DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Responsive to the amendment filed 15 January 2026, claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 11 are amended and claims 17-21 are added. Claims 11-15 are withdrawn. New claims 20-21 are withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected invention, corresponding to the method claims as identified in the Office action of 27 October 2025. Claims 1-2 and 5-6 are cancelled. Claims 3, 4, 7-10, and 16-19 are currently under examination.
Status of Previous Rejections
Responsive to the amendment filed 15 January 2026, new grounds of rejection are presented.
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 3, 4, 7-8 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zafari, A., and K. Xia. "Superior titanium from hybridised microstructures–A new strategy for future alloys." Scripta Materialia 173 (2019): 61-65 (document cited by applicant; hereinafter “Zafari”), in view of Manda et al., “Ti-5Al-5Mo-5V-3Cr and similar Mo equivalent alloys: First principles calculations and experimental investigations”, Journal of Applied Research and Technology, Vol 15 (2017) pages 21-26. (cited by applicant; hereinafter “Manda”), and further in view of US 5156807 A (hereinafter “Nagata”).
Regarding claim 3, Zafari teaches that a conventional titanium alloy does not present opportunity for manipulation of microstructure (see p 61). Zafari teaches that a Ti-64 alloy and a TI-5553 alloy are mixed together at 50 wt% each, in powder form to form a Hybrid Titanium Alloy (“HYTA” - see p. 61). Zafari teaches that the material is used for printing via selective laser melting (See p 61-62). Zafari teaches that the composition of each of the contributing alloys can be seen in the printed HYTA (p. 63).
The composition of the HYTA of Zafari is taken as being half of each of the contributing alloys (50% each of Ti-64 and Ti-5553). Thus Zafari envisions a Hybrid Titanium Alloy with approximately 5.5% Al, 4.5% V, 2.5% Mo, and 1.5% Cr. Zafari does not teach wherein the alloy includes C and S in the amounts claimed. Zafari does not describe any amount of C or S present in the metal, instead only presenting measured values for Al, V, Mo, Cr, and Fe (Table 2).
Manda describes the Ti 5553 alloy and its preparation methods (See abstract and I. Introduction). Manda teaches that the nominal Ti 5553 alloy example A1 includes an amount of C of 0.021% by weight (see Table I).
It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan top have altered the invention of Zafari as by using the Ti-5553 alloy composition described by Manda, because Manda teaches that this alloy is useful for tailoring mechanical properties (I. Introduction).
Nagata teaches to add P and S to titanium alloys in order to enhance machinability (see title, abstract). Nagata teaches that the addition is applicable broadly to different titanium alloys including Ti6Al4V and others (see cols. 3-4). Nagata teaches that the P and S may be added in preferred amounts of 0.04-0.12 P and 0.08- 0.24 S (see col 4-5). Nagata teaches the P addition forms solid solution and improves the ductility (col 4). Nagata teaches that the S addition refines inclusions and improves hot workability and fatigue strength (col. 4-5).
The amounts of P and S addition taught by Nagata overlaps the claimed ranges, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness for the ranges. Alternatively the clear teachings of Nagata of the microstructural effects of the alloying additions would have suggested for the skilled artisan to have optimized addition of P and S as taught by Nagata, in order to improve the ductility and the hot workability and fatigue strength respectively as desired. Applicant is further directed to MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan top have altered the invention of Zafari as by using the Ti-5553 alloy composition described by Manda, because Manda teaches that this alloy is useful for tailoring mechanical properties (I. Introduction), and further to have added the alloying elements P and S to the alloy as taught by Nagata in order to secure improved machinability, ductility, hot working, and fatigue properties as taught by Nagata (cols. 4-5).
Zafari teaches that the HYTA material is made in the same way as applicant’s material (mixing 50-50 of Ti64 powder with Ti 5553 powder), in order to create a material for additive manufacturing (p. 61-63). The composition of the HYTA of Zafari as modified overlaps the claimed compositional ranges, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Regarding the new limitation of the list of elements including Si, P and more, it is noted that the use of the term “and/or” renders the limitation as being optional for each of these elements as long as one of them is met. In thus case it is not believed that any elements would fall outside the scope of the claim. The amount of P taught by Nagata (cited above) overlaps the claimed range, for example.
Regarding claim 4, Zafari teaches to use SLM (p. 61, 62, 63).
Regarding claim 7, Zafari teaches to make a powder which is then processable in additive manufacturing (See p 61). Zafari teaches that rods are made (see p. 61, right column).
Regarding claim 8, Zafari teaches to make a part by additive manufacturing (see p 61-62).
Regarding claims 16-19, Zafari in view of Manda and Nagata do not teach an alloy with a composition as claimed.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Applciant is directed to MPEP 2144.05. In this case, Zafari teaches that the HYTA material is made in the same way as applicant’s material (mixing 50-50 of Ti64 powder with Ti 5553 powder), in order to create a material for additive manufacturing (p. 61-63). The composition of the HYTA of Zafari as modified either overlaps the claimed compositional ranges, or is considered to be close enough that the alloys are considered obvious variants.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zafari in view of Manda and Nagata as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of US 20170113303 A1 (hereinafter “Rockstroh”).
Zafari is applied to the claims as stated in the rejections under 35 USC 102. Zafari does not describe manufacture of a turbine part such as a blade. Zafari envisions additive manufacturing in general (p 61).
Rockstroh teaches a method of additive manufacturing (see Figs 1-4 and BRIEF DECSCRIPTION). Rockstroh teaches that the method includes use of multiple beams from one galvanometer (See [0008]). Rockstroh teaches that the method is more efficient by creating multiple devices ([0008]). Rockstroh teaches that the method is desirably used to manufacture turbine blades from a titanium alloy powder (See [0035]-[0037], [0046]-[0048]).
It would It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan top have altered the invention of Zafari as by using the Ti-5553 alloy composition described by Manda, because Manda teaches that this alloy is useful for tailoring mechanical properties (I. Introduction), and further to have added the alloying elements P and S to the alloy as taught by Nagata in order to secure improved machinability, ductility, hot working, and fatigue properties as taught by Nagata (cols. 4-5), and further to have altered the invention of Zafari as by using the additive manufacturing method of Rockstroh to make turbine blades from titanium alloy powder, because Rockstroh teaches that the method is more efficient by creating multiple devices simultaneously ([0008]). The combination of the known techniques in additive manufacturing of Rockstroh to the invention of Zafari would have been prima facie obvious to the skilled artisan at time of filing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 15 January 2026 have been considered. Applicant argues that Zafari as cited does not anticipate claim 3 as amended.
In response, new grounds of rejection are presented.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights