DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 23, 2026 has been entered.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s priority claim to US Provisional 63/236,363 filed August 24, 2021 is acknowledged.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks and Claim Amendments filed February 23, 2026.
Claims Filing Date
February 23, 2026
Amended
1, 4, 7-21
Cancelled
5, 6
Under Examination
1-4, 7-21
Withdrawn Claim Objection
The following objections are withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claims 1-3 and 10 reciting temperatures in “°F” and claims 11-13, 15-16, 18, and 20-21 reciting temperatures are in “°F (°C)”.
Claim 4 line 1 “wherein third”.
Claims 7-9, 14, 17, and 19 the Sn units.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following 112(a) rejections are withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 1 lines 13-14 and claim 10 line 6 “without an equiaxed alpha phase”.
The following 112(b) rejections are withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 1 lines 12-14 and claim 10 lines 5-6 “an acicular microstructure comprising needles of alpha phase in a matrix of beta phase without an equiaxed alpha phase”.
Response to Remarks filed February 23, 2026
Claim Interpretation
The applicant argues claims 15, 16, 20, and 21 should be interpreted in their entireties to include the claimed tensile strengths, yield strengths, percent elongations, and elastic modulus values (Remarks p. 7 para. 2).
The claim 15, 16, 20, and 21 interpretations are with respect to the elastic modulus property. Applicant’s response does not indicate whether or not the claimed tensile strength, yield strength, and percent elongation should also interpreted as being at the respectively recited temperature.
Chakrabati
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 9 para. 2, filed February 23, 2026, with respect to the claim 1 and 10 rejections over Chakrabati have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim 1 and claim 10 rejections of Chakrabati have been withdrawn.
The applicant persuasively argues independent claims 1 and 10 have been amended to recite the composition “consisting of”, but Chakrabati requires additional elements, such as Cr (Remarks p. 9 para. 2).
New Grounds
In light of claim amendment, new grounds of rejection are made over Gorman as evidenced by Cope and over Chakrabati in view of Xue.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 15 is being interpreted as requiring the claimed elastic modulus greater than about 17.5 Msi to be at the temperature of 75°F.
Claim 16 is being interpreted as requiring the claimed elastic modulus greater than about 13.0 Msi to be at the temperature of 1150°F.
Claim 20 is being interpreted as requiring the claimed elastic modulus greater than about 17.5 Msi to be at the temperature of 75°F.
Claim 21 is being interpreted as requiring the claimed elastic modulus greater than about 13.0 Msi to be at the temperature of 1150°F.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7-9, 14, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 7 lines 1-4 “the alpha-beta product composition comprises…” renders the claim indefinite. Claim 7 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 lines 3-6 recite “an alpha-beta product from a titanium alloy with a composition in wight percent (wt. %) consisting of…” The claim 1 transitional phase “consisting of” excludes any element not specified in the claim. MPEP 2111.03(II). The claim 7 transitional phrase “comprising” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements. MPEP 2111.03(I). The dependent claim 7 composition transitional phrase is broader than the independent claim 1 composition transitional phrase.
Claim 8 lines 1-4 “the alpha-beta product composition comprises…” renders the claim indefinite. Claim 8 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 lines 3-6 recite “an alpha-beta product from a titanium alloy with a composition in wight percent (wt. %) consisting of…” The claim 1 transitional phase “consisting of” excludes any element not specified in the claim. MPEP 2111.03(II). The claim 8 transitional phrase “comprising” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements. MPEP 2111.03(I). The dependent claim 8 composition transitional phrase is broader than the independent claim 1 composition transitional phrase.
Claim 9 lines 1-4 “the alpha-beta product composition comprises…” renders the claim indefinite. Claim 9 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 lines 3-6 recite “an alpha-beta product from a titanium alloy with a composition in wight percent (wt. %) consisting of…” The claim 1 transitional phase “consisting of” excludes any element not specified in the claim. MPEP 2111.03(II). The claim 9 transitional phrase “comprising” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements. MPEP 2111.03(I). The dependent claim 9 composition transitional phrase is broader than the independent claim 1 composition transitional phrase.
Claim 14 lines 2-4 “the composition comprises…” renders the claim indefinite. Claim 14 depends from claim 10. Claim 10 lines 2-4 recite “a composition in wight percent (wt. %) consisting of…” The claim 10 transitional phase “consisting of” excludes any element not specified in the claim. MPEP 2111.03(II). The claim 14 transitional phrase “comprising” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements. MPEP 2111.03(I). The dependent claim 14 composition transitional phrase is broader than the independent claim 1 composition transitional phrase.
Claim 17 lines 2-4 “the composition comprises…” renders the claim indefinite. Claim 17 depends from claim 10. Claim 10 lines 2-4 recite “a composition in wight percent (wt. %) consisting of…” The claim 10 transitional phase “consisting of” excludes any element not specified in the claim. MPEP 2111.03(II). The claim 17 transitional phrase “comprising” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements. MPEP 2111.03(I). The dependent claim 17 composition transitional phrase is broader than the independent claim 1 composition transitional phrase.
Claim 19 lines 2-4 “the composition comprises…” renders the claim indefinite. Claim 19 depends from claim 10. Claim 10 lines 2-4 recite “a composition in wight percent (wt. %) consisting of…” The claim 10 transitional phase “consisting of” excludes any element not specified in the claim. MPEP 2111.03(II). The claim 19 transitional phrase “comprising” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements. MPEP 2111.03(I). The dependent claim 19 composition transitional phrase is broader than the independent claim 1 composition transitional phrase.
For the purpose of examination claims 7-9, 14, 17, and 19 are interpreted as requiring compositions that comprise as recited in the claims.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorman (US 6,284,070) as evidenced by Cope (Cope and Hill. Influence of aging temperature on the mechanical properties of IMI 834. Report (1988), PNR90501, ETN-89-93693; Order No. N89-18547, 7 pp. STN abstract and composition.).
Regarding claim 1, Gorman discloses a method of manufacturing an alpha-beta titanium alloy (1:5-10, 39-45), the method comprising:
forming an alpha-beta product from a titanium alloy with an overlapping (2:14-16) (Cope IMI 834 Ti alloy STN composition); and
heat treating the alpha-beta product with a first heat treatment step comprising a first temperature (more preferably from about 70°F below a best transus temperature to about 10°F below the beta transus temperature, about 1843 to 1903°F for Ti 834 with a beta transus temperature of 1913°F) and a first time (about 30 min to about 4 hr) (4:1-22), a second heat treatment step comprising a second temperature (typically from about 100°F to about 400°C below the beta transus temperature, about 1513-1813°F for Ti 834 with a beta transus temperature of 1913°F) and a second time (about 30 min to 4 hr) (4:66 to 5:22), and a third heat treatment step (aging) comprising a third temperature between 1050°F and 1250°F (about 950°F to about 1350°F) and less than the second temperature, and a third time (about 1 hr to 12 hrs) greater than the second time (5:37-55),
wherein the heat treated alpha-beta product has an acicular microstructure comprising needles of alpha phase in a matrix of beta phase (transformed beta refers to an acicular alpha phase with small amounts of retained beta phase) (2:1-13, 4:38-65, 5:12-18, 23-26).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Element
Claims 1, 10 (wt%)
IMI 834 Ti Alloy
Cope (wt%)
Al
5.7 to 7.5
5.5 to 6.1
Mo
0.8 to 4.2
0.2 to 0.8
Nb
0.0 to 3.0
0.5 to 1
Sn
0.1 to 3.5
3 to 5
Zr
0.1 to 3.0
3 to 5
Si
0.1 to 0.35
0.2 to 0.6
O
0.05 to 0.25
0 to 0.2
Ti
Remainder
Balance
Gorman discloses improved fatigue properties (1:5-10, 39-45, 2:39-48).
The heat treated alpha-beta product having an EN 6072 testing fatigue life of more than 1.0E+07 cycles has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed heat treated alpha-beta product. The prior art discloses a composition (Gorman 2:14-16; Cope STN composition), processing (Gorman 4:1-22, 4:66 to 5:22, 37-55), and structure (Gorman 2:1-13, 4:38-65, 5:12-18, 23-26) that read on that claimed. Therefore, the claimed properties of the heat treated alpha-beta product naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including having an EN 6072 testing fatigue life of more than 1.0E+07 cycles.
Regarding claim 2, Gorman discloses the first temperature is between 1600°F and 2000°F (more preferably from about 70°F below a best transus temperature to about 10°F below the beta transus temperature, about 1843 to 1903°F for Ti 834 with a beta transus temperature of 1913°F) and the first time is between 15 minutes and 120 minutes (about 30 min to about 4 hr) (4:1-22). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 3, Gorman discloses the second temperature is between 1400°F and 1900°F (typically from about 100°F to about 400°C below the beta transus temperature, about 1513-1813°F for Ti 834 with a beta transus temperature of 1913°F) and the second time is between 5 minutes and 90 minutes (about 30 min to 4 hr) (4:66 to 5:22). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, Gorman discloses the third time is between 5 hours and 7 hours (about 1 hr to 12 hrs) (5:37-55). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 10, Gorman discloses an alpha-beta titanium alloy (1:5-10, 39-45) comprising:
an overlapping composition (2:14-16) (Cope IMI 834 Ti alloy STN composition);
an acicular microstructure comprising needles of alpha phase in a matrix of beta phase (transformed beta refers to an acicular alpha phase with small amounts of retained beta phase) (2:1-13, 4:38-65, 5:12-18, 23-26); and
wherein the alpha-beta titanium alloy is heat treated with a first heat treatment step comprising a first temperature (more preferably from about 70°F below a best transus temperature to about 10°F below the beta transus temperature, about 1843 to 1903°F for Ti 834 with a beta transus temperature of 1913°F) and a first time (about 30 min to about 4 hr) (4:1-22), a second heat treatment step comprising a second temperature (typically from about 100°F to about 400°C below the beta transus temperature, about 1513-1813°F for Ti 834 with a beta transus temperature of 1913°F) and a second time (about 30 min to 4 hr) (4:66 to 5:22), and a third heat treatment step (aging) comprising a third temperature between 1050°F and 1250°F (about 950°F to about 1350°F) and less than the second temperature (about 1 hr to 12 hrs), and a third time greater than the second time (5:37-55).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Gorman discloses improved fatigue properties (1:5-10, 39-45, 2:39-48).
An EN 6072 testing fatigue life of more than 1.0E+07 cycles has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed alpha-beta titanium alloy. The prior art discloses a composition (Gorman 2:14-16; Cope STN composition), processing (Gorman 4:1-22, 4:66 to 5:22, 37-55), and structure (Gorman 2:1-13, 4:38-65, 5:12-18, 23-26) that read on that claimed. Therefore, the claimed properties of the alpha-beta titanium alloy naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including an EN 6072 testing fatigue life of more than 1.0E+07 cycles.
Regarding claim 11, a time to 0.25% strain at 35 ksi and 950°F greater than 50 hours has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed alpha-beta titanium alloy. The prior art discloses a composition (Gorman 2:14-16; Cope STN composition), processing (Gorman 4:1-22, 4:66 to 5:22, 37-55), and structure (Gorman 2:1-13, 4:38-65, 5:12-18, 23-26) that read on that claimed. Therefore, the claimed properties of the alpha-beta titanium alloy naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including a time to 0.25% strain at 35 ksi and 950°F greater than 50 hours.
Regarding claim 12, a time to 0.25% strain at 35 ksi and 950°F greater than 75 hours has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed alpha-beta titanium alloy. The prior art discloses a composition (Gorman 2:14-16; Cope STN composition), processing (Gorman 4:1-22, 4:66 to 5:22, 37-55), and structure (Gorman 2:1-13, 4:38-65, 5:12-18, 23-26) that read on that claimed. Therefore, the claimed properties of the alpha-beta titanium alloy naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including a time to 0.25% strain at 35 ksi and 950°F greater than 75 hours.
Regarding claim 13, a time to 0.25% strain at 35 ksi and 950°F greater than 100 hours has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed alpha-beta titanium alloy. The prior art discloses a composition (Gorman 2:14-16; Cope STN composition), processing (Gorman 4:1-22, 4:66 to 5:22, 37-55), and structure (Gorman 2:1-13, 4:38-65, 5:12-18, 23-26) that read on that claimed. Therefore, the claimed properties of the alpha-beta titanium alloy naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including a time to 0.25% strain at 35 ksi and 950°F greater than 100 hours.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorman (US 6,284,070) as evidenced by Cope (Cope and Hill. Influence of aging temperature on the mechanical properties of IMI 834. Report (1988), PNR90501, ETN-89-93693; Order No. N89-18547, 7 pp. STN abstract and composition.) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xue (CN 110951993 machine translation).
Regarding claim 7, Gorman discloses heat treating (1:5-10) a wide variety of alpha-beta titanium alloy (2:13-14).
Gorman is silent to the claim 7 composition.
Xue discloses a titanium alloy with an overlapping composition ([0007]-[0021], [0035]-[0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the heat treating of Gorman to the alloy of Xue to produce a titanium alloy that can be used for a long time in a 550 to 600°C environment, which has a 50 to 100°C temperature increase (Xue [0037], [0043]), where Al solid solution strengthens (Xue [0037]), Sn and Zr supplement and enhance with Sn reducing sensitivity to hydrogen embrittlement (Xue [0038]), Mo and Nb stabilize beta phase with Mo giving good high-temperature creep properties and thermal stability (Xue [0039]), and Si inhibits grain growth during solid solution, improving mechanical properties, oxidation resistance, and casting (Xue [0040]). Further, Xue produces a forged bar (Xue [0028]) and applying the heat treating process of Gorman to it advantageously improves dwell fatigue performance (Gorman 1:5-10) and results in good strength, ductility, fracture toughness, crack growth resistance, and machinability (Gorman 1:39-45, 2:39-42). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Element
Claim 1 (wt%)
Claims 7, 14 (wt%)
Claims 8, 17 (wt%)
Claims 9, 19 (wt%)
Xue (mass%) Disclosure
Xue Citation
Al
5.7 to 7.5
6.4 to 7.4
6.8 to 7.5
5.7 to 6.7
5.8 to 7.5
[0010]
Mo
0.8 to 4.2
2.1 to 2.6
0.8 to 1.6
1.7 to 2.3
1.6 to 3.5
[0011]
Nb
0.0 to 3.0
0.5 to 1.5
1.6 to 2.4
1.8 to 2.4
0.8 to 2.0
[0014]
Sn
0.1 to 3.5
1.0 to 1.8
0.15 to 0.45
2.4 to 3.2
1.2 to 3.2
[0013]
Zr
0.1 to 3.0
0.5 to 1.5
0.1 to 0.3
1.8 to 2.6
1.2 to 3.2
[0012]
Si
0.1 to 0.35
0.1 to 0.3
0.1 to 0.3
0.1 to 0.3
0.12 to 0.35
[0015]
O
0.05 to 0.25
0.1 to 0.15
0.1 to 0.2
0.1 to 0.2
0.06 to 0.20
[0016]
Ti
Remainder
Remainder
Remainder
Remainder
Balance
[0021]
Regarding claim 9, Gorman discloses heat treating (1:5-10) a wide variety of alpha-beta titanium alloy (2:13-14).
Gorman is silent to the claim 9 composition.
Xue discloses a titanium alloy with an overlapping composition ([0007]-[0021], [0035]-[0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the heat treating of Gorman to the alloy of Xue to produce a titanium alloy that can be used for a long time in a 550 to 600°C environment, which has a 50 to 100°C temperature increase (Xue [0037], [0043]), where Al solid solution strengthens (Xue [0037]), Sn and Zr supplement and enhance with Sn reducing sensitivity to hydrogen embrittlement (Xue [0038]), Mo and Nb stabilize beta phase with Mo giving good high-temperature creep properties and thermal stability (Xue [0039]), and Si inhibits grain growth during solid solution, improving mechanical properties, oxidation resistance, and casting (Xue [0040]). Further, Xue produces a forged bar (Xue [0028]) and applying the heat treating process of Gorman to it advantageously improves dwell fatigue performance (Gorman 1:5-10) and results in good strength, ductility, fracture toughness, crack growth resistance, and machinability (Gorman 1:39-45, 2:39-42). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorman (US 6,284,070) as evidenced by Cope (Cope and Hill. Influence of aging temperature on the mechanical properties of IMI 834. Report (1988), PNR90501, ETN-89-93693; Order No. N89-18547, 7 pp. STN abstract and composition.) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Murakami (JP 2012-052219 machine translation) and Chakrabati (US 5,399,212).
Regarding claim 7, Gorman discloses heat treating (1:5-10) a wide variety of alpha-beta titanium alloy (2:13-14).
Gorman is silent to the claim 7 composition.
Murakami discloses an alpha-beta type titanium alloy ([0001], [0012]) with an overlapping composition ([0013]-[0015], [0026]-[0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the heat treating of Gorman to the alloy of Murakami for excellent fatigue strength (Murakami [0027]; Gorman 1:5-10). The heat treating of Gorman applies to a wide variety of alpha-beta titanium alloy (Gorman 2:13-14) and the alloy of Murakami is an alpha-beta type titanium alloy (Murakami [0001], [0012]). Further, in Murakami the Al stabilizes alpha phase and achieves sufficient strength (Murakami [0029]), the Mo and Nb stabilize beta phase and improve strength (Murakami [0030]), Si improves strength (Murakami [0032]), and Zr and Sn improve strength (Murakami [0033]). Further, the heat treating process of Gorman advantageously results in good strength, ductility, fracture toughness, crack growth resistance, and machinability (Gorman 1:39-45, 2:39-42).
Murakami is silent to 0.1 to 0.15% oxygen.
Chakrabati discloses 0 to 0.13% O (2:26-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the alloy of Murakami to include 0 to 0.13% O to increase strength (Chakrabati 2:29-32).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Element
Claim 1 (wt%)
Claims 7, 14 (wt%)
Claims 8, 17 (wt%)
Claims 9, 19 (wt%)
Murakami (mass%)
Murakami Citation
Al
5.7 to 7.5
6.4 to 7.4
6.8 to 7.5
5.7 to 6.7
2.0 to 8.5
[0029]
Mo
0.8 to 4.2
2.1 to 2.6
0.8 to 1.6
1.7 to 2.3
5.0 or less
[0030]
Nb
0.0 to 3.0
0.5 to 1.5
1.6 to 2.4
1.8 to 2.4
5.0 or less
[0030]
Sn
0.1 to 3.5
1.0 to 1.8
0.15 to 0.45
2.4 to 3.2
5.0 or less
[0033]
Zr
0.1 to 3.0
0.5 to 1.5
0.1 to 0.3
1.8 to 2.6
5.0 or less
[0033]
Si
0.1 to 0.35
0.1 to 0.3
0.1 to 0.3
0.1 to 0.3
1.0 or less
[0032]
O
0.05 to 0.25
0.1 to 0.15
0.1 to 0.2
0.1 to 0.2
-
-
Ti
Remainder
Remainder
Remainder
Remainder
Present
[0031]
Regarding claim 8, Gorman discloses heat treating (1:5-10) a wide variety of alpha-beta titanium alloy (2:13-14).
Gorman is silent to the claim 8 composition.
Murakami discloses an alpha-beta type titanium alloy ([0001], [0012]) with an overlapping composition ([0013]-[0015], [0026]-[0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the heat treating of Gorman to the alloy of Murakami for excellent fatigue strength (Murakami [0027]; Gorman 1:5-10). The heat treating of Gorman applies to a wide variety of alpha-beta titanium alloy (Gorman 2:13-14) and the alloy of Murakami is an alpha-beta type titanium alloy (Murakami [0001], [0012]). Further, in Murakami the Al stabilizes alpha phase and achieves sufficient strength (Murakami [0029]), the Mo and Nb stabilize beta phase and improve strength (Murakami [0030]), Si improves strength (Murakami [0032]), and Zr and Sn improve strength (Murakami [0033]). Further, the heat treating process of Gorman advantageously results in good strength, ductility, fracture toughness, crack growth resistance, and machinability (Gorman 1:39-45, 2:39-42).
Murakami is silent to 0.1 to 0.15% oxygen.
Chakrabati discloses 0 to 0.13% O (2:26-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the alloy of Murakami to include 0 to 0.13% O to increase strength (Chakrabati 2:29-32).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 9, Gorman discloses heat treating (1:5-10) a wide variety of alpha-beta titanium alloy (2:13-14).
Gorman is silent to the claim 9 composition.
Murakami discloses an alpha-beta type titanium alloy ([0001], [0012]) with an overlapping composition ([0013]-[0015], [0026]-[0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the heat treating of Gorman to the alloy of Murakami for excellent fatigue strength (Murakami [0027]; Gorman 1:5-10). The heat treating of Gorman applies to a wide variety of alpha-beta titanium alloy (Gorman 2:13-14) and the alloy of Murakami is an alpha-beta type titanium alloy (Murakami [0001], [0012]). Further, in Murakami the Al stabilizes alpha phase and achieves sufficient strength (Murakami [0029]), the Mo and Nb stabilize beta phase and improve strength (Murakami [0030]), Si improves strength (Murakami [0032]), and Zr and Sn improve strength (Murakami [0033]). Further, the heat treating process of Gorman advantageously results in good strength, ductility, fracture toughness, crack growth resistance, and machinability (Gorman 1:39-45, 2:39-42).
Murakami is silent to 0.1 to 0.15% oxygen.
Chakrabati discloses 0 to 0.13% O (2:26-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the alloy of Murakami to include 0 to 0.13% O to increase strength (Chakrabati 2:29-32).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 14-16 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorman (US 6,284,070) as evidenced by Cope (STN Abstract.) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Xue (CN 110951993 machine translation).
Regarding claim 14, Gorman discloses heat treating (1:5-10) a wide variety of alpha-beta titanium alloy (2:13-14).
Gorman is silent to the claim 14 composition.
Xue discloses a titanium alloy with an overlapping composition ([0007]-[0021], [0035]-[0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the heat treating of Gorman to the alloy of Xue to produce a titanium alloy that can be used for a long time in a 550 to 600°C environment, which has a 50 to 100°C temperature increase (Xue [0037], [0043]), where Al solid solution strengthens (Xue [0037]), Sn and Zr supplement and enhance with Sn reducing sensitivity to hydrogen embrittlement (Xue [0038]), Mo and Nb stabilize beta phase with Mo giving good high-temperature creep properties and thermal stability (Xue [0039]), and Si inhibits grain growth during solid solution, improving mechanical properties, oxidation resistance, and casting (Xue [0040]). Further, Xue produces a forged bar (Xue [0028]) and applying the heat treating process of Gorman to it advantageously improves dwell fatigue performance (Gorman 1:5-10) and results in good strength, ductility, fracture toughness, crack growth resistance, and machinability (Gorman 1:39-45, 2:39-42). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 15, Gorman discloses good strength, ductility, fracture toughness, crack growth resistance, and machinability (Gorman 1:39-45, 2:39-42). A tensile strength greater than about 153 ksi, a yield strength greater than about 130 ksi, a percent elongation greater than about 3%, and an elastic modulus greater than about 17.5 Msi at 75°F have been considered and determined to recite a properties of the claimed alpha-beta titanium alloy. The prior art discloses a composition (Gorman 2:13-14; Xue [0007]-[0021], [0035]-[0040]), processing (Gorman 4:1-22, 4:66 to 5:22, 37-55), and structure (Gorman 2:1-13, 4:38-65, 5:12-18, 23-26) that read on that claimed. Therefore, the claimed properties of the alpha-beta titanium alloy naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including a tensile strength greater than about 153 ksi, a yield strength greater than about 130 ksi, a percent elongation greater than about 3%, and an elastic modulus greater than about 17.5 Msi at 75°F.
Regarding claim 16, Gorman discloses good strength, ductility, fracture toughness, crack growth resistance, and machinability (Gorman 1:39-45, 2:39-42). A tensile strength greater than about 90 ksi, a yield strength greater than about 68 ksi, a percent elongation greater than about 15%, and an elastic modulus greater than about 13.0 Msi at 1150°F have been considered and determined to recite a properties of the claimed alpha-beta titanium alloy. The prior art discloses a composition (Gorman 2:13-14; Xue [0007]-[0021], [0035]-[0040]), processing (Gorman 4:1-22, 4:66 to 5:22, 37-55), and structure (Gorman 2:1-13, 4:38-65, 5:12-18, 23-26) that read on that claimed. Therefore, the claimed properties of the alpha-beta titanium alloy naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including a tensile strength greater than about 90 ksi, a yield strength greater than about 68 ksi, a percent elongation greater than about 15%, and an elastic modulus greater than about 13.0 Msi at 1150°F.
Regarding claim 19, Gorman discloses heat treating (1:5-10) a wide variety of alpha-beta titanium alloy (2:13-14).
Gorman is silent to the claim 19 composition.
Xue discloses a titanium alloy with an overlapping composition ([0007]-[0021], [0035]-[0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the heat treating of Gorman to the alloy of Xue to produce a titanium alloy that can be used for a long time in a 550 to 600°C environment, which has a 50 to 100°C temperature increase (Xue [0037], [0043]), where Al solid solution strengthens (Xue [0037]), Sn and Zr supplement and enhance with Sn reducing sensitivity to hydrogen embrittlement (Xue [0038]), Mo and Nb stabilize beta phase with Mo giving good high-temperature creep properties and thermal stability (Xue [0039]), and Si inhibits grain growth during solid solution, improving mechanical properties, oxidation resistance, and casting (Xue [0040]). Further, Xue produces a forged bar (Xue [0028]) and applying the heat treating process of Gorman to it advantageously improves dwell fatigue performance (Gorman 1:5-10) and results in good strength, ductility, fracture toughness, crack growth resistance, and machinability (Gorman 1:39-45, 2:39-42). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 20, Gorman discloses good strength, ductility, fracture toughness, crack growth resistance, and machinability (Gorman 1:39-45, 2:39-42). A tensile strength greater than about 155 ksi, a percent elongation greater than about 3%, and an elastic modulus greater than about 17.0 Msi at 75°F have been considered and determined to recite a properties of the claimed alpha-beta titanium alloy. The prior art discloses a composition (Gorman 2:13-14; Xue [0007]-[0021], [0035]-[0040]), processing (Gorman 4:1-22, 4:66 to 5:22, 37-55), and structure (Gorman 2:1-13, 4:38-65, 5:12-18, 23-26) that read on that claimed. Therefore, the claimed properties of the alpha-beta titanium alloy naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including a tensile strength greater than about 155 ksi, a percent elongation greater than about 3%, and an elastic modulus greater than about 17.0 Msi at 75°F.
Regarding claim 21, Gorman discloses good strength, ductility, fracture toughness, crack growth resistance, and machinability (Gorman 1:39-45, 2:39-42). A tensile strength greater than about 95 ksi, a yield strength greater than about 73 ksi, a percent elongation greater than about 16%, and an elastic modulus greater than about 12.0 Msi at 1150°F have been considered and determined to recite a properties of the claimed alpha-beta titanium alloy. The prior art discloses a composition (Gorman 2:13-14; Xue [0007]-[0021], [0035]-[0040]), processing (Gorman 4:1-22, 4:66 to 5:22, 37-55), and structure (Gorman 2:1-13, 4:38-65, 5:12-18, 23-26) that read on that claimed. Therefore, the claimed properties of the alpha-beta titanium alloy naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including a tensile strength greater than about 95 ksi, a yield strength greater than about 73 ksi, a percent elongation greater than about 16%, and an elastic modulus greater than about 12.0 Msi at 1150°F.
Claims 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorman (US 6,284,070) as evidenced by Cope (STN Abstract.) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Murakami (JP 2012-052219 machine translation) and Chakrabati (US 5,399,212).
Regarding claim 14, Gorman discloses heat treating (1:5-10) a wide variety of alpha-beta titanium alloy (2:13-14).
Gorman is silent to the claim 14 composition.
Murakami discloses an alpha-beta type titanium alloy ([0001], [0012]) with an overlapping composition ([0013]-[0015], [0026]-[0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the heat treating of Gorman to the alloy of Murakami for excellent fatigue strength (Murakami [0027]; Gorman 1:5-10). The heat treating of Gorman applies to a wide variety of alpha-beta titanium alloy (Gorman 2:13-14) and the alloy of Murakami is an alpha-beta type titanium alloy (Murakami [0001], [0012]). Further, in Murakami the Al stabilizes alpha phase and achieves sufficient strength (Murakami [0029]), the Mo and Nb stabilize beta phase and improve strength (Murakami [0030]), Si improves strength (Murakami [0032]), and Zr and Sn improve strength (Murakami [0033]). Further, the heat treating process of Gorman advantageously results in good strength, ductility, fracture toughness, crack growth resistance, and machinability (Gorman 1:39-45, 2:39-42).
Murakami is silent to 0.1 to 0.15% oxygen.
Chakrabati discloses 0 to 0.13% O (2:26-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the alloy of Murakami to include 0 to 0.13% O to increase strength (Chakrabati 2:29-32).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 15, Gorman discloses good strength, ductility, fracture toughness, crack growth resistance, and machinability (Gorman 1:39-45, 2:39-42). A tensile strength greater than about 153 ksi, a yield strength greater than about 130 ksi, a percent elongation greater than about 3%, and an elastic modulus greater than about 17.5 Msi at 75°F have been considered and determined to recite a properties of the claimed alpha-beta titanium alloy. The prior art discloses a composition (Gorman 2:13-14; Murakami [0013]-[0015], [0026]-[0033]; Chakrabati 2:26-27), processing (Gorman 4:1-22, 4:66 to 5:22, 37-55), and structure (Gorman 2:1-13, 4:38-65, 5:12-18, 23-26) that read on that claimed. Therefore, the claimed properties of the alpha-beta titanium alloy naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including a tensile strength greater than about 153 ksi, a yield strength greater than about 130 ksi, a percent elongation greater than about 3%, and an elastic modulus greater than about 17.5 Msi at 75°F.
Regarding claim 16, Gorman discloses good strength, ductility, fracture toughness, crack growth resistance, and machinability (Gorman 1:39-45, 2:39-42). A tensile strength greater than about 90 ksi, a yield strength greater than about 68 ksi, a percent elongation greater than about 15%, and an elastic modulus greater than about 13.0 Msi at 1150°F have been considered and determined to recite a properties of the claimed alpha-beta titanium alloy. The prior art discloses a composition (Gorman 2:13-14; Murakami [0013]-[0015], [0026]-[0033]; Chakrabati 2:26-27), processing (Gorman 4:1-22, 4:66 to 5:22, 37-55), and structure (Gorman 2:1-13, 4:38-65, 5:12-18, 23-26) that read on that claimed. Therefore, the claimed properties of the alpha-beta titanium alloy naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including a tensile strength greater than about 90 ksi, a yield strength greater than about 68 ksi, a percent elongation greater than about 15%, and an elastic modulus greater than about 13.0 Msi at 1150°F.
Regarding claim 17, Gorman discloses heat treating (1:5-10) a wide variety of alpha-beta titanium alloy (2:13-14).
Gorman is silent to the claim 17 composition.
Murakami discloses an alpha-beta type titanium alloy ([0001], [0012]) with an overlapping composition ([0013]-[0015], [0026]-[0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the heat treating of Gorman to the alloy of Murakami for excellent fatigue strength (Murakami [0027]; Gorman 1:5-10). The heat treating of Gorman applies to a wide variety of alpha-beta titanium alloy (Gorman 2:13-14) and the alloy of Murakami is an alpha-beta type titanium alloy (Murakami [0001], [0012]). Further, in Murakami the Al stabilizes alpha phase and achieves sufficient strength (Murakami [0029]), the Mo and Nb stabilize beta phase and improve strength (Murakami [0030]), Si improves strength (Murakami [0032]), and Zr and Sn improve strength (Murakami [0033]). Further, the heat treating process of Gorman advantageously results in good strength, ductility, fracture toughness, crack growth resistance, and machinability (Gorman 1:39-45, 2:39-42).
Murakami is silent to 0.1 to 0.15% oxygen.
Chakrabati discloses 0 to 0.13% O (2:26-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the alloy of Murakami to include 0 to 0.13% O to increase strength (Chakrabati 2:29-32).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 18, Gorman discloses good strength, ductility, fracture toughness, crack growth resistance, and machinability (Gorman 1:39-45, 2:39-42). An elastic modulus greater than about 10.0 Msi at 1150°F has been considered and determined to recite a properties of the claimed alpha-beta titanium alloy. The prior art discloses a composition (Gorman 2:13-14; Murakami [0013]-[0015], [0026]-[0033]; Chakrabati 2:26-27), processing (Gorman 4:1-22, 4:66 to 5:22, 37-55), and structure (Gorman 2:1-13, 4:38-65, 5:12-18, 23-26) that read on that claimed. Therefore, the claimed properties of the alpha-beta titanium alloy naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including an elastic modulus greater than about 10.0 Msi at 1150°F.
Regarding claim 19, Gorman discloses heat treating (1:5-10) a wide variety of alpha-beta titanium alloy (2:13-14).
Gorman is silent to the claim 19 composition.
Murakami discloses an alpha-beta type titanium alloy ([0001], [0012]) with an overlapping composition ([0013]-[0015], [0026]-[0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the heat treating of Gorman to the alloy of Murakami for excellent fatigue strength (Murakami [0027]; Gorman 1:5-10). The heat treating of Gorman applies to a wide variety of alpha-beta titanium alloy (Gorman 2:13-14) and the alloy of Murakami is an alpha-beta type titanium alloy (Murakami [0001], [0012]). Further, in Murakami the Al stabilizes alpha phase and achieves sufficient strength (Murakami [0029]), the Mo and Nb stabilize beta phase and improve strength (Murakami [0030]), Si improves strength (Murakami [0032]), and Zr and Sn improve strength (Murakami [0033]). Further, the heat treating process of Gorman advantageously results in good strength, ductility, fracture toughness, crack growth resistance, and machinability (Gorman 1:39-45, 2:39-42).
Murakami is silent to 0.1 to 0.15% oxygen.
Chakrabati discloses 0 to 0.13% O (2:26-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the alloy of Murakami to include 0 to 0.13% O to increase strength (Chakrabati 2:29-32).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 20, Gorman discloses good strength, ductility, fracture toughness, crack growth resistance, and machinability (Gorman 1:39-45, 2:39-42). A tensile strength greater than about 155 ksi, a percent elongation greater than about 3%, and an elastic modulus greater than about 17.0 Msi at 75°F has been considered and determined to recite a properties of the claimed alpha-beta titanium alloy. The prior art discloses a composition (Gorman 2:13-14; Murakami [0013]-[0015], [0026]-[0033]; Chakrabati 2:26-27), processing (Gorman 4:1-22, 4:66 to 5:22, 37-55), and structure (Gorman 2:1-13, 4:38-65, 5:12-18, 23-26) that read on that claimed. Therefore, the claimed properties of the alpha-beta titanium alloy naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including a tensile strength greater than about 155 ksi, a percent elongation greater than about 3%, and an elastic modulus greater than about 17.0 Msi at 75°F.
Regarding claim 21, Gorman discloses good strength, ductility, fracture toughness, crack growth resistance, and machinability (Gorman 1:39-45, 2:39-42). A tensile strength greater than about 95 ksi, a yield strength greater than about 73 ksi, a percent elongation greater than about 16%, and an elastic modulus greater than about 12.0 Msi at 1150°F has been considered and determined to recite a properties of the claimed alpha-beta titanium alloy. The prior art discloses a composition (Gorman 2:13-14; Murakami [0013]-[0015], [0026]-[0033]; Chakrabati 2:26-27), processing (Gorman 4:1-22, 4:66 to 5:22, 37-55), and structure (Gorman 2:1-13, 4:38-65, 5:12-18, 23-26) that read on that claimed. Therefore, the claimed properties of the alpha-beta titanium alloy naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including a tensile strength greater than about 95 ksi, a yield strength greater than about 73 ksi, a percent elongation greater than about 16%, and an elastic modulus greater than about 12.0 Msi at 1150°F.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-16, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakrabati (US 5,399,212) in view of Xue (CN 110951993 machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Chakrabati discloses a method of manufacturing an alpha-beta titanium alloy (1:59 to 2:7), the method comprising:
forming an alpha-beta product (billet stock) from a titanium alloy (2:20-21, 3:6-9); and
heat treating (solution treatment) the alpha-beta product with a first heat treatment step comprising a first temperature (about 30°F to 75°C above the beta transition temperature) and a first time (about one-half hour) (3:6-19), a second heat treatment step (stabilization) comprising a second temperature (about 30°F to 90°F below the beta transition temperature) and a second time (about 45 min. to 2 hours) (3:33 to 4:3), and a third heat treatment step (aging) comprising a third temperature between 1050°F and 1250°F (about 900°F to 1050°F) and less than the second temperature, and a third time (6 to 10 hours) greater than the second time (4:4-9), and
wherein the heat treated alpha-beta product has an acicular microstructure comprising needles of alpha phase in a matrix of beta phase (2:2-7, 5:6-10, 46-51, Figs. 1A-C).
Chakrabati is silent to a composition that reads on that claimed.
Xue discloses a titanium alloy with an overlapping composition ([0007]-[0021], [0035]-[0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the heat treating of Chakrabati to the alloy of Xue to produce a titanium alloy that can be used for a long time in a 550 to 600°C environment, which has a 50 to 100°C temperature increase (Xue [0037], [0043]), where Al solid solution strengthens (Xue [0037]), Sn and Zr supplement and enhance with Sn reducing sensitivity to hydrogen embrittlement (Xue [0038]), Mo and Nb stabilize beta phase with Mo giving good high-temperature creep properties and thermal stability (Xue [0039]), and Si inhibits grain growth during solid solution, improving mechanical properties, oxidation resistance, and casting (Xue [0040]). Further, Xue produces a forged bar (Xue [0028]) and applying the heat treating process of Chakrabati to it advantageously has high strength and fracture toughness and superior fatigue crack growth resistance (Chakrabati 1:67 to 2:1). Further, both Chakrabati and Xue are directed to aircraft (aerospace) titanium alloys (Chakrabati ; Xue [0002]-[0005]).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Element
Claim 1 (wt%)
Claims 7, 14 (wt%)
Claims 8, 17 (wt%)
Claims 9, 19 (wt%)
Xue (mass%) Disclosure
Xue Citation
Al
5.7 to 7.5
6.4 to 7.4
6.8 to 7.5
5.7 to 6.7
5.8 to 7.5
[0010]
Mo
0.8 to 4.2
2.1 to 2.6
0.8 to 1.6
1.7 to 2.3
1.6 to 3.5
[0011]
Nb
0.0 to 3.0
0.5 to 1.5
1.6 to 2.4
1.8 to 2.4
0.8 to 2.0
[0014]
Sn
0.1 to 3.5
1.0 to 1.8
0.15 to 0.45
2.4 to 3.2
1.2 to 3.2
[0013]
Zr
0.1 to 3.0
0.5 to 1.5
0.1 to 0.3
1.8 to 2.6
1.2 to 3.2
[0012]
Si
0.1 to 0.35
0.1 to 0.3
0.1 to 0.3
0.1 to 0.3
0.12 to 0.35
[0015]
O
0.05 to 0.25
0.1 to 0.15
0.1 to 0.2
0.1 to 0.2
0.06 to 0.20
[0016]
Ti
Remainder
Remainder
Remainder
Remainder
Balance
[0021]
Chakrabati discloses superior fatigue crack growth resistance (1:68 to 2:7, 2:17-19, 45-46).
The heat treated alpha-beta product having an EN 6072 testing fatigue life of more than 1.0E+07 cycles has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed heat treated alpha-beta product. The prior art discloses a composition (Xue [0007]-[0021], [0035]-[0040]), processing (Chakrabati 2:20-21, 3:6 to 4:9), and structure (Chakrabati 2:2-7, 5:6-10, 46-51, Figs. 1A-C) that read on that claimed. Therefore, the claimed properties of the heat treated alpha-beta product naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including having an EN 6072 testing fatigue life of more than 1.0E+07 cycles.
Regarding claim 2, Chakrabati discloses the first temperature is between 1600°F and 2000°F (about 30°F to 75°C above the beta transition temperature) and the first time is between 15 minutes and 120 minutes (about one-half hour) (3:6-19). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 3, Chakrabati discloses the second temperature is between 1400°F and 1900°F (about 30°F to 90°F below the beta transition temperature) and the second time is between 5 minutes and 90 minutes (about 45 min. to 2 hours) (3:33 to 4:3). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, Chakrabati discloses the third time is between 5 hours and 7 hours (6 to 10 hours) (4:4-9). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 7, Chakrabati in view of Xue discloses an overlapping composition (Xue [0009]-[0021], [0036]-[0040]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 9, Chakrabati in view of Xue discloses an overlapping composition (Xue [0009]-[0021], [0036]-[0040]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 10, Chakrabati discloses an alpha-beta titanium alloy (1:59 to 2:7) comprising:
an acicular microstructure comprising needles of alpha phase in a matrix of beta phase (2:2-7, 5:6-10, 46-51, Figs. 1A-C); and
wherein the alpha-beta titanium alloy is heat treated with a first heat treatment step (solution treatment) comprising a first temperature (about 30°F to 75°C above the beta transition temperature) and a first time (about one-half hour) (3:6-19), a second heat treatment step (stabilization) comprising a second temperature (about 30°F to 90°F below the beta transition temperature) and a second time (about 45 min. to 2 hours) (3:33 to 4:3), and a third heat treatment step (aging) comprising a third temperature between 1050°F and 1250°F (about 900°F to 1050°F) and less than the second temperature, and a third time (6 to 10 hours) greater than the second time (4:4-9).
Chakrabati is silent to a composition that reads on that claimed.
Xue discloses a titanium alloy with an overlapping composition ([0007]-[0021], [0035]-[0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the heat treating of Chakrabati to the alloy of Xue to produce a titanium alloy that can be used for a long time in a 550 to 600°C environment, which has a 50 to 100°C temperature increase (Xue [0037], [0043]), where Al solid solution strengthens (Xue [0037]), Sn and Zr supplement and enhance with Sn reducing sensitivity to hydrogen embrittlement (Xue [0038]), Mo and Nb stabilize beta phase with Mo giving good high-temperature creep properties and thermal stability (Xue [0039]), and Si inhibits grain growth during solid solution, improving mechanical properties, oxidation resistance, and casting (Xue [0040]). Further, Xue produces a forged bar (Xue [0028]) and applying the heat treating process of Chakrabati to it advantageously has high strength and fracture toughness and superior fatigue crack growth resistance (Chakrabati 1:67 to 2:1). Further, both Chakrabati and Xue are directed to aircraft (aerospace) titanium alloys (Chakrabati ; Xue [0002]-[0005]).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Chakrabati discloses superior fatigue crack growth resistance (1:68 to 2:7, 2:17-19, 45-46).
An EN 6072 testing fatigue life of more than 1.0E+07 cycles has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed alpha-beta titanium alloy. The prior art discloses a composition (Xue [0007]-[0021], [0035]-[0040]), processing (Chakrabati 2:20-21, 3:6 to 4:9), and structure (Chakrabati 2:2-7, 5:6-10, 46-51, Figs. 1A-C) that read on that claimed. Therefore, the claimed properties of the alpha-beta titanium alloy naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including an EN 6072 testing fatigue life of more than 1.0E+07 cycles.
Regarding claim 11, a time to 0.25% strain at 35 ksi and 950°F greater than 50 hours has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed alpha-beta titanium alloy. The prior art discloses a composition (Xue [0007]-[0021], [0035]-[0040]), processing (Chakrabati 2:20-21, 3:6 to 4:9), and structure (Chakrabati 2:2-7, 5:6-10, 46-51, Figs. 1A-C) that read on that claimed. Therefore, the claimed properties of the alpha-beta titanium alloy naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including a time to 0.25% strain at 35 ksi and 950°F greater than 50 hours.
Regarding claim 12, a time to 0.25% strain at 35 ksi and 950°F being greater than 75 hours has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed alpha-beta titanium alloy. The prior art discloses a composition (Xue [0007]-[0021], [0035]-[0040]), processing (Chakrabati 2:20-21, 3:6 to 4:9), and structure (Chakrabati 2:2-7, 5:6-10, 46-51, Figs. 1A-C) that read on that claimed. Therefore, the claimed properties of the alpha-beta titanium alloy naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including a time to 0.25% strain at 35 ksi and 950°F being greater than 75 hours.
Regarding claim 13, a time to 0.25% strain at 35 ksi and 950°F being greater than 100 hours has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed alpha-beta titanium alloy. The prior art discloses a composition (Xue [0007]-[0021], [0035]-[0040]), processing (Chakrabati 2:20-21, 3:6 to 4:9), and structure (Chakrabati 2:2-7, 5:6-10, 46-51, Figs. 1A-C) that read on that claimed. Therefore, the claimed properties of the alpha-beta titanium alloy naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including a time to 0.25% strain at 35 ksi and 950°F being greater than 100 hours.
Regarding claim 14, Chakrabati in view of Xue discloses an overlapping composition (Xue [0007]-[0021], [0035]-[0040]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 15, Chakrabati in view of Xue discloses a tensile strength greater than about 153 ksi (at least 150 ksi), a yield strength greater than about 130 ksi (at least 135 ksi), and a percent elongation greater than about 3% (at least 6%) (Chakrabati 2:45-60). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
An elastic modulus greater than about 17.5 Msi at 75°F has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed alpha-beta titanium alloy. The prior art discloses a composition (Xue [0007]-[0021], [0035]-[0040]), processing (Chakrabati 2:20-21, 3:6 to 4:9), and structure (Chakrabati 2:2-7, 5:6-10, 46-51, Figs. 1A-C) that read on that claimed. Therefore, the claimed properties of the alpha-beta titanium alloy naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including an elastic modulus greater than about 17.5 Msi at 75°F.
Regarding claim 16, Chakrabati in view of Xue discloses tensile strength greater than about 90 ksi (at least 150 ksi), a yield strength greater than about 68 ksi (at least 135 ksi), and a percent elongation greater than about 15% (at least 6%) (Chakrabati 2:45-60)
An elastic modulus greater than about 13.0 Msi at 1150°F has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed alpha-beta titanium alloy. The prior art discloses a composition (Xue [0007]-[0021], [0035]-[0040]), processing (Chakrabati 2:20-21, 3:6 to 4:9), and structure (Chakrabati 2:2-7, 5:6-10, 46-51, Figs. 1A-C) that read on that claimed. Therefore, the claimed properties of the alpha-beta titanium alloy naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including an elastic modulus greater than about 13.0 Msi at 1150°F.
Regarding claim 18, an elastic modulus greater than about 10.0 Msi at 1150°F has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed alpha-beta titanium alloy. The prior art discloses a composition (Xue [0007]-[0021], [0035]-[0040]), processing (Chakrabati 2:20-21, 3:6 to 4:9), and structure (Chakrabati 2:2-7, 5:6-10, 46-51, Figs. 1A-C) that read on that claimed. Therefore, the claimed properties of the alpha-beta titanium alloy naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including an elastic modulus greater than about 10.0 Msi at 1150°F.
Regarding claim 19, Chakrabati in view of Xue discloses an overlapping composition (Xue [0007]-[0021], [0035]-[0040]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 20, Chakrabati in view of Xue discloses a tensile strength greater than about 155 ksi (at least 150 ksi) and a percent elongation greater than about 3% (at least 6%) (Chakrabati 2:45-60). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
An elastic modulus greater than about 17.0 Msi at 75°F has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed alpha-beta titanium alloy. The prior art discloses a composition (Xue [0007]-[0021], [0035]-[0040]), processing (Chakrabati 2:20-21, 3:6 to 4:9), and structure (Chakrabati 2:2-7, 5:6-10, 46-51, Figs. 1A-C) that read on that claimed. Therefore, the claimed properties of the alpha-beta titanium alloy naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including an elastic modulus greater than about 17.0 Msi at 75°F.
Regarding claim 21, Chakrabati in view of Xue discloses a tensile strength greater than about 95 ksi (at least 150 ksi), a yield strength greater than about 73 ksi (at least 135 ksi), and a percent elongation greater than about 16% (at least 6%) (2:45-60). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
An elastic modulus greater than about 12.0 Msi at 1150°F has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed alpha-beta titanium alloy. The prior art discloses a composition (Xue [0007]-[0021], [0035]-[0040]), processing (Chakrabati 2:20-21, 3:6 to 4:9), and structure (Chakrabati 2:2-7, 5:6-10, 46-51, Figs. 1A-C) that read on that claimed. Therefore, the claimed properties of the alpha-beta titanium alloy naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including an elastic modulus greater than about 12.0 Msi at 1150°F.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakrabati (US 5,399,212) in view of Xue (CN 110951993 machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Murakami (JP 2012-052219 machine translation).
Regarding claim 8, Chakrabati in view of Xue is silent to a composition that reads on claim 8.
Murakami discloses an alpha-beta type titanium alloy ([0001], [0012]) with an overlapping composition ([0013]-[0015], [0026]-[0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the heat treating of Chakrabati to the alloy of Murakami for excellent fatigue strength (Murakami [0027]; Chakrabati 1:68 to 2:7, 2:17-19, 45-46). The heat treating of Chakrabati applies to alpha-beta titanium alloys (1:59 to 2:7, 2:20-21, 3:6-9) and the alloy of Murakami is an alpha-beta type titanium alloy (Murakami [0001], [0012]). Further, in Murakami the Al stabilizes alpha phase and achieves sufficient strength (Murakami [0029]), the Mo and Nb stabilize beta phase and improve strength (Murakami [0030]), Si improves strength (Murakami [0032]), and Zr and Sn improve strength (Murakami [0033]). Applying the heat treating process of Chakrabati advantageously results in high strength and fracture toughness and superior fatigue crack growth resistance (Chakrabati 1:67 to 2:1). Further, both Chakrabati and Xue are directed to aircraft (aerospace) titanium alloys (Chakrabati ; Murakami [0002]).
Murakami is silent to 0.1 to 0.15% oxygen.
Chakrabati discloses 0 to 0.13% O (2:26-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the alloy of Murakami to include 0 to 0.13% O to increase strength (Chakrabati 2:29-32).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Element
Claims 8, 17 (wt%)
Murakami (mass%)
Murakami Citation
Xue (mass%) Disclosure
Xue Citation
Al
6.8 to 7.5
2.0 to 8.5
[0029]
5.8 to 7.5
[0010]
Mo
0.8 to 1.6
5.0 or less
[0030]
1.6 to 3.5
[0011]
Nb
1.6 to 2.4
5.0 or less
[0030]
0.8 to 2.0
[0014]
Sn
0.15 to 0.45
5.0 or less
[0033]
1.2 to 3.2
[0013]
Zr
0.1 to 0.3
5.0 or less
[0033]
1.2 to 3.2
[0012]
Si
0.1 to 0.3
1.0 or less
[0032]
0.12 to 0.35
[0015]
O
0.1 to 0.2
-
-
0.06 to 0.20
[0016]
Ti
Remainder
Present
[0031]
Balance
[0021]
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakrabati (US 5,399,212) in view of Xue (CN 110951993 machine translation) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Murakami (JP 2012-052219 machine translation).
Regarding claim 17, Chakrabati in view of Xue is silent to a composition that reads on claim 17.
Murakami discloses an alpha-beta type titanium alloy ([0001], [0012]) with an overlapping composition ([0013]-[0015], [0026]-[0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the heat treating of Chakrabati to the alloy of Murakami for excellent fatigue strength (Murakami [0027]; Chakrabati 1:68 to 2:7, 2:17-19, 45-46). The heat treating of Chakrabati applies to alpha-beta titanium alloys (1:59 to 2:7, 2:20-21, 3:6-9) and the alloy of Murakami is an alpha-beta type titanium alloy (Murakami [0001], [0012]). Further, in Murakami the Al stabilizes alpha phase and achieves sufficient strength (Murakami [0029]), the Mo and Nb stabilize beta phase and improve strength (Murakami [0030]), Si improves strength (Murakami [0032]), and Zr and Sn improve strength (Murakami [0033]). Applying the heat treating process of Chakrabati advantageously results in high strength and fracture toughness and superior fatigue crack growth resistance (Chakrabati 1:67 to 2:1). Further, both Chakrabati and Xue are directed to aircraft (aerospace) titanium alloys (Chakrabati ; Murakami [0002]).
Murakami is silent to 0.1 to 0.15% oxygen.
Chakrabati discloses 0 to 0.13% O (2:26-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the alloy of Murakami to include 0 to 0.13% O to increase strength (Chakrabati 2:29-32).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Related Art
Cui (CN 111826594 machine translation)
Cui discloses a method of manufacturing an alpha-beta titanium alloy ([0012], [0019]-[0020]) with an overlapping composition ([0019]-[0020], [0048]-[0056], TC11), heat treating conditions ([0013]-[0015], [0020]), and microstructure ([0023]).
Mori (JP 2021-130861 machine translation)
Mori discloses an alpha+beta type titanium alloy ([0001]) with high fatigue strength ([0011], [0012]) comprising 2.5 to 8.0% Al, 0.5 to 3.0% Fe, 0.01-0.30% O, and remainder Ti ([0017]) with Ti being replace by one or more of Sn, Zr, Mo, Si, Cu, and Nb, each of which is 3.0% or less ([0018]).
Kashapov (RU 2507289 machine translation)
Kashapov discloses a titanium alloy for use in gas turbine engines with a composition that overlaps with that recited in claim 7, where the Nb, Sn, and Si increase strength within the operating temperature range and increased recrystallization of the alpha phase during heat treatment increases the level of strength (Abstract, [0035]-[0041]).
Suzuki ‘963 (JP 2004-010963 machine translation)
Suzuki ‘963 discloses a high-strength titanium alloy (Abstract, p. 1) with a substantially similar composition to that claimed (pp. 2-3) to form a high-strength titanium alloy (Suzuki ‘963 para. spanning pp. 1-2), where the Al forms a solid solution in the alpha phase and strengthens the alpha phase, Si increases the beta transformation point so that an alpha+beta structure can be achieved, Fe stabilizes the beta phase, N strengthens the alpha phase by dissolving in the alpha phase, O forms a solid solution in the alpha phase and strengthens the alpha phase, REM improves machinability, Mo stabilizes the beta phase and improves hot formability and heat treatability, Sn and Zr strengthen both the alpha phase and the beta phase, and Si improves heat resistance (Suzuki ‘963 pp. 2-3).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANI HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-12pm.
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.
/STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735