This international application has resulted in the following US patent:
Claim 1 reads:
- A method of fabricating a multi-functional multilayer article comprising:
determining a shape for the article and defining at least two spatially separated regions on said article, said two regions to be formed of at least two distinct materials being joined by at least one compositional gradient transition region;
mapping a compositional gradient pathway onto said article between said at least two regions such that the at least one compositional gradient transition region substantially excludes any undesirable compositional phases; and
forming the article, wherein at least the at least one compositional gradient transition region comprises a plurality of distinct gradient layers formed by incrementally adjusting the compositional ratio between the at least two distinct materials.
This claim may or may not be valid in light of prior art the examiner hasn't seen, but the PTO deemed it novel. If you believe otherwise, there are proper channels for asking the PTO to review the novelty of granted patents.
Edit: regarding those "proper channels", you can request a re-examination from the PTO, or request an IPR from the PTAB, or ask a court for a declaratory judgement of invalidity. There is so much more to this topic such as CBM and PGR proceedings and other rabbit holes.
For a summary, see: