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.
Response to Restriction Election
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Species I-10, claims 1-6 and 8, in the reply filed on October 3, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that “Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner” (Remarks p. 2 para. 2). This is not found persuasive because applicant did not provide argument to support applicant’s disagreement.
Therefore, the restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7 and 9-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventive group or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Restriction Election filed October 3, 2025 and Claims filed May 9, 2023.
Claims Filing Date
May 9, 2023
Amended
3-8, 10, 12, 14
Pending
1-14
Withdrawn
7, 9-14
Under Examination
1-6, 8
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 informality:
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.” Claim 4 line 4 “the Fe or the V” has antecedent basis to claim 1 lines 3-4 “Fe: 0% or more and 2.3% or less; V: 0% or more and 4.5% or less;”.
Applicant’s specification at [0040] recites that “in a case in which the titanium alloy sheet according to the present embodiment contains either Fe: 0.5 to 2.3% or V: 2.5 to 4.5%, it preferably contains 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 Fe or V.”
If claim 4 depended from claim 3, then “the Fe or the V” would have antecedent basis to lines 2-3 “either Fe: 0.5% or more and 2.3% or less or V: 2.5% or more and 4.5% or less”, which is consistent with [0040] of applicant’s specification.
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 1-6 and 8 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 1 lines 16-17 “the sheet thickness direction” renders the clam indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
Claims 2-6 and 8 are rejected as depending from claim 1.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (JP 2010-255026 machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Matsumoto discloses a titanium alloy sheet (plate) ([0001], [0007]) containing, in % by mass:
Al: more than 4.0% and 6.6% or less (2.0 to 4.0%);
Fe: 0% or more and 2.3% or less (0.01-1.0%);
V: 0% or more and 4.5% or less (4.0 to 9.0%);
Si: 0% or more and 0.60% or less;
C: 0% or more and less than 0.080%;
N: 0% or more and 0.050% or less;
0: 0% or more and 0.40% or less;
Ni: 0% or more and less than 0.15% (0.01-1.0%);
Cr: 0% or more and less than 0.25% (0.01-1.0%);
Mn: 0% or more and less than 0.25%; and
a remainder of Ti and impurities ([0016], [0022]),
wherein an average sheet thickness is 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]).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, with respect to the Al content with an upper limit of 4.0% and the claimed lower limit of more than 4.0%, “The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.” A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are close. MPEP 2144.05(I).
The limitations of an area ratio 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 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 process (Matsumoto [0023]-[0035]) that is substantially similar to that disclosed by applicant (applicant’s 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 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, Matsumoto discloses a microstructure including an equiaxed structure ([0012]-[0013], [0023]-[0025], [0030]-[0031]). 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, Matsumoto discloses equiaxed grain structures in the inventive examples ([0037]) and elongated (band) microstructures in Comparative Test Examples 6 to 8 and 11 and a mixture of elongated and equiaxed grain structures in Comparative Text Example 9 ([0038]). Matsumoto 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.
The limitation of the equiaxed structure having an average grain size of 0.1 µm or more and 20.0 µm or less and has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claim titanium alloy that result from the manufacturing method disclosed by applicant (applicant’s specification [0070]-[0088]). The prior art discloses a process (Matsumoto [0023]-[0035]) that is substantially similar to that disclosed by applicant (applicant’s specification [0070]-[0088]), such that the claimed property of the equiaxed structure having an average grain size of 0.1 µm or more and 20.0 µm or less naturally flows from the disclosure of Matsumoto.
Regarding claim 3, Matsumoto discloses, in % by mass, either Fe: 0.5% or more and 2.3% or less (0.1 to 1.0%) or V: 2.5% or more and 4.5% or less (4.0 to 9.0%) ([0016], [0022]). 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, Matsumoto discloses, in % by mass, one element or two or more elements selected from the group including Ni: less than 0.15% (0.01 to 1.0%), Cr: less than 0.25% (0.01 to 1.0%), and Mn: less than 0.25% in place of a part of the Fe or the V ([0016], [0022]). 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 5, the limitation 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 of 700 MPa or more and 1200 MPa or less has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claim titanium alloy that result from the manufacturing method disclosed by applicant (applicant’s specification [0070]-[0088]). The prior art discloses a process (Matsumoto [0023]-[0035]) that is substantially similar to that 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 of 700 MPa or more and 1200 MPa or less naturally flows from the disclosure of Matsumoto.
Regarding claim 6, the limitations 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 of 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 of 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 process (Matsumoto [0023]-[0035]) that is substantially similar to that disclosed by applicant (applicant’s specification [0070]-[0088]), such that the claimed property 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 of 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 of 1.05 or more and 1.18 or less naturally flow from the disclosure of Matsumoto.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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, 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 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada (JP S63-230857 machine translation) in view of Matsumoto (JP 2010-255026 machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Okada discloses a titanium alloy sheet (p. 3 para. 1 Example) containing, in % by mass:
Al: more than 4.0% and 6.6% or less (about 6% Al);
Fe: 0% or more and 2.3% or less;
V: 0% or more and 4.5% or less (about 4% V);
Si: 0% or more and 0.60% or less;
C: 0% or more and less than 0.080%;
N: 0% or more and 0.050% or less;
0: 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%; and
a remainder of Ti and impurities (Ti-6Al-4V, Abstract, 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 is silent to an average sheet thickness is 2.5 mm or less.
Matsumoto discloses a titanium alloy sheet (([0001], [0007]) with an average sheet thickness is 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 process (Okada p. 1-3, Example, Table 2) that is substantially similar to that disclosed by applicant (applicant’s 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.
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 discloses, in % by mass, either Fe: 0.5% or more and 2.3% or less or V: 2.5% or more and 4.5% or less (about 4% V) (Abstract, p. 3 para. 1, Example Ti-6Al-4V).
Regarding claim 4, Okada 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 (Abstract, p. 3 para. 1, Example Ti-6Al-4V).
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 manufacturing method disclosed by applicant (applicant’s specification [0070]-[0088]). The prior art discloses a process (Okada p. 1-3, Example, Table 2) that is substantially similar to that 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 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 process (Okada p. 1-3, Example, Table 2) that is substantially similar to that 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 Okada.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada (JP S63-230857 machine translation) 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, Okada 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 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
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]).
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