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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/13/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-5 is/are pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and/or 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the office action mailed 10/17/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakata et al. (JP-2001158925-A).
Regarding Claim 1, Sakata teaches a method of forming a Titanium alloy (claim 1) product comprising: Mixing and kneading metal powder and binder; [0080]
Injection molding to form a green part, [0085]
Degreasing to remove the binder, [0086]
Sintering which his performed at 900-1350 C for 0.5-8 hrs [0061-0063] overlapping with the claimed range of 800-995 C. In the case where a claimed range overlaps with a range taught by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05(I)) However, the prior art does not teach that sintering was performed for 48-200 hours. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the sintering time to the claimed range as extended sintering time is known to improve density closer to theoretical density, improving mechanical properties such as strength.
Regarding Claim 2, the sintering is performed in a vacuum of 10^-6 Torr [0066] which reads on 10^-3 Pa or less.
Regarding Claim 3, the prior art teaches the powder may be hydrogenated to precent adsorption of oxygen and an oxygen content of 0.8% or less [0023] is taught for the sintered product, and overlaps with the claimed range of 0.13% by mass or less; however, the claimed invention requires the starting powder to have 0.13% mass or less. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to minimize the starting oxygen content in the powder to ensure oxygen is not present before degreasing and any formed during degreasing and sintering is further removed.
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, an exemplary composition of Ti-6 wt% al-4wt% V is used [0090], which is considered to read on the claimed limitation of 5.5-6.5% Al, 3.5-4.5%V and the claimed limitations of Fe, O, C, N, H as the balance is Ti, so the concentration for these elements are assumed 0 or trace.
Regarding a relative density of 97% or more, porosity which is the inverse of density was taught to be preferably 5% or less (95% dense or more) [0067], overlapping with the claimed range. In the case where a claimed range overlaps with a range taught by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05(I))
The prior art is silent regarding the mean grain size and aspect ratio as claimed and the fatigue strength as claimed, however since the products are substantially identical and made by similar methods, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect similar properties under the expectation that similar products have similar properties. (See MPEP 2112.01(I)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Sakata does not teach or suggest sintering for 48-200 hours and the recited range has the beneficial property of forming a low oxygen alloy, with high relative density, and high fatigue strength, However, this is not persuasive, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to lengthen sintering time to further increase densification and improved strength is a known benefit of high-density sintered products. Further, the degree of sintering (relative density) and oxygen content are already broadly disclosed by the prior art (See Claim 1 rejection);
Regarding Claim 4, applicant argues the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed fatigue strength; however the present rejection relies on the products being substantially similar and made by similar methods where such a property would be considered met by the prior art.
Regarding Claim 3, the current rejection addresses the starting oxygen content of the metal powder.
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 RICARDO D MORALES whose telephone number is (571)272-6691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9 am- 4 pm.
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 5712726297. 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.
/RICARDO D MORALES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights