DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 8/11/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2 and 8-17 remain pending in the application. Claim(s) 3-7 have been canceled. Applicant's amendments to the drawings have not overcome the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 3/12/2025. Applicant's amendments to the specification have overcome the specification objections set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 3/12/2025.
Drawings
Fig. is objected to for the following reason. Where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation "FIG." must not appear. 37 C.F.R. 1.84(u)(1). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
While the number 1 was removed in the amendment to the figure received 8/22/25, the abbreviation “FIG.” still appears.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parenthesis. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
Claims 1-2 and 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrer (FR 2978076 A1), as machine translated, previously cited, in view of Gupta et al., "Study on Variants of Solution Treatment and Aging Cycle of Titanium Alloy Ti6Al4V," Journal of materials engineering and performance. , 2016, Vol.25(4), p.1492, and Zhang et al., “Surface plasma chromized burn-resistant titanium alloy,” Surface & Coatings Technology 201 (2007) 4884–4887, 2006, previously cited.
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 14-17, Ferrer teaches “a method of assembling metal shells” (which reads upon “a method for manufacturing a metal component comprising the following steps”, as recited in the instant claim; page 3). Ferrer teaches that “the titanium piece is a shell” (which reads upon “providing a shell of a titanium-based material, the shell having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface”, as recited in the instant claim; page 3). Ferrer teaches that “(a) A first shell (10) is provided in a first alloy in a shape close to its final shape, this first shell (10) having a first face ( 11) and a second face (12) opposed to said first face (11), (b) is deposited by cold spraying at a supersonic speed a powder of a second alloy on said first face (11) so as to form on this first shell (10) a second shell (20) of this second alloy which is integral with said first shell (10)” (which reads upon “producing, via additive manufacturing, a covering layer made of a titanium fire- resistant material that at least partially covers the first surface and/or the second surface, such that the intermediate layer disposed directly in contact with the covering layer made of a titanium fire-resistant material is mainly formed of the titanium fire- resistant material and conversely, the intermediate layer disposed directly in contact with the shell made of a titanium-based material being mainly formed of the titanium-based material”, as recited in the instant claim; which reads on claim 9; pages 3-4). Ferrer teaches that “one of these two alloys being a titanium alloy, and the other of these two alloys being a titanium fire-resistant alloy” (which reads upon “a titanium fire- resistant material”, as recited in the instant claim; page 4). Ferrer teaches that “the second shell 20 is a single shell or a set of several shells” (which reads upon “producing a plurality of intermediate layers disposed between the shell and the covering layer, the plurality of intermediate layers being formed of a mixture of the titanium fire-resistant material and the titanium-based material”, as recited in the instant claim; page 6).
Ferrer is silent regarding after the additive manufacturing step, heat treating the metal component, the heat treatment comprising a first step carried out for a duration of between 10 minutes and 5 hours at a temperature of between 500°C and 1000°C, and a second step carried out for a duration of between 30 minutes and 9 hours at a temperature of between 200°C and 900°C.
Ferrer teaches that “some parts are made of titanium alloy because of the particular properties of these alloys, in particular mechanical strength” (page 3).
Gupta is concerned with the solution treatment and aging cycle of titanium alloy Ti6Al4V (title). Gupta teaches that “titanium alloy Ti6Al4V is the most promising work-horse aerospace alloy due to its high specific strength, weldability, and compatibility with propellants” (page 1492). Gupta teaches that “there is a significant increase in strength of the alloy retaining the ductility when it is aged in the aging temperature regime of 550-650 °C and time of 8 h” (which reads on claims 16-17; page 1492). Gupta teaches “two different heat-treated conditions, i.e., annealed or solution-treated and aged (STA)” (page 1492). Gupta teaches that “in STA condition, the mechanical properties of the alloy are reported to be almost 20% higher than that in annealed condition” (page 1492). Gupta teaches that “heat treatment process has been studied by employing different quench severities during solution treatment, different aging temperatures, and durations, and that this paper presents the details of the studies carried out to obtain maximum strength and optimum ductility in STA condition” (page 1493). Gupta teaches that “the recommended STA heat treatment cycle for Ti6Al4V has been given as 850-930 °C followed by water quenching and aging at 450-600 °C for 2-6 h followed by air cooling” (which reads upon “the heat treatment comprising a first step carried out at a temperature of between 500°C and 1000°C, and a second step carried out for a duration of between 30 minutes and 9 hours at a temperature of between 200°C and 900°C”, as recited in the instant claim; page 1492). Gupta teaches that “similar cycles of solution treatment and aging (STA) were adopted over a wider range in this study” (page 1493 and Table 2). Gupta Table 2 teaches that duration of the first step of the heat treatment is one hour at a temperature of 950°C (which reads upon “heat treating the metal component, the heat treatment comprising a first step carried out for a duration of between 10 minutes and 5 hours at a temperature of between 500°C and 1000°C”, as recited in the instant claim; which reads on claims 14-15; page 1494, Table 2). Gupta teaches that “aging temperature of 550-650 °C with time of 4-8 h is found to be optimum to achieve yield strength >950 MPa, ultimate tensile strength > 1050 MPa and >12% elongation” (page 1501).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ferrer to add solution treatment and aging, as taught by Gupta to obtain a significant increase in strength of the alloy while retaining the ductility, such as to achieve yield strength >950 MPa and ultimate tensile strength > 1050 MPa.
Modified Ferrer is silent regarding said mixture forming a composition gradient.
Zhang is similarly concerned with preventing ignition of titanium alloys (abstract). Zhang teaches producing multiple surface alloy layers (page 4885). Zhang teaches that “the surface alloy produced by this process is a gradient material” (which reads upon “gradient”, as recited in the instant claim; page 4886). Zhang teaches that “composition in the alloyed surface layer gradually changes in the depth direction of the substrate” (which reads upon “said mixture forming a composition gradient”, as recited in the instant claim; page 4886). Zhang teaches that “there exists no distinct boundary between the surface alloy and matrix and risk of delamination is greatly reduced” (page 4886).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the intermediate layers of Ferrer to form a composition gradient, as taught by Zhang to greatly reduce the risk of delamination.
Regarding claim 2, modified Ferrer teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Ferrer teaches that “the titanium is for example TA6V” (page 5; TA6V reads on Ti6Al4V).
Regarding claim 8, modified Ferrer teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Ferrer teaches that “Advantageously, the thickness of the shell deposited by cold-spray can be adjusted locally by insisting or minimizing the number of powder deposit passes (each pass of the nozzle 40 depositing a certain amount of powder)” (page 5). While the reference does not explicitly disclose the specific thickness of the layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to change the thickness of the layer, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, See MPEP § 2144.04 IV A.
Regarding claim 10-12, modified Ferrer teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Ferrer teaches that “the second shell 20 is a single shell or a set of several shells” (page 6; several reads on 3 to 7 layers, which overlaps the range in claim 11). Claim 1 claims a gradient, accordingly, the limitation “starting from the shell towards the covering layer, an increasing proportion of titanium fire-resistant material” in claim 12 fails to further limit the claim as this is the definition of gradient.
Regarding claim 13, modified Ferrer teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Ferrer teaches “parts of turbomachines such as high pressure compressor housings” (page 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that none of the prior art of record describes or fairly suggests a heat treatment comprising a first action carried out at a temperature of between 500°C and 1000°C and for a period of between 10 minutes and 5 hours, followed by a second action during which one temperature of between 200°C and 900°C is applied for a period of at least 30 minutes (remarks, page 9). This is not found convincing because the new reference, Gupta, teaches such a heat treatment, as stated above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q1: 1/5-1/9/26; Q2: 3/30-4/3/26; Q3: 6/22-6/26/26; Q4: 9/21-9/30/26.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571)272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733