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. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of group I, claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 11 March 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would be no burden in examining all groups of invention. This is not found persuasive because the reasons why a burden exists were described in the prior Office action, and applicant has not addressed those reasons. The unembellished conclusory statement that no burden exists is not persuasive. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11 March 2026. Drawings The drawings were received on 18 October 2023. These drawings are accepted. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim(s) 1- 3 and 17- 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Wert, J. A., and N. E. Paton. "Enhanced superplasticity and strength in modified Ti-6AI-4V alloys." Metallurgical transactions A 14.12 (1983): 2535-2544 (hereinafter “Wert”) . Regarding claim 1. Wert teaches titanium alloys with enhanced superplasticity (title). Wert teaches Example titanium alloys (see II. Experimental Procedure and Table I). Wert teaches example Heat Number 5992, including all o ying elements of Fe, Co, and Ni. The composition of Heat 5992 is compared with the claimed invention in the chart below (values in wt%). Element Claim 1 Wert Heat Number 5992 Al V Co Two of: Sn, Cr, Fe, Cu, Ni titanium 4-6.5 1.5-4.5 1.3-2.1 at most 4.5 balance 5.85 3.98 2.10 Fe: 0.09 Ni: 0.01 balance The composition of Heat 5992 falls within the claimed compositional ranges, anticipating the entire ranges. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2131.03. Regarding claim 2, Wert teaches inherently a value of 87.97 % titanium in heat 5992 (alloying elements + Ti adding up to 100%). Applicant is directed to MPEP 2112. Regarding claim 3, Wert teaches equiaxed microstructure (see Fig. 3). Regarding claims 17-18, it is noted that the term “additively manufactured” is a product-by-process limitation. In this case the same composition as claimed, and having the same microstructure (equiaxed) as claimed, would have had the same properties as claimed. 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. Claim (s) 1- 5, 7, 11, 13 - 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220316030 A1 (hereinafter “Foltz”) . Regarding claim 1, Foltz teaches an alpha beta titanium alloy for aircraft (see [0003]-[0005] and SUMMARY). Foltz teaches that the alloy may include aluminum, molybdenum equivalent, and cobalt (SUMMARY and [0046]-[0047]). Foltz teaches that the alloy may further include other alloying elements such as tin ([0048]-[0051]). Foltz teaches a number of Examples at Tables 1-3). Foltz also teaches claim s 18- 35, which overlaps the compositional ranges. The alloy of claim 35 is compared with the claimed alloy in the chart below (values in wt%). Element Claim 1 Foltz claim 35 Al V Co Two of: Sn, Cr, Fe, Cu, Ni Ti 4-6.5 1.5-4.5 1.3-2.1 at most 4.5 balance 3.5-5.5 2.1-3.8 0.3-1.6 Sn: 1.5-4.5; Fe: 0.2-1.2 balance The composition of Foltz claim 35 overlaps the claimed composition, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. said range overlapping the range as claimed and establishing a prima facie case of obviousness for that range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to have selected a composition in the ranges as claimed because Foltz teaches the same utility over overlapping ranges. Applicant is further directed to MPEP 2144.05. Regarding claim 2, the amount of Ti in the alloy of Foltz also overlaps the claimed range by being the balance of the overlapping composition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to have selected a composition in the ranges as claimed because Foltz teaches the same utility over overlapping ranges. Applicant is further directed to MPEP 2144.05. Regarding claim 3, Foltz teaches that the alloy may be annealed (See [0070]-[0071], [0077]). The material thus processed would have been reasonably expected to show an equiaxed structure by the skilled artisan. Regarding claim 4, Foltz teaches iron at 0.2-1.2% (claim 35). Foltz teaches further that the alloy may include incidental amounts of Cr (claim 23). Regarding claim 5, Foltz teaches that the alloy may include incidental amounts of copper )(see claim 23). Regarding claim 7, Foltz teaches overlapping amounts of Co and V (see claim 35). Regarding claim 11, Foltz teaches tin at 1.5-4.5% (claim 35). Foltz teaches further that the alloy may include incidental amounts of Cr (claim 23). Regarding claim 13, Foltz teaches that the alloy may include incidental amounts of nickel (see claim 23). Foltz further teaches that the inventive alloys may include up to 0.5% of an alloying element for corrosion resistance, which may be nickel (See [0050]). Regarding claim 14, Foltz teaches overlapping amounts of the alloying elements (see claims 35 and 23 and [0050] ). Regarding claim 15, Foltz further teaches that the inventive alloys may include up to 0.5% of an alloying element for corrosion resistance, which may be nickel (See [0050]). The amount of Ni taught by Foltz overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Regarding claim 16, Foltz teaches overlapping amounts of the alloying elements (see claims 35 and 23 and [0050]). Regarding claims 17-18, it is noted that the term “additively manufactured” is a product-by-process limitation. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2113. In this case Foltz teaches a material that may be annealed as needed (See [0070]-[0071], [0077]). The structure of the annealed materials would have been the same. Allowable Subject Matter NO claims are allowable. Claims 6, 8-10, and 12 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 prior art cited does not teach the combination of Cu and the other alloying elements in claim 6, nor the combination of Cr and the alloying elements in claims 8-10 and 12. Other prior art such as EP 0408313 A1 (“Ogawa”) does not teach or fairly suggest the combination of elements as required by these claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 5156807 A teaches a titanium alloy including Cu and Cr alloying elements. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6510 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Curt Mayes can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT CHRISTOPHER S. KESSLER Primary Examiner Art Unit 1734 /CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1759