Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/256,184

METHOD FOR SURFACE TREATMENT BY SELECTIVE REMOVAL OF A BONDING PRIMER ON A TITANIUM OR TITANIUM ALLOY SUBSTRATE

Non-Final OA §101§112
Filed
Jun 06, 2023
Examiner
KESSLER, CHRISTOPHER S
Art Unit
1759
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
SAFRAN
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
59%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 10m
To Grant
74%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 59% of resolved cases
59%
Career Allow Rate
465 granted / 783 resolved
-5.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+15.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 10m
Avg Prosecution
61 currently pending
Career history
844
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.2%
-38.8% vs TC avg
§103
45.2%
+5.2% vs TC avg
§102
16.2%
-23.8% vs TC avg
§112
27.4%
-12.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 783 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §112
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 . DETAILED ACTION Status of Claims Responsive to the preliminary amendment filed 6 June 2023 claims 1-10 are amended and claim 11 is added. Claims 1-11 are currently under examination. Claims 1-7 and 11 are allowed. A telephone call to applicant’s representative was unsuccessful at resolving outstanding issues. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Drawings The drawings were received on 6 June 2023. These drawings are accepted. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the “use of” a method is not recognized as one of the statutory categories of inventions in the statue. “Use" claims that do not purport to claim a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter fail to comply with 35 U.S.C. 101. In re Moreton, 288 F.2d 708, 709, 129 USPQ 227, 228 (CCPA 1961). No method steps are enumerated or limited further than what is already required by independent claim 1, and as such these claims are purely directed to a “use” without meaningfully adding to the method. 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 8-10 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. These claims are directed to a “use of” a method, which does not clearly enumerate or further limit any specific step of a method. There is no nexus between the “use” claims 8-10 and the method claim 1. The point of infringement of claims 8-10 cannot be determined, and the claims are indefinite. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-7 and 11 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the method of claim 1. Specifically the claim recites a method of treating a reinforcement of titanium or alloy for a vane, in which the reinforcement is heated at 250-350 C for 1-10 hours in oxidizing atmosphere, followed by a pickling in alkaline medium. US 20150280251 A1 teaches a formation of a titanium electrode, including a pickling treatment followed by an oxidizing treatment. US 20150280251 A1 teaches generally that the oxidizing is used to adjust the film following the picking which removes oxide. US 20090211667 A1 teaches a conventional process for treating titanium, including a pickling followed by a heat treatment. There is no indication that a preliminary heat treatment such as step A prior to pickling would have been desired. CA 2870523 (cited by applicant) demonstrates a heat treatment in vague and broad conditions may be used for an aesthetic effect. None of these references refers to a reinforcement vane. None of these references includes the two steps A and B as claimed. Based on the teachings of US 20150280251 A1 and other references, it is believed that a change in the order of operations of these steps would tend to change the structure that be generated. When all of the evidence is considered as a whole, evidence of patentability outweighs evidence of obviousness. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20040187983 A1 teaches to apply a heat treatment for aesthetic effects. US 5395461 A teaches to adjust a heat treatment time in order to adjust an oxide thickness. US 20050284544 A1 teaches to improve adhesiveness of Ti oxide film. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6510. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30. 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. CHRISTOPHER S. KESSLER Primary Examiner Art Unit 1734 /CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 06, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601034
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING A PART
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12578038
PIPING ARTICLES INCORPORATING AN ALLOY OF COPPER, ZINC, AND SILICON
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571072
METHOD FOR THE PRODUCTION OF A SMALL-FRACTION TITANIUM-CONTAINING FILLING FOR A CORED WIRE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564885
OSCILLATING NOZZLE FOR SINUSOIDAL DIRECT METAL DEPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12553112
HIGH-STRENGTH BLACKPLATE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
59%
Grant Probability
74%
With Interview (+15.0%)
3y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 783 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month