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 .
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claim 10, “HDH metal” is defined in the specification as a hard metal having a brittle hydride, including Ti, Zr, Hg, V, Nb, Ta and combinations thereof [0037]; and “non-HDH metal” is any metal not amenable to the HDH process that can not be practically de-hydrided including Cu, Ni, W, Sn, Al, Zn, Mo, Cr and Fe [0038].
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 07/20/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims have not been restricted under Unity of Invention. This is not found persuasive because the inventive Groups lack unity of invention as shown below:
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-9, 11-12, drawn to a method.
Group II, claim(s) 10, 13-21, drawn to a braze powder.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups 1-2 lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a braze powder as required by claim 10, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Vollmer et al. (US6149051). See rejection below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 10, 14-18, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vollmer et al. (US6149051).
Regarding Claims 10, 14-17 and 21, Vollmer teaches a braze powder (see Claim 6) comprising alloy comprising 25-60% Ti, 15-25% Zr (40-85% wt HDH metal and 62-65%mol HDH); and 35-38%mol non-HDH (Cu and Ni metal) (calculated from Claim 6 25-60%Ti—10-25%Cu—15-25%Ni—15-25%Zr) reading on the claimed range of 55-95%mol HDH metal and 5-45% non-HDH metal and the claim 21 range of 55-88mol% HDH metal and 12-45mol% non-HDH metal
Regarding Claim 18, B-Ti5 (or Ti-20Zr-20Ni-20Cu) is taught (See Claim 9), however the genus of Ti—10-25Cu—15-25Ni—15-25Zr is also considered to anticipate BTi4 (Ti--24Zr—16Ni—16Cu)
Claim(s) 10, 13-18, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukada et al. (US20180021854A1).
Regarding Claims 10, 13-18, Fukada teaches Ti powder of Ti-64, Ti 6246, Beta-C where each have mol% of HDH metals of 89.8%, 85.3%, and 86.8% respectively reading on the claim 13 HDH metal ranges of 75-95% HDH metal, and the balance reading on the claimed non-HDH metal range of 5-45%; the powder is considered being able to be used as braze powder as the particle size distribution of 20-100 microns [0061] as this range is similar to the aperture sizes of 27-210 microns as disclosed in [0054].
Regarding Claim 21, Ti 6246, Beta-C compositions as noted above are considered to read on claim 21.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollmer et al. (US6149051) in view of Oh et al. ("Preparation of low oxygen content alloy powder from Ti binary alloy scrap by hydrogenation–dehydrogenation and deoxidation process." Journal of alloys and compounds 593 (2014): 61-66.)
Regarding Claims 19-20, Vollmer is silent regarding the content of interstitial oxygen in the Ti based powder. However, Oh teaches a process of producing alloy powder from beta-titanium scrap using HDH and deoxidation for Ti-V and Ti-Mo alloy powders (abstract) where oxygen results in worse density after sintering and worse mechanical properties (Section 3.2), where after HDH, the powder undergoes deoxidation to 1000 ppm or less (See Section 3.3 and Table 1); therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce the oxygen content in the Ti powder to the claimed range for the purpose of improving material properties of the powder after sintering or brazing.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukada et al. (US20180021854A1) in view of Oh et al. ("Preparation of low oxygen content alloy powder from Ti binary alloy scrap by hydrogenation–dehydrogenation and deoxidation process." Journal of alloys and compounds 593 (2014): 61-66.)
Regarding Claims 19-20, Vollmer is silent regarding the content of interstitial oxygen in the Ti based powder. However, Oh teaches a process of producing alloy powder from beta-titanium scrap using HDH and deoxidation for Ti-V and Ti-Mo alloy powders (abstract) where oxygen results in worse density after sintering and worse mechanical properties (Section 3.2), where after HDH, the powder undergoes deoxidation to 1000 ppm or less (See Section 3.3 and Table 1); therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce the oxygen content in the Ti powder to the claimed range for the purpose of improving material properties of the powder after sintering or brazing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICARDO D MORALES whose telephone number is (571)272-6691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9 am- 4 pm.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at 5712726297. 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.
/RICARDO D MORALES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights