DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 29 March 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are currently amended and remain pending in the application. Claim 5 has been canceled. No new claim(s) have been added. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 12 February 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In this instance, claim 8 depends on claim 7 but does not specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. Claim 7 claims a recoverable strain of 4.3% to 7%. This implies that the maximum recoverable strain is 7%. Therefore, claim 8 does not further limit claim 7 by reciting this limitation. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1,2, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2018339342 of Hofmann in view of US20210040585 of Alabort further in view of US2020392613 of Won.
Claim 1, as currently amended, claims a multifunctional titanium alloy made from two or more metal elements; wherein the titanium alloy has a molecular formula of TiaZrbHfcNbdSne; wherein a, b, c, d, and e represent atomic percentages of the metal elements, falling within the ranges of 45 ≤ a ≤ 55, 36 ≤ b ≤ 43, 3 ≤ c ≤ 6, 3.5 ≤ d ≤ 7.5, and 1.5 ≤ e ≤ 3, the titanium alloy exhibits a metastable phase ß matrix and having an initial microstructure characterized by an equiaxed ultra-fine grain (UFG) structure; and wherein the UFG structure is reinforced by deformation-induced hierarchical nanostructures during tensile deformation, such that the titanium alloy demonstrates a tensile strength of 1.75 GPa or more and a uniform elongation of at least 20%.
Hofmann teaches Dendrite-Reinforced Titanium-Based Metal Matrix Composites in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Hofmann discloses an alloy having at least 85 atomic % of at least Ti and at least one component selected from the group of Zr, Hf, Ta, Nb, V, and Mo, and one or more additional components, X, selected from the group of Co, Fe, Ni, Cu, Al, B, Ag, Pd, Au, Pd, C, Si, and Sn, wherein the atomic % of Ti is greater than any other single component, Para[0007]. Applicant claims a range for Ti+Zr+Hf+Nb+Sn of 89-100 at%. This overlaps with the prior art range of at least 85 at%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, Hofmann covers all compositional combinations of the claimed invention. Hofmann also teaches an ultra-fine grain (UFG) structure, Para[0080], and nanostructures, Para[0059],[0063]. Hofmann discloses that an increased dendrite volume fraction also makes the alloys more viscous and significantly raises their melting temperature, making them more difficult to cast, Para[0078]. Hofmann also teaches the fabrication of metastable alloys and nanocrystalline metals, Para[0078]. Hofmann discloses that the Ti-alloy part fabricated according to the methods of the application exhibits an ultimate tensile strength of greater than 1 GPa, a total strain to failure of at least 5% or more, Para[0083]. These overlap with the claimed range for tensile strength and elongation. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05.
Alabort teaches a bio-compatible titanium alloy optimized for additive manufacturing in a similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Alabort discloses that Metastable β alloys have good weldability and retain good mechanical properties after welding even without the need of post-heat treatment. In the bio-medical field, there is a need to design alloys that have low elastic modulus (to be close to that of the bone) and to use alloyants that improve bio-compatibility and osseo-integration. Metastable β alloys (BCC) have been shown to decrease substantially the elastic modulus when compared to α and β alloys (HCP+BCC). Moreover, the use of Nb, Zr, and Ta (all of them β stabilisers) is known to improve the bio-compatibility and osseo-integration of titanium alloys. Thus, it is desirable for the purposes here exposed to design a metastable β alloy employing the so-called ‘vital’ elements, Para[0070].
Won discloses a high-entropy alloy, and method for producing the same in a similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Won teaches that the present disclosure relates to a high-entropy alloy and a method for producing the same, in which cryogenic temperature rolling is conducted at a low strain, thereby to obtain nano-grains, such that the alloy has both of ultrahigh strength and excellent hydrogen embrittlement resistance, Para[0002]. Won also teaches that the high-entropy alloy can be based on a body-centered cubic (BCC) crystals structure, Para[0003], such as the BCC structure disclosed in the metastable β alloys taught by Alabort. Won discloses that the tensile strength of the CTCR rod showed a remarkably high value of 1700 MPa or greater. In addition, the CTCR rod showed adequate break elongation of 10% or greater, Para[0109]. These ranges overlap with the claimed ranges for tensile strength and uniform elongation. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, based on the teachings of Hofmann, Alabort, and Won, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the titanium alloy disclosed by Hofmann with the metastable ß phase taught by Alabort and Won in order to lower the young’s modulus, increase bio-compatibility, achieve ultra-high strength, and excellent embrittlement resistance resulting in the tensile strength and uniform elongation taught by Won and Hofmann. Thus, Hofmann in view of Alabort and Won covers all limitations of claim 1.
Claim 2 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the titanium alloy comprises 48 at.% of Ti, 39 at.% of Zr, 4.5 at.% of Hf, 6.3 at.% of Nb, and 2.2 at.% of Sn.
Hofmann discloses an alloy having at least 85 atomic % of at least Ti and at least one component selected from the group of Zr, Hf, Ta, Nb, V, and Mo, and one or more additional components, X, selected from the group of Co, Fe, Ni, Cu, Al, B, Ag, Pd, Au, Pd, C, Si, and Sn, wherein the atomic % of Ti is greater than any other single component, Para[0007]. Thus, Hofmann covers the composition of claim 2. Therefore, Hofmann in view of Alabort and Won covers all limitations of claim 2.
Claim 6 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the titanium alloy endures over 1000 fatigue cycles under a constant tensile stress of 1.4 GPa.
While Hofmann, Alabort, and Won do not specifically teach the numerical limitation for fatigue cycles, Hofmann, Alabort, and Won disclose a material of the same chemical composition and microstructure as the claimed invention. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, see MPEP 2112.01. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Thus, Hofmann in view of Alabort and Won covers all limitations of claim 6.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2018339342 of Hofmann in view of US20210040585 of Alabort and US2020392613 of Won, as cited above, further in view of CN115058667 of Ma.
Claim 3 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the hierarchical nanostructures comprise nanotwins, and wherein one or more nanobands are confined within the nanotwins.
While Hofmann teaches nanostructures, nanotwins are not specifically taught. Alabort does not teach nanostructures.
Won teaches rolling the annealed and homogenized initial alloy material into a rod, thereby to produce a high-entropy alloy having intersecting twins as a microstructure, and secondary fine twins formed in the intersecting twins, Para[0012], Fig[6a]. The secondary fine twins are considered equivalent to the claimed nanobands. Won also teaches that the high-entropy alloy according to the present disclosure may have maximized grain refinement by the twins effectively segmenting the grains. Accordingly, the alloy may exhibit high strength characteristics, Para[0016].
Ma teaches a preparation method of nano twin crystal high-entropy alloy with low temperature and high toughness in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Ma discloses that as a special microstructure nanotwins can bring excellent strength-ductility synergy to metallic materials, Para[0004]. Ma also teaches that the interaction between dislocations and nanotwins generates microstrips and shear bands, Para[0009].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the alloy disclosed in Hofmann and Alabort with the nanotwins taught by Won and Ma in order to maximize grain refinement achieving high-strength characteristics and excellent strength-ductility synergy. Thus, Hofmann, Alabort, Won, and Ma cover all limitations of claim 3.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2018339342 of Hofmann in view of US20210040585 of Alabort and US2020392613 of Won, as cited above, further in view of US10370751 of Thomas.
Claim 4 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the UFG structure has an average size of 300 nm to 2 µm.
Hofmann discloses grain size of 1 to 20 µm, Para[0024]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05.
Alabort does not teach a specific grain size.
Won teaches a grain size of less than 300 µm, Para[0039]. Won teaches that the disclosed grain refinement contributes to improvement of the yield strength, Para[0085]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05.
Thomas teaches thermomechanical processing of alpha-beta titanium alloys in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Thomas discloses that the term “ultrafine grain” refers to alpha grain sizes of 1.0 µm or less, Para[0005]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, based on the teaches of Hofmann, Won, and Thomas it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the titanium alloy disclosed by Hofmann and Alabort with grain size in the range of 300nm to 2 µm. Thus, Hofmann, Alabort, Won, and Thomas cover all limitations of claim 4.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2018339342 of Hofmann in view of US20210040585 of Alabort and US2020392613 of Won, as cited above, further in view of WO2018089028 of Cai and CN110541133 of Pan.
Claim 7 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the titanium alloy exhibits a recoverable strain of 4.3% to 7%.
While Hofmann, Alabort, and Won do not teach the specific numerical limitations related to recovery from deformation, Hofmann, Alabort, and Won disclose a material of the same chemical composition and microstructure as the claimed invention. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, see MPEP 2112.01. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Cai discloses Ni-free beta Ti alloys with share memory and super-elastic properties in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Cai teaches that the alloys have a capability to recover of more than 5% deformation strain, Para[0006]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Cai discloses that Niobium and tin are provided in the alloy to control beta phase stability, which enhances the ability of the materials to exhibit shape memory or super-elastic properties at a desired application temperature (e.g., body temperature). Hafnium and/or zirconium may be interchangeably added to increase the radiopacity of the material, and also contribute to the super elasticity of the material, Para[0006].
Pan discloses a method for improving super-elasticity of beta titanium alloy in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Pan discloses a maximum recoverable strain of 7.1%, Para[0042]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Pan teaches that compared with the traditional Ti-Ni, Cu-Al-Ni shape memory alloy, the titanium-based shape memory alloy also has excellent toughness, good corrosion resistance and biocompatibility, Para[0003].
Therefore, based on the teaching of Cai and Pan, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the alloy disclosed by Hofmann, Alabort, and Won with the recoverable strain disclosed in Cai and Pan to achieve excellent toughness, good corrosion resistance, biocompatibility, and super-elasticity. Thus, Hofmann, Alabort, Won, Cai, and Pan cover all limitations of claim 7.
Claim 8 claims that the titanium alloy of claim 7 achieves a maximum recoverable strain of approximately 7%. This does not further limit claim 7. See 112(d) rejection above.
While Hofmann, Alabort, and Won do not teach the specific numerical limitations related to recovery from deformation, Hofmann, Alabort, and Won disclose a material of the same chemical composition and microstructure as the claimed invention. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, see MPEP 2112.01. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Cai discloses Ni-free beta Ti alloys with share memory and super-elastic properties in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Cai teaches that the alloys have a capability to recover of more than 5% deformation strain, Para[0006]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Cai discloses that Niobium and tin are provided in the alloy to control beta phase stability, which enhances the ability of the materials to exhibit shape memory or super-elastic properties at a desired application temperature (e.g., body temperature). Hafnium and/or zirconium may be interchangeably added to increase the radiopacity of the material, and also contribute to the super elasticity of the material, Para[0006].
Pan discloses a method for improving super-elasticity of beta titanium alloy in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Pan discloses a maximum recoverable strain of 7.1%, Para[0042]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Pan teaches that compared with the traditional Ti-Ni, Cu-Al-Ni shape memory alloy, the titanium-based shape memory alloy also has excellent toughness, good corrosion resistance and biocompatibility, Para[0003].
Therefore, based on the teaching of Cai and Pan, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the alloy disclosed by Hofmann, Alabort, and Won with the recoverable strain disclosed in Cai and Pan to achieve excellent toughness, good corrosion resistance, biocompatibility, and super-elasticity. Thus, Hofmann, Alabort, Won, Cai, and Pan cover all limitations of claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that (remarks, page 2) Hofmann relies on the presence of pre-existing dendritic structure (reinforcing phases) that are formed during the casting process and exist in the matrix prior to any deformation, and the instant invention, as currently amended, relies on a metastable ß phase. This is not found persuasive as Hofmann teaches the fabrication of metastable alloys and nanocrystalline metals, Para[0078]. Furthermore, Hofmann teaches away from the use of dendrites. Hofmann discloses that Ti-based MMCs in accordance with embodiments incorporate high concentrations of dendrites, however, as found by prior art studies an increased dendrite volume fraction also makes the alloys more viscous and significantly raises their melting temperature, making them more difficult to cast, Para[0078]. Additionally, applicant’s arguments are considered moot because the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment of claim 1 also relies upon Alabort and Won to teach the metastable ß phase.
Applicant argues that (remarks, page 3) Hofmann does not teach that the specific ratio of elements is critical to triggering the specific nano structuring required to break the traditional strength-ductility trade-off. This is not found persuasive as Hofmann teaches that notably, the MMCs' advantageous combination of properties can, at times, exceed the rule of mixtures, which, typically, dictates a balance between strength and ductility, Para[0059]. Additionally, applicant’s arguments are considered moot because the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment of claim 1 relies upon Alabort and Won to teach the metastable ß phase. Won also teaches that the alloy has improved strength and toughness at a cryogenic temperature compared to those in a room temperature, and is out of a banana curve as a relationship between strength and elongation, Para[0005].
Applicant argues that (remarks, page 3,4) it would not be obvious to incorporate the nanotwinning disclosed by Ma into the alloy taught by Hofmann because Ma teaches a different alloy system. Examiner asserts that a reference need not be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in order to be analogous art, see MPEP 2141.01. Additionally, applicant’s arguments are considered moot because the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment of claim 1 relies upon Alabort and Won to teach the metastable ß phase. The new grounds of rejection also rely upon Won for teaching rolling the annealed and homogenized initial alloy material into a rod, thereby to produce a high-entropy alloy having intersecting twins as a microstructure, and secondary fine twins formed in the intersecting twins, Para[0012], Fig[6a].
Applicant argues that (remarks, page 5) it would not be obvious to combine the UFG average crystal size of Thomas to the alloy taught by Hofmann because they disclose different metallurgical phases. Examiner asserts that Thomas teaches a range defining the grain size for UFG grain structure in general not just for the specific alloy disclosed by Thomas, Para[0005]. Additionally, applicant’s arguments are considered moot because the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment of claim 1 relies upon Alabort and Won to teach the metastable ß phase. The new grounds of rejection also rely upon Won for a grain size of less than 300 µm, Para[0039].
Applicant argues that (remarks, page 5) the recoverable strain taught by Cai and Pan would not be rendered obvious because they mention significantly lower strength than the claimed invention. Applicant’s arguments are considered moot because the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment of claim 1 relies upon Alabort and Won to teach the metastable ß phase. Won also teaches tensile strength of 1700 MPa or greater and an elongation of 10% or greater, Para[0110], in addition to teaching a break from the typical strength and elongation relationship, Para[0005]. Furthermore, While Hofmann, Alabort, and Won do not teach the specific numerical limitations related to recovery from deformation, Hofmann, Alabort, and Won disclose a material of the same chemical composition and microstructure as the claimed invention. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, see MPEP 2112.01. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims, such as tensile strength and recovery from strain are necessarily present.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has attached previously-cited foreign references that were inadvertently omitted in the non-final action. Reference Included: CN115058667, WO2018089028, CN110541133
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 JACOB BENJAMIN STILES whose telephone number is (571)272-0598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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 Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JACOB BENJAMIN STILES/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights