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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hopkins (Hopkins, C. D., M. J. Dapino, and S. A. Fernandez. "Statistical characterization of ultrasonic additive manufacturing Ti/Al composites." (2010): 041006).
Regarding claim 1, Hopkins discloses a method of welding a first layer of grade 1 commercially pure Ti to a second layer of grade 1 commercially pure Ti (Introduction final paragraph page 2 left column, section 2.1 first paragraph left column, Fig. 3). The present disclosure indicates that grade 1 commercially pure titanium has a low amount of impurity alloying elements (paragraph [0038] of the disclosure as filed); therefore, Hopkins discloses a method of welding a first layer of Ti alloy to a second layer of Ti alloy (Introduction final paragraph page 2 left column, section 2.1 first paragraph left column, Fig. 3), as “alloy” is interpreted in view of the present disclosure. Hopkins discloses that the method comprises joining titanium and aluminum in a bilayer arrangement wherein titanium is disposed on top of aluminum to form a bilayer and successive bilayers are welded on top of one another (“bilayer consists of one titanium layer on top of one aluminum layer without any welding in between, as shown in Fig. 3. The parts are built by successively welding one bilayer onto another” Introduction section final paragraph page 2 left column, section 2.1 first paragraph left column, Fig. 3). In showing and disclosing at least two bilayers (final paragraph of the introduction section page 2, Fig. 3), Hopkins discloses disposing a metallic interlayer (the aluminum layer of a second bilayer) onto a first layer of Ti alloy (an already disposed bilayer) and disposing the second layer of Ti alloy (the Ti layer of the second bilayer) onto the metallic interlayer such that the metallic interlayer is disposed between the first layer of Ti alloy and the second layer of Ti alloy (Introduction section final paragraph page 2 left column, section 2.1 first paragraph left column, Fig. 3). Hopkins identifies the Ti layer of a bilayer as the weld face (Fig. 3); Hopkins discloses applying a horn of an ultrasonic device to weld a bilayer (Introduction section final paragraph page 2 left column, section 2.1 first paragraph left column, Fig. 2), and Hopkins discloses that during the welding the horn always contacts titanium (page 8 right column); therefore, Hopkins discloses applying a horn of an ultrasonic device to the second layer of Ti alloy to weld the first layer of Ti alloy to the second layer of Ti alloy. A material formed by welding, such as that disclosed by Hopkins (Section 2.1 page 2 left column , Fig. 3), is a welded material.
Regarding claim 3, Hopkins discloses that the layers of Ti alloy have thicknesses of 0.005 inches (127 µm, section 2.1 page 2 left column), which is less than 0.01 inches.
Regarding claim 5, Hopkins discloses heat treating the welded material (section 2.1 page 2 right column).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by He (CN112059397A). References to He are directed to the examiner supplied English language translation.
Regarding claim 1, He discloses a method of welding a first layer of Ti alloy to a second layer of Ti alloy (two TC4 titanium alloy ([0014], [0016], [0036], [0041], Figs. 1-2). He discloses disposing a metallic interlayer onto a first layer of Ti alloy; disposing the second layer of Ti alloy onto the metallic interlayer such that the metallic interlayer is disposed between the first layer of Ti alloy and the second layer of Ti alloy ([0014], [0016], [0036-37], Figs. 1-2). He discloses applying a horn of an ultrasonic device (head of an ultrasonic tool) to the second layer of Ti alloy to weld the first layer of Ti alloy to the second layer of Ti alloy to form a welded material ([0017], [0020-22], [0038], Figs. 1-2).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (CN112059397A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tomashchuk (Tomashchuk, I., D. Grevey, and P. Sallamand. "Dissimilar laser welding of AISI 316L stainless steel to Ti6–Al4–6V alloy via pure vanadium interlayer." Materials Science and Engineering: A 622 (2015): 37-45). Tomashchuk is cited in the IDS filed April 15, 2024.
Regarding claim 2, He discloses that the Ti alloy is TC4 titanium alloy [0036], [0041], which is Ti-6Al-4V. He does not disclose the metallic interlayer comprises vanadium.
Tomashchuk teaches welding a Ti6Al4V alloy (Title, final paragraph of introduction section page 38 left column, sections 2.1-2.2 page 38 left and right columns, Table 1). Tomashchuk teaches disposing a metallic interlayer onto a first layer of Ti alloy and between the Ti alloy and material to be welded to the Ti alloy (Section 2.2 page 38 right column). Tomashchuk teaches a vanadium (V) foil as the metallic interlayer (final paragraph of Introduction section, section 2.2 page 38). Tomashchuk teaches that V forms solid solutions with titanium (page 37 right column). Tomashchuk teaches that the weld zone near the Ti alloy/V interface is homogeneous (page 39 left column in discussing Sample B), and that no phases other than the solution phase were formed at this interface (section 3.2.2 page 40 paragraph extending from left to right column). Tomashchuk further teaches that defects do not form at the titanium alloy/vanadium interface (paragraph extending from page 39 to page 40, page 40 right column, page 42 left column).
Both He and Tomashchuk teach methods of welding Ti6Al4V titanium alloy with a metallic interlayer. He teaches that the interlayer functions to promote diffusion, reduce welding defects, and achieve reliable connection [0025].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to provide an intermediate layer comprising vanadium as the interlayer in the process disclosed by He, applied above, because Tomashchuk teaches that a vanadium welding interlayer results in a homogenous composition and no defects at a weld interface with a Ti alloy (pages 39-42).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopkins (Hopkins, C. D., M. J. Dapino, and S. A. Fernandez. "Statistical characterization of ultrasonic additive manufacturing Ti/Al composites." (2010): 041006) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of White (US6814823).
Regarding claims 3-4, Hopkins discloses that the layers of Ti alloy have a thicknesses of 0.005 inches (127 µm, section 2.1 page 2 left column), but Hopkins does not disclose a preference for Ti layer thickness.
White teaches a method of welding successive layers of alloy to each other (abstract, column 5 lines 31-45, column 6 lines 6-13, 46-57, column 8 lines 43-65). White teaches manufacturing objects from titanium alloys (column 12 lines 39-49). White teaches disposing layers of feed material applying a horn of an ultrasonic device to the layers to weld the layers (column 6 lines 43-56, Fig. 3). White teaches that in the fabrication of objects through additive manufacturing, the thickness of the layers is typically in the range of 0.001 to 0.005 inches, in order to achieve desired dimensional accuracy (column 6 lines 57-61). White teaches that the range of 0.001-0.005 inches is “perfectly suited for the purpose of ultrasonic consolidation of objects according to the invention” because such thickness is near the range of foil thickness to which ultrasonic joining of metals is best applied (column 6 lines 61-65). White further teaches that in additive manufacturing, accuracy is a function of the size, thickness, and accuracy of placement of each increment of material added, and typically, material is added in layers of 0.001 to 0.005 inch thickness in order to achieve the desired dimensional accuracy (column 15 lines 42-50).
Both Hopkins and White teach substantially similar processes of ultrasonically welding alloys. Hopkins discloses investigating results of process parameters in ultrasonic additive manufacturing (UAM) as a research objective (sentence extending from page 1 to page 2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide Ti layer in the process disclosed by Hopkins to a thickness in the range of 0.001-0.005 inches because White teaches that a thickness of 0.001-0.005 inches is perfectly suited for ultrasonic consolidation to achieve desired dimensional accuracy (column 6 lines 57-65, column 15 lines 42-50). White establishes layer thickness as a variable which affects the dimensional accuracy of additively manufactured articles (column 6 lines 61-67, column 15 lines 42-50). A range of 0.001-0.005 inches overlaps the thickness range of 0.01 inches or less recited in claim 3 and the range of 0.002 inches or less recited in claim 4. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 6-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopkins (Hopkins, C. D., M. J. Dapino, and S. A. Fernandez. "Statistical characterization of ultrasonic additive manufacturing Ti/Al composites." (2010): 041006) as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Kakimi (EP0064243A2).
Regarding claims 6-8 and 10-18, Hopkins generally discloses heat treatment at 480
°
C for 4 hours (page 2 right column). Hopkins does not disclose heat treatment conditions recited in claims 6-8 and 10-18.
Kakimi teaches a method of welding a first Ti alloy part to a second Ti alloy part (abstract, page 1 lines 5-7, page 2 lines 21-24). Kakimi teaches disposing a metallic interlayer between first and second Ti alloy parts (page 3 lines 4-11, page 7 lines 9-13). Kakimi teaches that the first and second Ti alloy may be applied as layers (form of plates page 7 lines 13-15). Kakimi teaches applying energy to the Ti alloy parts to form a welded material (page 3 lines 12-23, page 7 line 17 to page 8 line 10). Kakimi teaches heat treating the welded material (page 12 lines 14-23, claims 17 and 20). Kakimi teaches an embodiment wherein the heat treatment is a combination of a solid solution treatment and aging treatment (page 13 lines 3-15, claim 20). Kakimi teaches that the combination of solution heat treatment and aging treatment comprises heating the welded material to a solutionizing temperature in the range from about 800
°
C to “about” 1000
°
C for about 15 minutes to about 6 hours; subsequent to the heating to the solutionizing temperature, water quenching, oil quenching or air cooling the welded material; and after quenching the welded material, heating the welded material to an aging treatment temperature in the range from about 400°C to about 680°C for about 15 minutes to about 15 hours and subsequent air cooling (page 13 lines 3-15, claim 20). Kakimi teaches that the combination of solution and aging heat treatments results in stabilizing microstructure phases and mechanical properties at the weld joint (page 13 line 16 to page 14 line 1).
Both Hopkins and Kakimi teach similar methods of welding Ti alloy layers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to subject the welded material disclosed by Hopkins applied above to a combination of solution and aging heat treatment in order to attain the microstructure and mechanical property stabilization of the weld join as taught by Kakimi (page 13 line 16 to page 14 line 1). In order to attain the results taught by Kakimi, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the heat treatment according to the steps taught by Kakimi of heating the welded material to a solutionizing temperature in the range from about 800
°
C to “about” 1000
°
C for about 15 minutes to about 6 hours, thereby meeting the additional limitations recited in present claim 6; subsequent to the heating to the solutionizing temperature, water quenching, thereby meeting the additional limitations recited in present claims 11 and 12; and after quenching the welded material, heating the weld material to an aging treatment temperature in the range from about 400°C to about 680°C for about 15 minutes to about 15 hours, thereby meeting the additional limitations recited in present claims 13 and 14 (page 13 lines 3-15, claim 20). The solubilization temperature in the range from about 800
°
C to about 1000
°
C taught by Kakimi (page 13 lines 6-7) overlaps ranges recited in present claims 7 and 8. The solution treatment duration of about 15 min to about 15 hours taught by Kakimi (page 13 line 7) overlaps the range recited in present claim 10. The aging temperature in the range from about 400°C to about 680°C taught by Kakimi (page 13 lines 10-11) overlaps the range recited in present claim 15 and encompasses the value recited in present claim 16. The aging treatment duration of about 15 minutes to about 15 hours taught by Kakimi (page 13 line 11), overlaps the duration ranges recited in present claim 17 and present claim 18. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists, and generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05(I-II).
Regarding claim 9, Kakimi discloses an upper limit of solubilization temperature of “about” 1000
°
C (page 13 line 7). Considering Kakimi teaches the phase and mechanical property stabilizing results for the conditions disclosed by Kakimi (page 13 line 3 to page 14 line 1), a value of 1050
°
C is within
±
10
%
of 1000
°
C, and considering Kakimi explicitly modifies the numerical value of the solubilization temperature with the word “about” (page 13 line 7), one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the range of activity encompassed by heating to a solutionizing temperature in a range from about 800
°
C to about 1000
°
C taught by Kakimi (page 13 lines 6-7) of Hopkins in view of Kakimi applied above, to either overlap the claimed range of at least 1050° C, or closely approach a range of at least 1050° C such that the resulting properties (absent a showing of unexpected results) would be the same. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists; a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close, and generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05(I-II).
Claim(s) 5-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (CN112059397A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kakimi (EP0064243A2).
Regarding claims 5-8 and 10-18, He does not disclose heat treating the welded material.
Kakimi teaches a method of welding a first Ti alloy part to a second Ti alloy part (abstract, page 1 lines 5-7, page 2 lines 21-24). Kakimi teaches disposing a metallic interlayer between first and second Ti alloy parts (page 3 lines 4-11, page 7 lines 9-13). Kakimi teaches that the first and second Ti alloy may be applied as layers (form of plates page 7 lines 13-15). Kakimi teaches TC4 (Ti6Al4V) as a suitable Ti alloy (page 5 lines 5-9, Example 1A page 14). Kakimi teaches applying energy to the Ti alloy parts to form a welded material (page 3 lines 12-23, page 7 line 17 to page 8 line 10). Kakimi teaches heat treating the welded material (page 12 lines 14-23, claims 17 and 20). Kakimi teaches an embodiment wherein the heat treatment is a combination of a solid solution treatment and aging treatment (page 13 lines 3-15, claim 20). Kakimi teaches that the combination of solution heat treatment and aging treatment comprises heating the welded material to a solutionizing temperature in the range from about 800
°
C to “about” 1000
°
C for about 15 minutes to about 6 hours; subsequent to the heating to the solutionizing temperature, water quenching, oil quenching or air cooling the welded material; and after quenching the welded material, heating the welded material to an aging treatment temperature in the range from about 400°C to about 680°C for about 15 minutes to about 15 hours and subsequent air cooling (page 13 lines 3-15, claim 20). Kakimi teaches that the combination of solution and aging heat treatments results in stabilizing microstructure phases and mechanical properties at the weld joint (page 13 line 16 to page 14 line 1).
Both He and Kakimi teach similar methods of welding Ti alloy layers. He discloses an intent to achieve a homogenous distribution and improved mechanical properties at the joint as a favorable result of the disclosed process [0025].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to subject the welded material disclosed by He applied above to a combination of solution and aging heat treatment in order to attain the microstructure and mechanical property stabilization of the weld join as taught by Kakimi (page 13 line 16 to page 14 line 1), thereby meeting the additional limitations recited in present claim 5. In order to attain the results taught by Kakimi, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the heat treatment according to the steps taught by Kakimi of heating the welded material to a solutionizing temperature in the range from about 800
°
C to “about” 1000
°
C for about 15 minutes to about 6 hours, thereby meeting the additional limitations recited in present claim 6; subsequent to the heating to the solutionizing temperature, water quenching the welded material, thereby meeting the additional limitations recited in present claims 11 and 12; and after quenching the welded material, heating the weld material to an aging treatment temperature in the range from about 400°C to about 680°C for about 15 minutes to about 15 hours and subsequent air cooling, thereby meeting the additional limitations recited in present claims 13 and 14 (page 13 lines 3-15, claim 20). The solubilization temperature in the range from about 800
°
C to about 1000
°
C taught by Kakimi (page 13 lines 6-7) overlaps ranges recited in present claims 7 and 8. The solution treatment duration of about 15 min to about 15 hours taught by Kakimi (page 13 line 7) overlaps the range recited in present claim 10. The aging temperature in the range from about 400°C to about 680°C taught by Kakimi (page 13 lines 10-11) overlaps the range recited in present claim 15 and encompasses the value recited in present claim 16. The aging treatment duration of about 15 minutes to about 15 hours taught by Kakimi (page 13 line 11), overlaps the duration range recited in present claim 17 and present claim 18. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists, and generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05(I-II).
Regarding claim 9, Kakimi discloses an upper limit of solubilization temperature of “about” 1000
°
C (page 13 line 7). Considering Kakimi teaches the phase and mechanical property stabilizing results for the conditions disclosed by Kakimi (page 13 line 3 to page 14 line 1), considering a value of 1050
°
C is within
±
10
%
of 1000
°
C, and considering Kakimi explicitly modifies the numerical value with the word “about” (page 13 line 7), one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the range of activity encompassed by heating to a solutionizing temperature in a range from about 800
°
C to about 1000
°
C taught by Kakimi (page 13 lines 6-7) of He in view of Kakimi applied above, to either overlap the claimed range of at least 1050° C, or closely approach a range of at least 1050° C such that the resulting properties (absent a showing of unexpected results) would be the same. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists; a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close, and generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05(I-II).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent claim 1 claims a method of welding a first layer of Ti alloy to a second layer of Ti alloy. Claim 1 claims disposing a metallic interlayer onto a first layer of Ti alloy and disposing the second layer of Ti alloy onto the metallic interlayer such that the metallic interlayer is disposed between the first layer of Ti alloy and the second layer of Ti alloy. Claim 1 claims applying a horn of an ultrasonic device to the second layer of Ti alloy to weld the first layer of Ti alloy to the second layer of Ti alloy to form a welded material. Claim 19 depends on claim 1. Claim 19 claims that the metallic interlayer includes a layer of vanadium, thereby claiming a layer of vanadium as a constituent of the interlayer, which would define over an interlayer wherein vanadium is only present as a minor alloying additive. Claim 19 claims the layer of vanadium is a first layer of vanadium. Claim 19 further claims after disposing the second layer of Ti alloy and before applying the horn of the ultrasonic device: disposing a second layer of vanadium onto the second layer of Ti alloy such that the second layer of Ti alloy is disposed between the first layer of vanadium and the second layer of vanadium. The only claimed step of applying the horn of the ultrasonic device is the “applying a horn of an ultrasonic device to the second layer of Ti alloy to weld the first layer of Ti alloy to the second layer of Ti alloy to form a welded material” recited in claim 1; therefore, claim 19 claims disposing the second layer of vanadium onto the second layer of Ti alloy before applying a horn of an ultrasonic device to the second layer of Ti alloy to weld the first layer of Ti alloy to the second layer of Ti alloy to form a welded material by dependence on claim 1. Claim 19 further claims disposing a third layer of Ti alloy onto the second layer of vanadium such that the second layer of vanadium is disposed between the second layer of Ti alloy and the third layer of Ti alloy.
The present office action rejects independent claim 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) over Hopkins (Hopkins, C. D., M. J. Dapino, and S. A. Fernandez. "Statistical characterization of ultrasonic additive manufacturing Ti/Al composites." (2010): 041006). Hopkins is the prior art reference closest to dependent claim 19. The metallic interlayer disclosed by Hopkins is an Al alloy (page 2 left column, Fig. 3), and Hopkins does not disclose additional vanadium interlayers; therefore, claim 19 defines over Hopkins alone, at least in claiming that the metallic interlayer includes a layer of vanadium. Even if Hopkins were combined with a secondary reference that teaches a vanadium interlayer, such as Tomashchuk (Tomashchuk, I., D. Grevey, and P. Sallamand. "Dissimilar laser welding of AISI 316L stainless steel to Ti6–Al4–6V alloy via pure vanadium interlayer." Materials Science and Engineering: A 622 (2015): 37-45), cited in the IDS filed April 15, 2024, Hopkins discloses that during the welding the horn always contacts titanium (page 8 right column), and Hopkins does not suggest delaying applying the horn until after disposing additional layers. Claim 19 would define over such a hypothetical combination of Hopkins in view of a secondary reference at least in claiming applying a horn of an ultrasonic device to the second layer of Ti alloy to weld the first layer of Ti alloy to the second layer of Ti alloy to form a welded material (from claim 1) and after disposing the second layer of Ti alloy and before applying the horn of the ultrasonic device: disposing a second layer of vanadium onto the second layer of Ti alloy such that the second layer of Ti alloy is disposed between the first layer of vanadium and the second layer of vanadium.
The present office action additionally rejects claim 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) over He (CN112059397A). The He disclosure does not disclose or suggest a welding component formed from more than first and second layers of base material and an interlayer. Claim 19 defines over He at least in claiming disposing a second layer of vanadium onto the second layer of Ti alloy such that the second layer of Ti alloy is disposed between the first layer of vanadium and the second layer of vanadium and disposing a third layer of Ti alloy onto the second layer of vanadium such that the second layer of vanadium is disposed between the second layer of Ti alloy and the third layer of Ti alloy.
Claim 20 depends on claim 19. Claim 20 defines over the prior art at least for the reasons given above with respect to claim 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20210308805 [0031] provides support that TC4 is the same Ti alloy as Ti6Al4V.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN P O'KEEFE whose telephone number is (571)272-7647. The examiner can normally be reached MR 8:00-6:30.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/SEAN P. O'KEEFE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/ SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights