintering (see [0010]). This meets the limitation of in situ precipitated oxide having discrete particles. Liu teaches that this includes milling of powders (See [0010]-[0013] and Examples), as would be understood by the skilled artisan. Liu teaches that one of Ti, Zr, or Hf may be added to the material with the oxide, in order to form more stable nanoclusters (see [0010]). Liu does not teach an example of a base refractory -based alloy having a rare earth refractory oxide precipitated in situ. Lin teaches a Mechanical alloying method for preparing strengthened dispersion alloy of nickel-based oxide (see title). Lin teaches that when Hf and Y 2 O 3 powders are high energy ball milled with the matrix alloy, the particles dissolve (See Summary of the invention). Lin teaches that this addition forms Y 2 Hf 2 O 7 complex oxide (See abstract or Summary of the invention). Lin teaches that this oxide is stable, has coherence or half coherence with the matrix, and improves strengthening (See Summary of the invention). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to have practiced the invention of Liu, and to have selected the Hf from the group of Ti, Zr, or Hf, to add to the ball milling ingredients with the Y 2 O 3 , because Lin teaches that the addition of Hf to the Y 2 O 3 material forms Y 2 Hf 2 O 7 complex oxide which is stable, has coherence or half coherence with the matrix, and improves strengthening (See abstract and Summary of the invention). Liu does not teach wherein the alloy comprises 0.1-5% of the in situ precipitated refractory rare earth oxide. However, Liu teaches that the precipitated oxide present in the ODS alloy should be less than 5%, while the alloy matrix phase is 95% or more (see [0011]). While it is believed that this teaching refers to a mass%, the amount of oxide taught by Liu overlaps what is claimed, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness for that range. Alternatively, the amount of the oxide is considered close enough to the claimed amount that the skilled artisan would have expected the two amounts of oxide to have yielded similar properties within the alloy. In this case Liu teaches that the oxide dispersion strengthening mechanism strengthens and improves the mechanical properties (see Background technique and Contents of the invention). Applicant is directed to MPEP 2144.05. Regarding claim 2, Lin teaches that this addition of Hf forms Y 2 Hf 2 O 7 complex oxide (See abstract or Summary of the invention). Regarding claims 3-5, Liu does not teach wherein the alloy comprises 0.1-5% (or 0.5-2.5%) by volume of the rare earth oxide powder. However, Liu teaches that the precipitated oxide present in the ODS alloy should be less than 5%, while the alloy matrix phase is 95% or more (see [0011]). While it is believed that this teaching refers to a mass%, the amount of oxide taught by Liu overlaps what is claimed, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness for that range. Alternatively, the amount of the oxide is considered close enough to the claimed amount that the skilled artisan would have expected the two amounts of oxide to have yielded similar properties within the alloy. In this case Liu teaches that the oxide dispersion strengthening mechanism strengthens and improves the mechanical properties (see Background technique and Contents of the invention). Applicant is directed to MPEP 2144.05. Regarding claim 6-7, Lin teaches that this addition of Hf forms Y 2 Hf 2 O 7 complex oxide (See abstract or Summary of the invention). Regarding claim 8, Liu teaches HEA (see title). Regarding claim 9, Lin teaches that this addition forms Y 2 Hf 2 O 7 complex oxide (See abstract or Summary of the invention). Regarding claims 10-11, Liu teaches that in production, a mechanical alloying takes place to dissolve the oxide Y 2 O 3 in the matrix, which oxide is then precipitated during sintering (see [0010]). This meets the limitation of dissolving at least 75% (or greater than 99%), as Liu does not disclose a partially dissolved material, but a dissolved one. Regarding claim 12-13, Liu teaches milling in inert atmosphere (See Example 1). The disclosure of Liu reads on room temperature, which overlaps the claimed ranges. Regarding claims 14-15, Liu teaches milling in argon with stainless teel (See Example 1). The stainless steel media would have inherently had a chrome oxide passivation layer. Regarding claim 16-17, Liu teaches heating to 1100C (see Example 1). Regarding claim 18, Liu teaches to use elemental powder of the alloying elements (See claim 6 or Example 1 and 2). Regarding claim 19, Liu teaches that nanoparticles of 30 nm are formed (See Example 1), overlapping the range as claimed. Regarding claim 20, Liu teaches that this may be a FeaCobNicCrdLe metal alloy or a TiaZrbHfcNbdMe alloy, wherein M is one or more of V, Ta, Mo, and W (see [0010]-[0013]) or claims 1-2. This TiaZrbHfcNbdMe alloy is a base refractory -based alloy meeting the composition requirements. Liu does not describe any example including this material, and all examples use the iron group base metal instead. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen the TiaZrbHfcNbdMe alloy material in order to make the invention because Liu teaches that this is one of two base materials for the ODS High entropy alloy . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munoz, in view of CN 101948970 A (cited by applicant; machine translation provided by examiner; hereinafter “Lin”) . Regarding claim 1, Munoz teaches a La 2 O 3 -reinforced W–V alloy (see title, 2. Experimental, and 3.2.3 W-4V-1La 2 O 3 ). Munoz teaches mechanically alloying the powders of W, V, and La 2 O 3 in order to generate an alloy (2. Experimental). Munoz teaches that the W-V material formed a continuous phase (see Fig 1 and 3.1 Powder characterization). Munoz teaches that the material is then Hot isostatically pressed (2. Experimental). Munoz teaches that the amount of the oxide material is 1% (2. Experimental). Using the known density of lanthana and tungsten of approximately 6.35 and 19.3, respectively, this means that the composition of Munoz (beginning at approximately 2.8% Lanthana) falls within the claimed range, anticipating the entire range. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2131.03. Munoz teaches that the lanthanum oxide material is dispersed in the refractory (See 3.2.3 W-4V-1La 2 O 3 ). Munoz does not teach wherein the oxide particles are a rare earth refractory oxide. Munoz teaches the refractory alloy processed by ball milling, and yielding a microstructure of oxide dispersion. Furthermore, Munoz teaches that the oxide peaks completely disappear when the mechanically alloyed powder is measured using XRD (see Fig 1 and 3.1 Powder characterization). Thus the lanthanum oxide is “dissolved” in the same way and has come back into the alloy as a dispersion after the consolidation (3.2.3 W-4V-1La 2 O 3 ). Lin teaches a Mechanical alloying method for preparing strengthened dispersion alloy of nickel-based oxide (see title). Lin teaches that when Hf and Y 2 O 3 powders are high energy ball milled with the matrix alloy, the particles dissolve (See Summary of the invention). Lin teaches that this addition forms Y 2 Hf 2 O 7 complex oxide (See abstract or Summary of the invention). Lin teaches that this oxide is stable, has coherence or half coherence with the matrix, and improves strengthening (See Summary of the invention). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to have practiced the invention of Munoz, and to have added Hf to the ball milling ingredients with the Y 2 O 3 , because Lin teaches that the addition of Hf to the Y 2 O 3 material forms Y 2 Hf 2 O 7 complex oxide which is stable, has coherence or half coherence with the matrix, and improves strengthening (See abstract and Summary of the invention). Regarding claim 2, Lin teaches that this addition of Hf forms Y 2 Hf 2 O 7 complex oxide (See abstract or Summary of the invention). Regarding claims 3-5, Munoz does not teach wherein a volume percentage of the oxide is 0.5-2.5%. Munoz does not specify a volume percentage. It is believed that the Example includes approximately 2.8% by volume of the oxide. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner , 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). IN this case the composition and processing pf the material of Munoz is close enough to what is claimed that the skilled artisan would have expected the materials to have had similar properties. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2144.05. Regarding claims 6-7, Lin teaches that this addition of Hf forms Y 2 Hf 2 O 7 complex oxide (See abstract or Summary of the invention). Regarding claim 8, Munoz teaches that the vanadium peak in the XRD disappears, indicating that the material is a solid solution (see Fig 1 and 3.1 Powder characterization). Thus the limitation of “high entropy” is met by the complete solid solution. Regarding claim 9, Lin teaches that this addition of Hf forms Y 2 Hf 2 O 7 complex oxide (See abstract or Summary of the invention). Regarding claims 10-11, Munoz teaches that the oxide peaks completely disappear when the mechanically alloyed powder is measured using XRD (see Fig 1 and 3.1 Powder characterization). Thus the lanthanum oxide is “dissolved” in the same way and has come back into the alloy as a dispersion after the consolidation (3.2.3 W-4V-1La 2 O 3 ). Regarding claims 12-15, Munoz teaches to MA within argon atmosphere, using WC media (See 2. Experimental). Munoz does not specify any heatng in the milling portion, thus reading on room temperature. Regarding claims 16-17, Munoz teaches to HIP at 1573 K (see 2. Experimental). Regarding claim 18, Munoz teaches elemental powders (See 2. Experimental). Regarding claim 19, Munoz shows particles as claimed (See Fig 6). Lin teaches that the dispersed phase is refined to a size of 5-13nm (abstract). Regarding claim 20, Munoz teaches a W-V alloy matrix (see 2. Experimental). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6510. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30. 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. CHRISTOPHER S. KESSLER Primary Examiner Art Unit 1734 /CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/777,659 Page 2 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/777,659 Page 3 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/777,659 Page 4 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/777,659 Page 5 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/777,659 Page 6 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/777,659 Page 7 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/777,659 Page 8 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/777,659 Page 9 Art Unit: 1759 Application/Control Number: 18/777,659 Page 10 Art Unit: 1759
Prosecution Insights