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
Pending and under examination: claims 1-16
Rejected: claims 9-16
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 1-8 be found allowable, claims 9-16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being substantial duplicates thereof, respectively. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janschek et al. (US 20170081751 A1). In the interest of remaining concise, because claims 1-8 and 9-16 are substantial duplicates of each other, the rejections of duplicate claims will be combined.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Janschek teaches a TiAl alloy having the following composition (in atom %):
[0023] 40%-48% Al,
[0024] 2%-8% Nb,
[0025] 0.1%-9% of at least one element that stabilizes the β phase, selected from Mo, V, Ta, Cr, Mn, Ni, Cu, Fe, Si,
[0026] 0%-0.5% B,
[0027] a balance of Ti.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05 I.).
With regard to the claimed “wherein lamellar grains have an average grain size of 20 µm or more and 200 µm or less” in claims 1 and 9, and the respective lamellar grain size limitations in claims 7-8 and 15-16, Janschek does not explicitly teach this limitation, but instead teaches a substantially similar process and discusses the effects of varying certain parameters. Specifically, Janschek teaches doing a first heat treatment step at 1230-1270°C for 50-100 min [0056], [0076], after which the component is cooled down relatively quickly to a temperature in the range of 900-950°C [0076]. This is followed by a stabilization and relaxation annealing operation at a temperature in the range of 850-950°C, for which it is possible either to heat the component once again or for the prior cooling to already take place to this temperature range [0076]. The hold time here is about 300-360 min [0076].
Moreover, Janschek identifies the relationship between recrystallization annealing, and the formation of a fine lamellar structure (i.e., “α” structure) [0055]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use or modify Janschek’s teachings to arrive at the claimed invention, because varying the presence, amount, and characteristics of the lamellar (α) structure, which imparts properties [0003], [0055] suitable for high stress applications (such as in turbofan aircraft engines) [0003], such as lower weight/density and enhanced static and dynamic properties [0003].
Regarding claims 2-6 and 10-14, as discussed in the rejections of claims 1 and 9 above, respectively, Janschek teaches a TiAl alloy having the following composition (in atom %):
[0023] 40%-48% Al,
[0024] 2%-8% Nb,
[0025] 0.1%-9% of at least one element that stabilizes the β phase, selected from Mo, V, Ta, Cr, Mn, Ni, Cu, Fe, Si,
[0026] 0%-0.5% B,
[0027] a balance of Ti.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05 I.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adil Siddiqui whose telephone number is (571)272-8047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM CST.
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 Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/ADIL A. SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735