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. 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) 1-2, 5-9 , and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US5997808). Regarding Claim s 1 and 11 , 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) ) Regarding Claim 2 , the prior art range of 42-48% encompasses the claimed range of 47-49%. In the case where a claimed range lies inside of a range taught by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for the claimed range. ( See MPEP 2144.05(I) ) Regarding Claim 5 , the prior art range of 2-5% Nb and 42-48% Al and 3-8% Zr encompasses the claimed range of 2% Nb and 47-49% Al and 2-3% Zr. In the case where a claimed range lies inside of a range taught by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for the claimed range. ( See MPEP 2144.05(I) ) Regarding Claim 6 , the prior art range of 2-5% Nb and 42-48% Al and 3-8% Zr encompasses the claimed range of 2% Nb and 47-48% Al and 2-4% Zr. In the case where a claimed range lies inside of a range taught by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for the claimed range. ( See MPEP 2144.05(I) ) Regarding Claim 7 , the prior art range of 42-48% Al and 3-8% Zr encompasses the claimed range of 47-48% Al and 2-4% Zr. In the case where a claimed range lies inside of a range taught by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for the claimed range. ( See MPEP 2144.05(I) ) Regarding Claim 8 , the prior art range of 42-48% Al and 3-8% Zr encompasses the claimed range of 47-48% Al and 2-3% Zr. In the case where a claimed range lies inside of a range taught by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for the claimed range. ( See MPEP 2144.05(I) ) Regarding Claim 9 , the prior art is silent regarding room temperature ultimate tensile strength and tensile fracture strain as claimed; however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the prior art product to have similar physical properties such as the recited claimed properties under the expectation that substantially identical products have similar properties. ( See MPEP 2112.01(I) ) Claim(s) 1 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US5997808) in view of Fantao et al . (CN104588653A). Regarding Claim 1 2 , 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, Fantao teaches a method of forming a TiAl alloy where powder is formed into a blank sheath and is sintered (abstract) by hot isostatic pressing of 1100-1280 C (See claim 6); I n 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) ) ; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to performed the claimed method steps as taught by Fantao to form an alloy product as taught by Jones for the purpose of forming a dense TiAl alloy product. Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nazmy et al. (US 5286443 A1). Regarding Claim s 1 and 11 , Nazmy teaches a TiAl alloy comprising (abstract): Element Claimed Range Prior Art Range Al 47-50 46-5 4 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) ) Regarding Claim 2 , the prior art range of 46-54% encompasses the claimed range of 47-49%. In the case where a claimed range lies inside of a range taught by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for the claimed range. ( See MPEP 2144.05(I) ) Regarding Claim 3 , the prior art range of 1-4% Nb and 46-54% Al and 1-4% Zr encompasses the claimed range of 1% Nb and 47-48% Al and 2-4% Zr. In the case where a claimed range lies inside of a range taught by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for the claimed range. ( See MPEP 2144.05(I) ) Regarding Claim 4 , the prior art range of 1-4% Nb and 46-54% Al and 1-4% Zr encompasses the claimed range of 1% Nb and 47-48% Al and 2-3% Zr. In the case where a claimed range lies inside of a range taught by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for the claimed range. ( See MPEP 2144.05(I) ) Regarding Claim 5 , the prior art range of 1-4% Nb and 46-54% Al and 1-4% Zr encompasses the claimed range of 2% Nb and 47-49% Al and 2-3% Zr. In the case where a claimed range lies inside of a range taught by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for the claimed range. ( See MPEP 2144.05(I) ) Regarding Claim 6 , the prior art range of 1-4% Nb and 46-54% Al and 1-4% Zr encompasses the claimed range of 2% Nb and 47-48% Al and 2-4% Zr. In the case where a claimed range lies inside of a range taught by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for the claimed range. ( See MPEP 2144.05(I) ) Regarding Claim 7 , the prior art range of 46-54% Al and 1-4% Zr encompasses the claimed range of 47-48% Al and 2-4% Zr. In the case where a claimed range lies inside of a range taught by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for the claimed range. ( See MPEP 2144.05(I) ) Regarding Claim 8 , the prior art range of 46-54% Al and 1-4% Zr encompasses the claimed range of 47-48% Al and 2-3% Zr. In the case where a claimed range lies inside of a range taught by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for the claimed range. ( See MPEP 2144.05(I) ) Regarding Claim 9 , the prior art is silent regarding room temperature ultimate tensile strength and tensile fracture strain as claimed; however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the prior art product to have similar physical properties such as the recited claimed properties under the expectation that substantially identical products have similar properties. ( See MPEP 2112.01(I) ) Claim(s) 1 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nazmy et al. (US5286443A1) in view of Fantao et al . (CN104588653A). Regarding Claim 1 2 , 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, Fantao teaches a method of forming a TiAl alloy where powder is formed into a blank sheath and is sintered (abstract) by hot isostatic pressing of 1100-1280 C (See claim 6); 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) ); therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to performed the claimed method steps as taught by Fantao to form an alloy product as taught by Nazmy for the purpose of forming a dense TiAl alloy product. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT RICARDO D MORALES whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6691 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Sally Merkling can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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