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 04/22/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 12-14 is/are pending in the application.
Withdrawal of Finality of Last Office Action
Since this application is eligible for the transitional procedure of 37 CFR 1.129(a), and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.129(a). Applicant’s first submission after final filed on 08/26/2026 has been entered.
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) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US5997808) in view of Fujikawa et al. (US5096518).
Regarding Claim 12, Jones teaches a TiAl alloy comprising (abstract):
Element
Claimed Range
Prior Art Range
Al
47-50
42-48
Nb
1-2
2-5
Zr
2-5
3-8
B
0.05-0.3
0-1
Ti
Balance
Balance
The prior art range overlaps with the claimed ranges for the claimed elements, 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))
Jones teaches a TiAl alloy but does not teach the claimed method steps of sealing by filling a metal sheath TiAl alloy powder and hot isostatic pressure treating from 1200-1300 C. However, Fujikawa teaches a method of forming a TiAl alloy where powder is formed into a sealed blank sheath (encapsulated foil) and is sintered (abstract) by hot isostatic pressing of 1250 C at 2000 kgf/cm2 (196 MPa)(See Abstract and Col. 13, Lines 49-50) reading on the claimed temperature range of 1200-1300 C and reading on the claimed pressure range of 150 MPa or higher for the purpose of undergoing uniform conformity during pressing and can be easily removed (Col. 3, Lines 19-30)
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to performed the claimed method steps as taught by Fujikawa to form an alloy product as taught by Jones for the purpose of forming a dense TiAl alloy product with uniform conformity during pressing and where the sheath can be easily removed.
Regarding Claim 13, the Al range of 42-48% overlaps with the claimed range of 47-48% and the Zr range of 3-8 overlaps with the claimed range of 2-5% Zr 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));
Regarding Claim 14, the Al range of 42-48% overlaps with the claimed range of 47 or 48% and the Zr range of 3-8 overlaps with the claimed range of 5 or 3% Zr 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));
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nazmy et al. (US5286443A1) in view of Fujikawa et al. (US5096518).
Regarding Claim 12, Nazmy teaches a TiAl alloy comprising (abstract):
Element
Claimed Range
Prior Art Range
Al
47-50
46-54
Nb
1-2
(Me)1-4
Zr
2-5
(Me)1-4
B
0.05-0.3
0.01-1
Ti
Balance
Balance
The prior art range overlaps with the claimed ranges for the claimed elements, 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))
Nazmy teaches a TiAl alloy but does not teach the claimed method steps of sealing by filling a metal sheath TiAl alloy powder and hot isostatic pressure treating from 1200-1300 C. However, Fujikawa teaches a method of forming a TiAl alloy where powder is formed into a sealed blank sheath (encapsulated foil) and is sintered (abstract) by hot isostatic pressing of 1250 C at 2000 kgf/cm2 (196 MPa)(See Abstract and Col. 13, Lines 49-50) reading on the claimed temperature range of 1200-1300 C and reading on the claimed pressure range of 150 MPa or higher for the purpose of undergoing uniform conformity during pressing and can be easily removed (Col. 3, Lines 19-30)
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to performed the claimed method steps as taught by Fujikawa to form an alloy product as taught by Nazmy for the purpose of forming a dense TiAl alloy product with uniform conformity during pressing and where the sheath can be easily removed.
Regarding Claim 13, the Al range of 46-54% overlaps with the claimed range of 47-48% and the Zr range of 1-4 overlaps with the claimed range of 2-5% Zr 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));
Regarding Claim 14, the Al range of 46-54% overlaps with the claimed range of 47 or 48% and the Zr range of 1-4 overlaps with the claimed range of 5 or 3% Zr 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));
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 4-5, filed 08/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 12-14 under Jones in view of Fantao; and Nazmy in view of Fantao have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nazmy et al. (US5286443A1) in view of Fujikawa et al. (US5096518); and Jones et al. (US5997808) in view of Fujikawa et al. (US5096518).
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