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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-18 and 21-23 are pending wherein claims 1 and 22 are amended, claims 3, 5 and 19-20 are canceled and claims 8-9 are withdrawn from consideration.
Status of Previous Rejections
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 10-18 and 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment to claims 1 and 22.
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 1-2, 4, 6, 10-18 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (CN 108220742 A).
In regard to claims 1-2 and 4, Cai et al. (CN ‘742) discloses high-entropy microalloyed Ti-Zr-Hf-V-Nb-Ta refractory metal alloys with the formula TiaZrbHfcVdNbeTafMx wherein M is one or more of aluminum, chromium, molybdenum, tungsten, manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel and silicon wherein the alloys would have very high liquid or disordered solid solutions states and the solid solution phase would be stabilized and the main phase would be the BCC phase (pages 4-5). Cai et al. (CN ‘742) further discloses a high entropy alloy of the formula Ti33Zr20Hf15Nb20Ta5Al5Mo2 (Example 5) and the molybdenum equivalent of Example 5 according to the formula in [0022] of the instant specification would be 26.34, which would be greater than or equal to 13.5 as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the invention to have selected molybdenum from the group of aluminum, chromium, molybdenum, tungsten, manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel and silicon because Cai et al. (CN ‘742) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
With respect to the recitation “and wherein the alloy satisfies a valence electron concentration (VEC) value ≤ 4.7” in claim 1, Cai et al. (CN ‘742) discloses a substantially similar composition. Therefore, the claimed VEC value would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
Still regarding claim 1, Cai et al. (CN ‘742) discloses high-entropy microalloyed Ti-Zr-Hf-V-Nb-Ta refractory metal alloys with the formula TiaZrbHfcVdNbeTafMx wherein M is one or more of aluminum, chromium, molybdenum, tungsten, manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel and silicon wherein the alloys would have very high liquid or disordered solid solutions states and the solid solution phase would be stabilized and the main phase would be the BCC phase (pages 4-5). Cai et al. (CN ‘742) further discloses a high entropy alloy of the formula Ti33Zr20Hf15Nb20Ta5Al5Mo2 (Example 5) and the molybdenum equivalent of Example 5 according to the formula in [0022] of the instant specification would be 26.34, which would be greater than or equal to 13.5 as claimed. The sum of titanium, zirconium and hafnium is 68, which would be in the range of 57.2 to 85. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the invention to have selected molybdenum from the group of aluminum, chromium, molybdenum, tungsten, manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel and silicon because Cai et al. (CN ‘742) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges. Additionally, since molybdenum may completely replace the aluminum content in Example 5, Cai et al. (CN ‘742) would read on the claim.
In regard to claim 6, Cai et al. (CN ‘742) discloses high-entropy microalloyed Ti-Zr-Hf-V-Nb-Ta refractory metal alloys with the formula TiaZrbHfcVdNbeTafMx wherein M is one or more of aluminum, chromium, molybdenum, tungsten, manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel and silicon wherein the alloys would have very high liquid or disordered solid solutions states and the solid solution phase would be stabilized and the main phase would be the BCC phase (pages 4-5). Cai et al. (CN ‘742) further discloses a high entropy alloy of the formula Ti33Zr20Hf15Nb20Ta5Al5Mo2 (Example 5) and the molybdenum equivalent of Example 5 according to the formula in [0022] of the instant specification would be 26.34, which would be greater than or equal to 13.5 as claimed. The sum of titanium, zirconium and hafnium is 68, which would be in the range of 57.2 to 85 and the sum of tantalum and niobium would be 25, which would be within the range of 12.8 to 33.3. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the invention to have selected molybdenum from the group of aluminum, chromium, molybdenum, tungsten, manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel and silicon because Cai et al. (CN ‘742) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges. Additionally, since molybdenum may completely replace the aluminum content in Example 5, Cai et al. (CN ‘742) would read on the claim.
In regard to claims 10-11, Cai et al. (CN ‘742) discloses high-entropy microalloyed Ti-Zr-Hf-V-Nb-Ta refractory metal alloys with the formula TiaZrbHfcVdNbeTafMx wherein M is one or more of aluminum, chromium, molybdenum, tungsten, manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel and silicon wherein the alloys would have very high liquid or disordered solid solutions states and the solid solution phase would be stabilized and the main phase would be the BCC phase (pages 4-5). Cai et al. (CN ‘742) further discloses a high entropy alloy of the formula Ti35Zr25Hf25Nb5Ta5Mo5 (Example 4) and the molybdenum equivalent of Example 4 according to the formula in [0022] of the instant specification would be 14.6, which would be greater than or equal to 13.5 as claimed. The sum of titanium, zirconium and hafnium is 85, which would be in the range of 57.2 to 85. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the invention to have selected molybdenum from the group of aluminum, chromium, molybdenum, tungsten, manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel and silicon because Cai et al. (CN ‘742) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
Still regarding claims 10-11, Cai et al. (CN ‘742) discloses a substantially similar composition. Therefore, the claimed VEC value would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
Still regarding claim 1 and in regard to claim 12, Cai et al. (CN ‘742) discloses high-entropy microalloyed Ti-Zr-Hf-V-Nb-a refractory metal alloys with the formula TiaZrbHfcVdNbeTafMx wherein M is one or more of aluminum, chromium, molybdenum, tungsten, manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel and silicon wherein the alloys would have very high liquid or disordered solid solutions states and the solid solution phase would be stabilized and the main phase would be the BCC phase (pages 4-5). Cai et al. (CN ‘742) further discloses wherein M, is one or more of Al, Cr, Mo, W, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni and Si and a = 15 to 45, b = 5 to 35, c = 5 to 35, d = 0 to about 35, e = 0 to 35, f = 5 to 40 and x =0.1 to 15 wherein b+c is between 15 and 70. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the invention to have selected molybdenum from the group of aluminum, chromium, molybdenum, tungsten, manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel and silicon because Cai et al. (CN ‘742) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges. Cai et al. (CN ‘742) discloses an alloy such as Ti25Zr25Hf25Nb7Ta6Mo12. The Mo equivalent of such an alloy would be 23.11 and with respect to the recitation “and wherein the alloy satisfies a valence electron concentration (VEC) value ≤ 4.7” in claim 1, Cai et al. (CN ‘742) discloses a substantially similar composition. Therefore, the claimed VEC value would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I. The sum of Ti, Zr and Hf would be 75, which would be within the claimed range of 57.2 and 85 and the sum of niobium and tantalum would be 13, which would be within the claimed range of 12.8 to 20.
Still regarding claim 1 and in regard to claims 13-18, Cai et al. (CN ‘742) discloses high-entropy microalloyed Ti-Zr-Hf-V-Nb-a refractory metal alloys with the formula TiaZrbHfcVdNbeTafMx wherein M is one or more of aluminum, chromium, molybdenum, tungsten, manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel and silicon wherein the alloys would have very high liquid or disordered solid solutions states and the solid solution phase would be stabilized and the main phase would be the BCC phase (pages 4-5). Cai et al. (CN ‘742) further discloses wherein M, is one or more of Al, Cr, Mo, W, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni and Si and a = 15 to 45, b = 5 to 35, c = 5 to 35, d = 0 to about 35, e = 0 to 35, f = 5 to 40 and x =0.1 to 15 wherein b+c is between 15 and 70. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the invention to have selected molybdenum from the group of aluminum, chromium, molybdenum, tungsten, manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel and silicon because Cai et al. (CN ‘742) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges. Cai et al. (CN ‘742) discloses an alloy such as Ti25Zr25Hf25Nb6.5Ta6.5Mo12. The Mo equivalent of such an alloy would be 22.91 and with respect to the recitation “and wherein the alloy satisfies a valence electron concentration (VEC) value ≤ 4.7” in claim 1, Cai et al. (CN ‘742) discloses a substantially similar composition. Therefore, the claimed VEC value would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I. The sum of Ti, Zr and Hf would be 75 and would have an equiatomic ratio, and would be within the claimed range of 57.2 and 85 and the sum of niobium and tantalum would be 13, which would be within the claimed range of 12.8 to 13.5 and would have an equiatomic ratio. Since molybdenum is 12 and niobium is 6.5, this would constitute an non-equiatomic ratio as in claim 18.
With respect to the recitation “wherein the Mo-related intermetallic compounds comprise Ti3Mo, ZrMo2, and HfMo2” in claim 21, Cai et al. (CN ‘742) teaches a substantially similar composition also made by vacuum arc melting (Examples). Therefore, alloys comprising Ti3Mo, ZrMo2 and HfMo2 would be expected.
With respect to the recitation “wherein the alloy exhibits no detectable X-ray diffraction peaks corresponding to intermetallic compounds comprising Mo” in claim 22, Cai et al. (CN ‘742) teaches a substantially similar compositions also made by vacuum arc melting (Examples). Therefore, alloys exhibiting no detectable X-ray diffraction peaks corresponding to Mo-related intermetallic compounds would be expected.
In regard to claim 23, Cai et al. (CN ‘742) discloses high-entropy microalloyed Ti-Zr-Hf-V-Nb-Ta refractory metal alloys with the formula TiaZrbHfcVdNbeTafMx wherein M is one or more of aluminum, chromium, molybdenum, tungsten, manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel and silicon wherein the alloys would have very high liquid or disordered solid solutions states and the solid solution phase would be stabilized and the main phase would be the BCC phase (pages 4-5). Since Cai et al. (CN ‘742) discloses substantially similar compositions made by the same method (vacuum arc melting), a single-phase solid solution at equilibrium between a decomposition temperature and a solidus temperature would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (CN 108220742 A) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Yuan et al. (Formation, structure and properties of biocompatible TiZrHfNbTa high-entropy alloys).
In regard to claim 7, Cai et al. (CN ‘742) discloses high-entropy microalloyed Ti-Zr-Hf-V-Nb-Ta refractory metal alloys as set forth above, but Cai et al. (CN ‘742) does not specify wherein the alloys would be biocompatible.
Yuan et al. teaches that high entropy TiZrHfNbTa alloys have Young’s moduli that can be more easily adjusted than conventional alloys due to the large compositional variation and high entropy alloys have a unique combination of low modulus, good mechanical biocompatibility and low magnetic susceptibility (Introduction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the invention to use the high entropy alloys, as disclosed by Cai et al. (CN ‘742), to make alloys suitable for implant in the human body, as disclosed by Yuan et al., in order to observe low modulus, good mechanical biocompatibility and low magnetic susceptibility, as disclosed by Yuan et al. (Introduction).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, the Applicant primarily argues that Cai et al. (CN ‘742) fails to disclose “wherein the alloy is represented by a general formula: (TiZrHf)x(NbTaMo)100-x wherein the general formula, 57.2 ≤ X ≤ 85. The Applicant further argues that Cai et al. (CN ‘742) assumes the use of aluminum as essential component.
In response, the Examiner notes that Cai et al. (CN ‘742) further discloses a high entropy alloy of the formula Ti33Zr20Hf15Nb20Ta5Al5Mo2 (Example 5) which would read on an X value of 68. Additionally, the independent claim recites the transitional language “comprising”, which would leave the claim open to additional, unrecited elements such as aluminum.
Second, the Applicant primarily argues that there is no support in Cai et al. (CN ‘742) to substitute molybdenum for aluminum and a simple substitution of one element for another must obtain predictable results.
In response, the Examiner notes that Cai et al. (CN ‘742) teaches that M may be one or more of Al, Cr, Mo, W, Mn, Fe, Co and Si as on page 3 of English Translation of Cai et al. (CN ‘742) provided on April 30, 2025. Additionally, Example 4 of Cai et al. (CN ‘742) provides an alloy without aluminum and with molybdenum. Therefore, the Examiner considers Applicant’s argument not persuasive.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSEE RANDALL ROE whose telephone number is (571)272-5938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7:30 am to 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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights