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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledge of a copy of WO 2022/162816, the WIPO publication of PCT/JP 2021/002965 filed January 28, 2021.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Claim Amendments and Remarks filed April 8, 2026.
Claims Filing Date
April 8, 2026
Amended
1, 4, 9
New
15
Pending
1-15
Withdrawn
7, 9-14
Under Examination
1-6, 8, 15
Withdrawn Claim Objection
The following objection is withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 4 lines 2-4 “one element or two or more elements selected from the group including Ni: less than 0.15%, Cr: less than 0.25 %, and Mn: less than 0.25% in place of a part of the Fe or the V.”
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following 112(b) rejection is withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 1 lines 16-17 “the sheet thickness direction”.
Response to Remarks filed April 8, 2026
Matsumoto (JP 2010-255026 machine translation)
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 10 paras. 2-3, filed April 8, 2026, with respect to Matsumoto have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Matsumoto has been withdrawn.
The applicant persuasively argues Matsumoto discloses Al content of 4.0% or less (Remarks p. 10 para. 2), which fails to teach or suggest Al: 4.5% or more and 6.6% or less as recited in amended claim 1 (Remarks p. 10 para. 3).
Matsumoto [0016] and [0022] recite “Al: 2.0 to 4.0%”.
Okada (JP S63-230857 machine translation) in view of Matsumoto (JP 2010-255026 machine translation)
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 10 paras. 5-6, filed April 8, 2026, with respect to Okada have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Okada in view of Matsumoto has been withdrawn.
The applicant persuasively argues Okada Table 1 has an Fe content of 0.15% (Remarks p. 10 para. 5), which fails to teach or suggest Fe: 0.5% or more and 2.3% or less as recited in amended claim 1 (Remarks p. 10 para. 6).
Okada discloses a Ti-6Al-4V alloy (Abstract, p. 3 para. 1). A standard Ti-6Al-4V composition has a maximum amount of Fe of 0.3%.
New Grounds
In light of claim amendment and upon further consideration new grounds of rejection are made over Okada in view of Takayama and Matsumoto and over Takayama in view of Matsumoto.
Claim Interpretation
With respect to claims 1 and 6, according to [0048] of applicant’s specification, “The direction indicating the peak intensity calculated by texture analysis of the inverse pole figure using the spherical harmonics method of the EBSD method (a series rank=16, and Gauss half width=5°) corresponds to a direction in which the c axis of hcp is most oriented.”
Claim Objection
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 lines 2-4 recite Ni, Cr, and Mn “in place of a part of the Fe or the V”. If the Fe of claims 1 and 3 is replaced with one or more of Ni, Cr, and Mn, then the Fe content required by the titanium alloy sheet decreases and encompasses the absence of Fe. This appears to be incongruous with Fe being required at 0.5% or more and 2.3% or less.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 line 2 “either Fe: 0.5% or more and 2.3% or less or V: 2.5% or more and 4.5% or less” renders the claim indefinite. Claim 3 depends from amended claim 1, which recites in line 3 “Fe: 0.5% or more and 2.3% or less”. It is unclear how claim 1 requires Fe, but claim 3 makes Fe optional and V can be present instead. Further, if Fe is present in claim 3, then claim 3 does not further limit claim 1 because the same amount of Fe is already required by amended claim 1. For the purpose of examination and in light of the claim 1 amendment, claim 3 is interpreted as requiring Fe: 0.5% or more and 2.3% or less, such that it does not further limit the scope of claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected as depending from claim 3.
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 1-6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada (JP S63-230857 machine translation) in view of Takayama (US 5,662,745) and Matsumoto (JP 2010-255026 machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Okada discloses a titanium alloy sheet (p. 3 para. 1 Example)
wherein an α-phase has an equivalent circle diameter of 1 um or more is more (p. 3 para. 1 Example 2 um or less, Table 2, Ex. 1: 1.2um; Ex. 2: 1.4 um; Ex. 5: 1.6 um).
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).
Okada discloses an alpha + beta titanium alloy (pp. 1, 3).
Okada is silent to a composition that reads on that claimed.
Takayama discloses an alpha + beta titanium alloy that reads on that claimed (Ti-6Al-2Fe-0.1Si) (4:22-28, 8:47-51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in Okada for the alpha + beta titanium alloy to be Ti-6Al-2Fe-0.1Si because it is an alpha + beta type titanium alloy that is an art recognized equivalent to Ti-6Al-4V and to Ti-6Al-2Sn-4Zr-2Mo (Takayama 4:22-28), which are alloys within the scope of Okada (Okada p. 3). It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose. MPEP 2144.06(II).
Element
Claim 1 mass%
Takayama
Al
4.5 or more and 6.6 or less
6
Fe
0.5 or more and 2.3 or less
2
V
0 or more and 4.5 or less
-
Si
0 or more and 0.60 or less
0.1
C
0 or more and less than 0.080
-
N
0 or more and 0.050 or less
-
O
0 or more and 0.40 or less
-
Ni
0 or more and less than 0.15
-
Cr
0 or more and less than 0.25
-
Mn
0 or more and less than 0.25
-
Ti
Remainder
Balance
Okada is silent to an average sheet thickness of 2.5 mm or less.
Matsumoto discloses a titanium alloy sheet (([0001], [0007]) with an average sheet thickness of 2.5 mm or less (thin plate, hot rolled to a thickness of 5 mm, then cold rolled according to Table 3, 70% or 90%, which is a thickness of 1.5 mm (70%) or 0.5 mm (90%)) ([0007], [0035], [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the average sheet thickness of Okada to be a thin sheet of 1.5 mm or 0.5 mm by using a process that has a low rolling load during hot rolling (Matsumoto [0006]-[0007]), which allows for the production of an α+β titanium alloy thin plate with excellent surface quality and mechanical properties (Matsumoto [0007]) for use as parts for aircraft (Matsumoto [0002]; Okada p. 1 para. 1).
The limitations of an area ratio of an α-phase being 80% or more, an area ratio of an α-phase having an equivalent circle diameter of 1 um or more being more than 53%, and in a (0001) pole figure in a sheet thickness direction, an angle formed between the sheet thickness direction and a direction indicating a peak of intensity calculated by texture analysis in a case in which Series Rank is 16 and a Gaussian half width is 50 for an inverse pole figure using a spherical harmonics method of an electron backscatter diffraction method being 65° or less have been considered and determined to recite properties of the claim titanium alloy that result from the manufacturing method disclosed by applicant (applicant’s specification [0070]-[0088]).
The prior art discloses a composition (Takayama 4:22-28, 8:47-51) and process (Okada p. 1-3, Example, Table 2) that is substantially similar to that claimed by and disclosed by applicant (applicant’s claim 1 and specification [0070]-[0088]), such that the claimed properties of an α-phase of 80% or more, an area ratio of an α -phase having an equivalent circle diameter of 1 µm or more of more than 53%, and in a (0001) pole figure in a sheet thickness direction, an angle formed between the sheet thickness direction and a direction indicating a peak of intensity calculated by texture analysis in a case in which Series Rank is 16 and a Gaussian half width is 50 for an inverse pole figure using a spherical harmonics method of an electron backscatter diffraction method of 65° or less naturally flow from the disclosure of Okada in view of Takayama.
Applicant’s Disclosure
Applicant’s Citation
Okada Disclosure Example
Slab/Ingot
[0070]
Ingot
Hot Rolling
Start: β-phase temperature range
Finish: α+β temperature range, (Tβ-250°C) to (Tβ-50°C)
[0071]
Hot Rolling
Start: β region processing
Finish: α+β region processing
Annealing
650°C to 800°C
20 min to 90 min
[0074]
β Recrystallization Heat Treatment
1000°C to 1050°C
15 or 30 min
Cold Rolling
≥ 30% per pass
≥ 60% total
≤ 500°C
[0076], [0079]
Cold Rolling
70% reduction
20, 200, or 500°C
Final Annealing
600°C to (Tβ-50°C)
Formula relating t and T, with examples at 60 to 28,800 seconds
[0081], Table 2
Recrystallization Annealing
700, 750, or 800°C
30, 60, or 120 minutes
Regarding claim 2,Okada discloses a microstructure including an equiaxed structure (p. 3 para. 1 Example) wherein the equiaxed structure has an average grain size of 0.1 um or more and 20.0 um or less (p. 3 para. 1 Example 2 um or less, Table 2, Ex. 1: 1.2um; Ex. 2: 1.4 um; Ex. 5: 1.6 um).
An equiaxed structure has approximately equal dimensions in all directions such that as aspect ratio tends to 1.0. Generally, differences in aspect ratio will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such aspect ratio is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
With respect to a longitudinally elongated band structure having an aspect ratio of more than 3.0 and an area ratio of the band structure with respect to an area of the microstructure is 10.0% or less, Okada discloses equiaxed structure (p. 3 para. 1 Example). Okada is silent to the presence of an elongated microstructure in the inventive examples, such that they have an area of 0%, which falls within the scope of claim. Since it is within the scope of the claim to include 0% by area of band structure, then, when absent, the aspect ratio of the elongated band structure is not present in the prior art and this claim limitation is satisfied.
Regarding claim 3, Okada in view of Takayama discloses, in % by mass, either Fe: 0.5% or more and 2.3% or less (2%) or V: 2.5% or more and 4.5% or less (Ti-6Al-2Fe-0.1Si) (Takayama 4:22-28, 8:47-51).
Regarding claim 4, Okada in view of Takayama discloses, in % by mass, one element or two or more elements selected from the group including Ni: less than 0.15% (0%), Cr: less than 0.25% (0%), and Mn: less than 0.25% (0%) in place of a part of the Fe or the V (Ti-6Al-2Fe-0.1Si) (Takayama 4:22-28, 8:47-51).
Regarding claim 5, the smaller of a 0.2% proof stress in a longitudinal direction at 25°C and a 0.2% proof stress in a width direction at 25°C being 700 MPa or more and 1200 MPa or less has been considered and determined to recite properties of the claim titanium alloy that result from the claimed alloy manufactured by the method disclosed by applicant (applicant’s claim 1 and specification [0070]-[0088]). The prior art discloses a composition (Takayama 4:22-28, 8:47-51) and process (Okada p. 1-3, Example, Table 2) that is substantially similar to that claimed and disclosed by applicant (applicant’s claim 1 and specification [0070]-[0088]), such that the claimed property of the smaller of a 0.2% proof stress in a longitudinal direction at 25°C and a 0.2% proof stress in a width direction at 25°C being 700 MPa or more and 1200 MPa or less naturally flows from the disclosure of Okada.
Regarding claim 6, in a (0001) pole figure in a sheet thickness direction, an angle formed between a width direction and a direction indicating a peak of intensity calculated by texture analysis in a case in which Series Rank is 16 and a Gaussian half width is 50 for an inverse pole figure using a spherical harmonics method of an electron backscatter diffraction method being 10° or less and a ratio of a 0.2% proof stress in the width direction to a 0.2% proof stress in a longitudinal direction being 1.05 or more and 1.18 or less have been considered and determined to recite properties of the claimed titanium alloy that result from the manufacturing method disclosed by applicant (applicant’s specification [0070]-[0088]). The prior art discloses a composition (Takayama 4:22-28, 8:47-51) and process (Okada p. 1-3, Example, Table 2) that is substantially similar to that claimed and disclosed by applicant (applicant’s claim 1 and specification [0070]-[0088]), such that the claimed properties of in a (0001) pole figure in a sheet thickness direction, an angle formed between a width direction and a direction indicating a peak of intensity calculated by texture analysis in a case in which Series Rank is 16 and a Gaussian half width is 50 for an inverse pole figure using a spherical harmonics method of an electron backscatter diffraction method being 10° or less and a ratio of a 0.2% proof stress in the width direction to a 0.2% proof stress in a longitudinal direction being 1.05 or more and 1.18 or less naturally flow from the disclosure of Okada.
Regarding claim 15, Okada in view of Takayama discloses V: 0% or more and 4.1% or less (0%) (Ti-6Al-2Fe-0.1Si) (Takayama 4:22-27, 8:47-51).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada (JP S63-230857 machine translation) in view of Takayama (US 5,662,745) and Matsumoto (JP 2010-255026 machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hirata (JP 2001-300603 machine translation).
Regarding claim 8, Okada in view of Takayama and Matsumoto is silent to a dimensional accuracy of a sheet thickness.
Hirata discloses a titanium alloy sheet ([0013]), wherein a dimensional accuracy of a sheet thickness is 5.0% or less with respect to the average sheet thickness (thin plate with increased thickness accuracy and decrease or prevent or eliminate thickness deviation, making it difficult to occur) ([0013], [0015]-[0016], [0026], [0030], [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the titanium alloy sheet of Okada in view of Takayama and Matsumoto to improve the thickness accuracy by decreasing, preventing, and eliminating thickness deviation to improve product yield (Hirata [0008]) by preventing shape defects such as buckling and improving production efficiency and economy (Hirata [0019], [0035], [0039]). Generally, differences in dimensional accuracy of a sheet thickness will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such dimensional accuracy of a sheet thickness is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claims 1-6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama (US 5,662,745) in view of Matsumoto (JP 2010-255026 machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Takayama discloses a titanium alloy (3:10-19) containing an overlapping composition (Ti-6Al-2Fe-0.1Si) (4:22-27, 8:47-51, Table 3 No. F),
Element
Claim 1 mass%
Takayama
Al
4.5 or more and 6.6 or less
6
Fe
0.5 or more and 2.3 or less
2
V
0 or more and 4.5 or less
-
Si
0 or more and 0.60 or less
0.1
C
0 or more and less than 0.080
-
N
0 or more and 0.050 or less
-
O
0 or more and 0.40 or less
-
Ni
0 or more and less than 0.15
-
Cr
0 or more and less than 0.25
-
Mn
0 or more and less than 0.25
-
Ti
Remainder
Balance
wherein an area ratio of an alpha-phase is 80% or more (alpha-phase microstructure consisting of alpha crystals) (4:6-12, 7:7-9, Table 3 No. F), and
an area ratio of an alpha-phase having an equivalent circle diameter of 1 um or more is more than 53% (4 um equiaxed alpha-phase microstructure) (4:6-12, 7:7-9, Table 3 No. F).
Takayama is silent to a titanium alloy sheet with an average sheet thickness of 2.5 mm or less.
Matsumoto discloses a titanium alloy sheet (([0001], [0007]) with an average sheet thickness of 2.5 mm or less (thin plate, hot rolled to a thickness of 5 mm, then cold rolled according to Table 3, 70% or 90%, which is a thickness of 1.5 mm (70%) or 0.5 mm (90%)) ([0007], [0035], [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the titanium alloy of Takayama to be a thin sheet with an average sheet thickness of 1.5 mm or 0.5 mm because it is manufactured using a process that has a low rolling load during hot rolling (Matsumoto [0006]-[0007]), which allows for the production of an α+β titanium alloy thin plate with excellent surface quality and mechanical properties (Matsumoto [0007]) for use as parts for aircraft (Matsumoto [0002]; Okada p. 1 para. 1).
The limitation of in a (0001) pole figure in a sheet thickness direction, an angle formed between the sheet thickness direction and a direction indicating a peak of intensity calculated by texture analysis in a case in which Series Rank is 16 and a Gaussian half width is 50 for an inverse pole figure using a spherical harmonics method of an electron backscatter diffraction method being 65° or less have been considered and determined to recite properties of the claim titanium alloy that result from the manufacturing method disclosed by applicant (applicant’s specification [0070]-[0088]).
Takayama is silent to a method of manufacturing a sheet.
Matsumoto discloses a titanium alloy sheet manufacturing method (Matsumoto [0023]-[0035]) that is substantially similar to that disclosed by applicant.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to manufacture the titanium alloy of Takayama using the process of Matsumoto to manufacture a sheet of alpha + beta type titanium alloy (Takayama 4:23-28, 8:47-50; Matsumoto [0008]) with an equiaxed grain structure (Takayama 4:6-12, 7:7-9, Table 3 No. F; Matsumoto [0012], [0038]) with a small (thin) cross section (Takayama 4:29-32; Matsumoto [0008]). Further, the process of Matsumoto produces an alpha + beta type titanium alloy sheet with excellent surface properties and mechanical properties (Matsumoto [0009]).
Therefore, the prior art discloses a composition (Takayama 4:22-27, 8:47-51, Table 3 No. F), structure (Takayama 4:6-12, 7:7-9, Table 3 No. F; Matsumoto [0007]-[0009], [0035], [0037], [0038]), and process (Matsumoto [0023]-[0035]) that are substantially similar to that claimed (claim 1) and disclosed by applicant (applicant’s specification [0070]-[0088]), such that the claimed in a (0001) pole figure in a sheet thickness direction, an angle formed between the sheet thickness direction and a direction indicating a peak of intensity calculated by texture analysis in a case in which Series Rank is 16 and a Gaussian half width is 50 for an inverse pole figure using a spherical harmonics method of an electron backscatter diffraction method of 65° or less naturally flows from the disclosure of Takayama in view of Matsumoto.
Applicant’s Disclosure
Applicant’s Citation
Matsumoto’s Disclosure
Matsumoto’s Citation
Slab/Ingot
[0070]
Slab/Ingot
[0035]
Hot Rolling
Start: β-phase temperature range
Finish: α+β temperature range, (Tβ-250°C) to (Tβ-50°C)
[0071]
Hot Rolling
Start: β transformation point to (Tβ+250°C)
[0023]
Annealing
650°C to 800°C
20 min to 90 min
[0074]
Annealing
(Tβ+200°C) or less
0.5 to 60 min
[0024]
Cold Rolling
≥ 30% per pass
≥ 60% total
≤ 500°C
[0076], [0079]
Cold Rolling
≥ 70% for equiaxed grain structure
[0025], [0030], [0032]
Intermediate Annealing (optional)
Between cold rolling passes
600°C to (Tβ-50°C)
Formula relating t and T, with examples at 60 seconds
[0080], Table 2
Intermediate Annealing (optional)
If more than one cold rolling
(Tβ-150°C) to (Tβ)
0.5 to 60 minutes
[0026]
Final Annealing
600°C to (Tβ-50°C)
Formula relating t and T, with examples at 60 to 28,800 seconds
[0081], Table 2
Finish Annealing
(Tβ-150°C) to Tβ
0.5 min to 24 hours
[0027], [0031]
Regarding claim 2, Takayama discloses a microstructure including an equiaxed structure (4:6-12, 7:7-9, Table 3 No. F) wherein the equiaxed structure has an average grain size of 0.1 um or more and 20.0 um or less (4 um, 4:6-12, 7:7-9, Table 3 No. F).
An equiaxed structure has approximately equal dimensions in all directions such that as aspect ratio tends to 1.0. Generally, differences in aspect ratio will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such aspect ratio is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
With respect to a longitudinally elongated band structure having an aspect ratio of more than 3.0 and an area ratio of the band structure with respect to an area of the microstructure is 10.0% or less, Takayama discloses an equiaxed alpha-phase structure (4:6-12, 7:7-9, Table 3 No. F). Takayama is silent to the presence of an elongated microstructure, such it has an area of 0%, which falls within the scope of claim. Since it is within the scope of the claim to include 0% by area of band structure, then, when absent, the aspect ratio of the elongated band structure is not present in the prior art and this claim limitation is satisfied.
Regarding claim 3, Takayama discloses either Fe: 0.5% or more and 2.3% or less (2%) or V: 2.5% or more and 4.5% or less (Ti-6Al-2Fe-0.1Si) (4:22-27, 8:47-51, Table 3 No. F).
Regarding claim 4, Takayama discloses one element or two or more elements selected from the group including Ni: less than 0.15% (0%), Cr: less than 0.25% (0%), and Mn: less than 0.25% (0%) in place of a part of the Fe or the V (Ti-6Al-2Fe-0.1Si) (4:22-27, 8:47-51, Table 3 No. F).
Regarding claim 5, the smaller of a 0.2% proof stress in a longitudinal direction at 25°C and a 0.2% proof stress in a width direction at 25°C being 700 MPa or more and 1200 MPa or less has been considered and determined to recite properties of the claim titanium alloy that result from the claimed titanium alloy sheet (claim 1) manufactured by the method disclosed by applicant (applicant’s specification [0070]-[0088]). The prior art discloses a composition (Takayama 4:22-27, 8:47-51, Table 3 No. F), structure (Takayama 4:6-12, 7:7-9, Table 3 No. F; Matsumoto [0007]-[0009], [0035], [0037], [0038]), and process (Matsumoto [0023]-[0035]) that are substantially similar to that claimed (claim 1) and disclosed by applicant (applicant’s specification [0070]-[0088]), such that the claimed property of the smaller of a 0.2% proof stress in a longitudinal direction at 25°C and a 0.2% proof stress in a width direction at 25°C being 700 MPa or more and 1200 MPa or less naturally flows from the disclosure of Takayama in view of Matsumoto.
Regarding claim 6, in a (0001) pole figure in a sheet thickness direction, an angle formed between a width direction and a direction indicating a peak of intensity calculated by texture analysis in a case in which Series Rank is 16 and a Gaussian half width is 50 for an inverse pole figure using a spherical harmonics method of an electron backscatter diffraction method being 10° or less and a ratio of a 0.2% proof stress in the width direction to a 0.2% proof stress in a longitudinal direction being 1.05 or more and 1.18 or less have been considered and determined to recite properties of the claimed titanium alloy that result from the claimed titanium alloy sheet (claim 1) manufactured by the method disclosed by applicant (applicant’s specification [0070]-[0088]). The prior art discloses a composition (Takayama 4:22-27, 8:47-51, Table 3 No. F), structure (Takayama 4:6-12, 7:7-9, Table 3 No. F; Matsumoto [0007]-[0009], [0035], [0037], [0038]), and process (Matsumoto [0023]-[0035]) that are substantially similar to that claimed (claim 1) and disclosed by applicant (applicant’s specification [0070]-[0088]), such that the claimed properties of in a (0001) pole figure in a sheet thickness direction, an angle formed between a width direction and a direction indicating a peak of intensity calculated by texture analysis in a case in which Series Rank is 16 and a Gaussian half width is 50 for an inverse pole figure using a spherical harmonics method of an electron backscatter diffraction method being 10° or less and a ratio of a 0.2% proof stress in the width direction to a 0.2% proof stress in a longitudinal direction being 1.05 or more and 1.18 or less naturally flow from the disclosure of Takayama in view of Matsumoto.
Regarding claim 15, Takayama discloses V: 0% or more and 4.1% or less (0%) (Ti-6Al-2Fe-0.1Si) (4:22-27, 8:47-51, Table 3 No. F).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama (US 5,662,745) in view of Matsumoto (JP 2010-255026 machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hirata (JP 2001-300603 machine translation).
Regarding claim 8, Takayama in view of Matsumoto is silent to a dimensional accuracy of a sheet thickness.
Hirata discloses a titanium alloy sheet ([0013]), wherein a dimensional accuracy of a sheet thickness is 5.0% or less with respect to the average sheet thickness (thin plate with increased thickness accuracy and decrease or prevent or eliminate thickness deviation, making it difficult to occur) ([0013], [0015]-[0016], [0026], [0030], [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the titanium alloy sheet of Takayama in view of Matsumoto to improve the thickness accuracy by decreasing, preventing, and eliminating thickness deviation to improve product yield (Hirata [0008]) by preventing shape defects such as buckling and improving production efficiency and economy (Hirata [0019], [0035], [0039]). Generally, differences in dimensional accuracy of a sheet thickness will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such dimensional accuracy of a sheet thickness is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Related Art
Ojiyou (JP H08-295969 machine translation)
Ojiyou discloses an alpha+beta titanium sheet including 0.8 to 2.3% Fe with an equiaxed structure having a grain size of 20 um or less ([0009], [0012]), where Fe expands the alpha + beta phase temperature range ([0011]). Ojiyou discloses a 1 mm plate thickness ([0024]).
Kawakami (US 2013/0327448)
Kawakami discloses an alpha+beta titanium alloy sheet ([0001]) comprising 0.8 to 1.5% Fe, 4.8 to 5.5% Al, 0.030% or less N, O and N satisfying a formula, and balance Ti ([0035]) manufactured to control the microstructure and minimize sheet fracture due to a crack initiating from edge cracking or the like a propagating in the TD ([0047]).
Tsukamoto (US 2024/0002981, US PG Publication of US App. No. 18/038,038)
Tsukamoto, applicant’s related work, claims a titanium alloy sheet with an overlapping composition (claims 1-3), an average sheet thickness of 2.5 mm or less (claim 1), and a dimensional accuracy of sheet thickness of 5.0% or less with respect to average sheet thickness (claim 7). However, in contrast to claim 2 reciting an area ratio of the band structure with respect to an area of the microstructure of 10.0% or less, the titanium sheet of Tsukamoto has an area fraction of the band structure of 70% or more (claim 6).
Kunieda (WO 2020/213719 machine translation)
Kunieda, applicant’s related work, filed April 17, 2020 and published October 22, 2020, discloses a titanium alloy plate ([0001], [0019]) with a thickness that is not particularly limited ([0074]) in which the angle between the (0001) direction (c-axis) of the alpha phase and the sheet thickness direction is 0° or more than 40°C or less for 70% or more of the structure ([0022], [0057]-[0066], [0075]) for a composition with 0% or more and 7.0% or less Al ([0025], [0029]-[0045]). In Kunieda the alpha phase has a hexagonal close-packed structure with a preferred volume fraction of 98.0% or more and may contain a beta phase ([0047]) with an average grain size of 40 um or less ([0050]).
Sadeghpour (Sadeghpour et al. Effect of cold rolling and subsequent annealing on grain refinement of a beta titanium alloy showing stress-induced martensitic transformation. Materials Science & Engineering A 731 (2018) 465-478.)
Sadeghpour discloses a Ti-4.22Al-7.11Mo-3.04V-2.84Cr wt% alloy (2. Experimental procedure, Fig. 1) with a microstructure substantially similar to that claimed regarding alpha-phase (pp. 472-474, Figs. 10-12, 15).
Kudo (JP 2009-068098 machine translation, JP ‘098; JP 2009-179822 machine translation, JP ‘822; JP 2010-031314 machine translation, JP ‘314; JP 2012-031476 machine translation, JP ‘476)
Kudo discloses a titanium alloy plate (JP ‘098 [0001]; JP ‘822 [0001]; JP ‘314 [0001], [0007]; JP ‘476 [0001]) with an overlapping area ratio of alpha phase (JP ‘098, 80% or more, [0016]-[0017]; JP ‘822 80-97%, [0016]-[0017]), an overlapping average crystal grain size of alpha phase (JP ‘098, 10.0 um or less, [0018]; JP ‘822, 7.0 um or less, [0018]; JP ‘314, 10 um or less, [0009], [0024]), and overlapping plate thickness (JP ‘098, about 0.2 to 1 mm, [0029]; JP ‘314, about 0.2 to 1 mm, [0030]). Kudo also discloses the angle between the normal to the (0001) plane of the alpha phase and the normal to the rolled surface is 45° or less (JP ‘822 [0013]-[0014]) or 60° or less (JP ‘314 [0008], [0010], [0019]-[0023]; JP ‘476 [0012], [0017], [0037]-[0041], [0052], [0055]-[0059]). However, the composition of Kudo does not include Al of more than 4.0% and 6.6% or less (JP ‘098 [0002], [0008]; JP ‘822 [0002], [0008], [0019]-[0022]; JP ‘314 [0014]-[0018]; JP ‘476 [0003]-[0007], [0018]-[0035]).
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.
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, Wednesday-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
Prosecution Insights