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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/09/2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The claims recite “nosing”. Applicant provides comments in the remarks dated 09/23/2025 as to the intended definition of the term based on the limitations added to Claim 1 in the response of the same date. Based on this, if the prior art reference is able to teach the limitations of Claim 1 under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the reference, the reference will also be relied upon to teach “nosing”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-10, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohsone (US20170284217A1).
Claim 1
Ohsone teaches a method for manufacturing a tapered material (Figure 8(b) shows the material (1) has an angled, tapered shape to particular sections after forming.) comprising: using a nosing process (Ohsone teaches the limitations regarding “nosing” in the remainder of the claim.) to deform a portion of one end of a cylinder-shaped ring material (Figures 7 and Figure 8(a) show the starting material (5) prior to the forming step in Figure 8(b). This shape is a ring with a hollow interior, or cylinder shape. Figure 8(b) shows the material (1) has been deformed on its outer circumference at one end (the lower end). Claim 1 is a comprising claim, which is an open ended transitional phrase, meaning that more than just what is claimed can occur in the prior art. In this case, the “nosing” of Ohsone performs the claimed deformation of one end of the ring material in addition to other steps/deformations.) into a tapered shape, such that inner and outer diameters of the ring material are smaller toward the one end in an axial direction (“An axial direction” is up and down in Figures 8(a) and 8(b). “Toward the one end” is downward in Figures 8(a) and 8(b). “inner and outer diameters” does not specify where the diameter measurement takes place. Figure 8(b) shows the material post-deformation/nosing by the die (16/17) of Ohsone, where the material has a portion that is tapered (1d) and has an area of smaller inner diameter than another portion of the ring and an area of smaller outer diameter than another area of the ring. See the annotated figure below for further clarification.) by covering and pressing an entire circumference the portion of the one end of the ring material with a tapered portion of an inner surface of a nosing die (Figure 8(b) shows the die (16/17) has an inner surface that causes a curved/tapered shape to be formed on the material of the ring (1).), wherein the pressing is carried out by moving the nosing die along the axial direction of the ring material (The direction of movement of the nosing die (16/17) between Figures 8(a) and 8(b) is in the axial direction.) wherein the ring material is made of Ni-based superalloy (¶0037 teaches the material is Inconel 718. This is a nickel-based superalloy. Applicant states that this material is a Ni-based superalloy in ¶0029 of the specification.), and wherein a nosing process initial temperature Tn (*C) (¶0037 teaches that the temperature is in the range of 900 to 1050 degrees C.) of a circumferential surface of another portion of the ring material which is not pressed with the tapered portion of the nosing die (Figure 8(b) shows there are portions of the ring molded article (1) that are curved (tapered) and thus having the “nosing” applied to them. There are also surfaces that are flat and thus not “nosed”.) satisfies a relationship of following Formula 1 with a solvus temperature Ts (*C) of a precipitation phase of the Ni-based superalloy: Ts – 300 </= Tn </= Ts - 50... (Formula 1). (The solvus temperature of Inconel 718 is between 1000 to 1030 degrees C. The temperature in Ohsone is 900 degrees C, which lies within the claimed range.)
PNG
media_image1.png
566
605
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: Examiner Interpretation of Ohsone, Figure 2
Claim 2
Ohsone teaches the method for manufacturing a tapered material according to claim 1, comprising heating the ring material, before the nosing process, to a heating temperature To (°C) satisfying a relationship of the following Formula 2: To </= Ts + 30 ... (Formula 2). (¶0037 teaches the heating of the article (5) prior to step S4 to 900 degrees C. 900 degrees C is less than or equal to the solvus temperature of Inconel 718 (1000 to 1030 degrees C) plus 30.)
Claim 3
Ohsone teaches the method for manufacturing a tapered material according to claim 1, wherein the solvus temperature Ts (*C) of a precipitation phase of the Ni-based superalloy is within a range of 950°C to 1100*C. (The solvus temperature of Inconel 718 is 1000 to 1030 degrees C, which is within the claimed range.)
Claim 4
Ohsone teaches the method for manufacturing a tapered material according to claim 1, wherein a nosing process initial temperature of the circumferential surface of the portion of the one end of the ring material which is pressed by the nosing die is equal to or greater than the temperature Tn of the circumferential surface of the another portion of the ring material which is not pressed by the nosing die. (This claim recites a different version of the method, and lacks the limitation “the tapered portion of” the nosing die. In light of this, the “nosing die” in Figure 8(b) is now interpreted as item 17 alone. Figure 8(b) shows that portions of the material (1) are not contacted by this nosing die during the process. These portions are heated to the same (equal) temperature as the rest of the ring prior to forming.)
Claim 5
Ohsone teaches the method for manufacturing a tapered material according to claim 1, wherein the ring material has an outer diameter Da of 50mm to 3000 mm and a height Ho of 30 mm to 1000mm. (¶0051 teaches the diameter is 1090mm and the height is 110mm.)
Claim 6
Ohsone teaches the method for manufacturing a tapered material according to claim 1, wherein the tapered material has an outer diameter Db of 25mm to 2850 mm at a portion having a smaller diameter. (Figure 8(b) shows a cross section of the material (1)where there is a flat outer surface that represents the maximum diameter, and curved surfaces that are part of the outer circumferential side of the material (1) that have a lesser diameter. ¶0051 teaches that the maximum diameter is 1090mm and that the maximum thisness is 120mm. As such, the minimum outer circumferential diameter of the material (1) must be more than 1090 – 120 = 970 mm. This falls within the claimed range.)
Claim 7
Ohsone teaches the method for manufacturing a tapered material according to claim 1, wherein the ring material has a thickness to of 0.1 mm to 300 mm and a thickness-to-outer diameter ratio to/Da of 0.001 to 0.1. (¶0051 teaches the thickness is 120mm or less and the diameter is 1090mm or less. Therefore, one potential ratio disclosed by the reference is 110/1090 = 0.1.)
Claim 8
Ohsone teaches the method for manufacturing a tapered material according to claim 1, wherein a diameter reduction ratio in the nosing process is within a range of more than 0% up to 50%. (Figures 8(a) to 8(b) show the material (5) fits within the molds (16, 17) from one radial side to another. The end resulting material (1) after forming also fits within the cavity of the molds from one radial side to another. It is interpreted that there is a 0% reduction as claimed.)
Claim 9
Ohsone teaches the method for manufacturing a tapered material according to claim 1, wherein the tapered material has a taper angle of 5 to 40 degrees. (Figure 8(b) teaches that the angle of the ring molded article’s tapered section is a curve that changes from 0 to 90 degrees over the length of the curve. When taking an individual measurement at a point along the tapered portion, that angle will be within the claimed range. The claim recites that the material “has” a taper angle of 5 to 40 degrees, such that it can include other taper angles as well.)
PNG
media_image2.png
394
598
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure B: Examiner interpretation of Ohsone, Figure 2 for Claim 9
Claim 10
Ohsone teaches the method for manufacturing a tapered material according to claim 1, wherein the inner surface of the nosing die having the tapered portion further has a restraint portion which covers another portion of circumferential surface of the ring material where the nosing process is not applied. (Figure 8(b) shows that there is a portion of the die (16/17) that has a curved/tapered shape, and another portion that is flat. The portion of the die that produces the curved shape to the material (1) applies a “nosing” process, while the flat portion does not. The flat area of the die is interpreted as an analogous “restraint” portion.)
Claim 12
Ohsone teaches the method for manufacturing a tapered material according to claim 1, wherein the Ni-based superalloy has an alloy composition consisting of, by mass%, C: 0.08% or less, Mn: 0.35% or less, P: 0.015% or less, S:0.015% or less, Si: 0.35% or less, Cr: 17 to 21%, Ni: 50 to 55%, Mo: 2.8 to 3.3%, Nb and Ta: 4.75 to 5.5%, Ti: 0.65 to 1.15%, Al:0.2 to 0.8%, Co: 1% or less, B: 0.006% or less, Cu: 0.3% or less, and the balance of Fe with inevitable impurities. (¶0033 teaches the use of Inconel 718, which has the claimed alloy composition. Applicant states that this alloy is Inconel 718 in specification ¶0031.)
Claim 14
Ohsone teaches the method for manufacturing a tapered material according to claim 1, wherein the tapered material is a material for an aircraft engine casing. (¶0033 teaches the use of Inconel 718 for the ring. Applicant’s invention is for an aircraft engine casing and the specification teaches the use of Inconel 718 in ¶0031. Since the tapered material in Ohsone is Inconel 718, it is a material for an aircraft engine casing.)
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohsone (US20170284217A1), as applied in Claim 1, further in view of Hideo (EP2979774A1) and Special Metals NPL (NPL V on PTO 892).
Claim 11
Ohsone teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the method is performed on Inconel 718 (¶0033), which is a high strength alloy. ¶0025 teaches that the method can be used with other high strength, high temperature alloys.
Ohsone does not explicitly disclose the Ni-based superalloy has an alloy composition consisting of, by mass%, C: 0.02 to 0.10%, Mn: 0.1% or less, P: 0.015% or less, S:0.015% or less, Si: 0.15% or less, Cr: 18 to 21%, Fe: 2% or less, Mo: 3.5 to 5.0%, Ti: 2.75 to 3.25%, Al: 1.2 to 1.6%, Co: 12 to 15%, B: 0.003 to 0.01%, Cu: 0.1% or less, Zr: 0.02 to 0.08%, Mg: 0 to 0.01%, and the balance ofNi with inevitable impurities. This alloy is Waspaloy.
However, Hideo teaches the use of Waspaloy. (¶0076 teaches the use of Waspaloy. For a high temperature aircraft component (¶0004).)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to substitute the known Waspaloy from Hideo for the Inconel 718 in Ohsone in order to provide a Ni-based heat resistant superalloy for aircraft engine components that has excellent high-temperature strength and good corrosion resistance to oxidation at service temperatures up to 1200F for critical rotating applications. (See Special Metals NPL Page 1, Left Column).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to substitute the known Waspaloy from Hideo for the Inconel 718 in Ohsone because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to substitute one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohsone (US20170284217A1), as applied in Claim 1, further in view of Matsui (US20200407825A1).
Claim 13
Ohsone teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method is performed on Inconel 718 (¶0033), which is a high strength alloy. ¶0025 teaches that the method can be used with other high strength, high temperature alloys.
Ohsone does not explicitly disclose an alloy with the composition as claimed in Claim 13.
However, Matsui teaches a Ni-based superalloy has an alloy composition consisting of, by mass%, Co: 4.0 to 11.0%, Cr: 12.0 to 17.0%, Al: 2.0 to 4.0%, Ti: 2.0 to 4.0%, Al + Ti: 4.6 to 6.7%, Mo:more than 5.5 to 10.0%, W: more than 0 to 4.0%, B: 0.001 to 0.040%, C: 0.02 to 0.06%, Zr: 0.05%or less, Mg: 0.005%or less, P: 0.01% or less, Nb: 1.0%or less, Ta: 1.0%or less, Fe: 2.0%or less, and the balance of Ni with inevitable impurities. (¶0025)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to substitute the known alloy from Matsui for the Inconel 718 in Ohsone in order to provide a Ni-based heat resistant superalloy for aircraft engine components that has sufficient high-temperature strength and excellent low-cycle fatigue strength even if the environment of usage of an engine becomes a high temperature of 750° C. or higher, and also possesses excellent hot workability, and an aircraft engine component comprising the same. (Matsui ¶0014)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to substitute the known known alloy from Matsui for the Inconel 718 in Ohsone because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to substitute one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/23/2025 regarding the rejection using Ohsone Figure 7, Hideo, and Gong have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections(s) using Ohsone Figure 7, Hideo, and Gong have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment to Claim 1 is sufficient to overcome the previously presented rejections.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/23/2025 regarding the rejection using Ohsone Figure 8(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is respectfully asserted that the rejection relying of Ohsone Figure 8(b) has been updated above and the reference is still relevant to the claim(s). Claim 1 requires inner and outer diameters of the ring material are smaller toward the one end in the axial direction. The claim does not specify where the diameter measurements are taken (other than “towards one end”), that they are taken at the same location, or that all of the inner and outer diameters towards the one end are smaller. Based on this, Ohsone Figure 2 and 8(b) show the cross-sectional shape of the ring after the analogous forming technique where there are instances of inner and outer diameters that are smaller than compared to instances of inner and outer diameters towards the other end. See Figure A above for further clarification of this interpretation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited form.
Document
Date
Description of Relevant Subject Matter
US5101547A
1990-11-21
Figure 5 teaches the shape of a tapered material after forming where a die (14) is moved in the axial direction to form a tapered material having areas of smaller inner and outer diameter. Col. 4, Line 55 teaches the material is Inconel. Col. 6 Lines 35-40 teach the molds are heated to 1000C, which is within the claimed range of Claim 1.
WO2008106858A1
2008-09-12
Figures 4-6 show a ring material that is pressed using a die (6) and is formed into a tapered shape having an inner and outer diameter location that is smaller than other locations on the ring. Lines 85-86 teach the use of a nickel based superalloy. Line 78 teaches heating the billet to 980-1010 C.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael W Hotchkiss whose telephone number is (571)272-3854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 0800-1600.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached on 571-272-3460. 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.
/MICHAEL W HOTCHKISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights