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 the Claims
Claims 1-11 are pending wherein claims 1-11 are amended. Upon reconsideration, the previously indicated allowable subject matter is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to the recitation “the volume fraction of primary alpha” in claim 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With respect to the recitation “the solution treated and aged material” in claims 1-2, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valentinovich et al. (US 8,771,590).
In regard to claim 1, the closest prior art to Valentinovich et al. (‘590) discloses titanium base alloys having compositions relative to that of the instant invention as set forth below (column 2).
Element
Instant Claim
(weight percent)
Valentinovich et al. (‘590)
(weight percent)
Overlap
Al
3 – 6.5
4 – 6
4 – 6
N
0 – 0.05
0 – 0.05
0 – 0.05
O
0.05 – 0.3
0 – 0.2
0.05 – 0.2
C
0 – 0.1
0 – 0.1
0 – 0.1
Zr
0 – 2
0.1 – less than 0.7
0.1 – less than 0.7
V
4 – 6.5
4.5 – 6
4.5 – 6
Mo
4 – 6.5
4.5 – 6
4.5 – 6
Cr
2 – 3.5
2 – 3.6
2 – 3.5
Fe
0.2 – 1
0.2 – 0.5
0.2 – 0.5
Ti
Balance
Balance
Balance
The Examiner notes that the amounts of aluminum, nitrogen, oxygen, carbon, zirconium, vanadium, molybdenum, chromium, and iron in the titanium base alloys disclosed by Valentinovich et al. (‘590) overlap the amounts of the instant invention, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to select the claimed amounts of aluminum, nitrogen, oxygen, carbon, zirconium, vanadium, molybdenum, chromium, and iron from the amounts disclosed by Valentinovich et al. (‘590) because Valentinovich et al. (‘590) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
Still regarding claim 1, the aluminum equivalent as well as the molybdenum equivalent would be satisfied due to the strong overlap in the contents.
Still regarding claim 1, the instant claim does not require a solution treated and aged material, but rather a material that may later be solution treated and aged and therefore Valentinovich et al. (‘590) would read on such a material though the heat treatment procedure disclosed therein may result in a different content of primary alpha phase.
In regard to claim 2, Valentinovich et al. (‘590) discloses a substantially similar composition. Therefore, when the alloy of Valentinovich et al. (‘590) is solution treated and aged in the same manner of the instant invention, these properties would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
In regard to claim 3, Valentinovich et al. (‘590) discloses a substantially similar composition. Therefore, when the alloy of Valentinovich et al. (‘590) is solution treated and aged in the same manner of the instant invention, this beta-subgrain size would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
In regard to claim 4, Valentinovich et al. (‘590) discloses forming bars up to 75 mm thick (column 2).
In regard to claim 5, Valentinovich et al. (‘590) discloses forming cylindrical stock of 40 mm diameter (column 2). However, merely changing the thickness (diameter) of a prior art product would not patentably distinguish from the prior art product. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A).
In regard to claim 6, Valentinovich et al. (‘590) discloses a substantially similar composition. Therefore, when the alloy of Valentinovich et al. (‘590) is solution treated and aged in the same manner of the instant invention, this tensile strength would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
In regard to claim 7, Valentinovich et al. (‘590) discloses a substantially similar composition. Therefore, when the alloy of Valentinovich et al. (‘590) is solution treated and aged in the same manner of the instant invention, the claimed elongation and reduction of area would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
In regard to claim 8, Valentinovich et al. (‘590) discloses a substantially similar composition. Therefore, when the alloy of Valentinovich et al. (‘590) is solution treated and aged in the same manner of the instant invention, this sheer strength would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regard to claim 9, the closest prior art to Valentinovich et al. (‘590) discloses titanium base alloys having compositions relative to that of the instant invention as set forth below (column 2).
Element
Instant Claim
(weight percent)
Valentinovich et al. (‘590)
(weight percent)
Overlap
Al
3 – 6.5
4 – 6
4 – 6
N
0 – 0.05
0 – 0.05
0 – 0.05
O
0.05 – 0.3
0 – 0.2
0.05 – 0.2
C
0 – 0.1
0 – 0.1
0 – 0.1
Zr
0 – 2
0.1 – less than 0.7
0.1 – less than 0.7
V
4 – 6.5
4.5 – 6
4.5 – 6
Mo
4 – 6.5
4.5 – 6
4.5 – 6
Cr
2 – 3.5
2 – 3.6
2 – 3.5
Fe
0.2 – 1
0.2 – 0.5
0.2 – 0.5
Ti
Balance
Balance
Balance
The aluminum equivalent as well as the molybdenum equivalent would be satisfied. Valentinovich et al. (‘590) specifies that the general fraction of alpha phase is 60-70% while teaching a thermomechanical procedure of forging in beta, alpha+beta, beta, alpha+beta fields with the deformation in the alpha+beta filed within 45-50% for the cylindrical 40 mm billet in diameter followed by solution heat treating by heating up to 790°C 3 hours of holding followed by air cooling and then aging by heating up to 560°C and holding for 8 hours followed by air cooling whereas the instant invention teaches that prior to drawing, the stock is annealed at a temperature of beta transus temperature minus 20°C to beta transus temperature minus 50°C and cooled to room temperature at a mean rate of at least 15°C/minute, drawing with an elongation ratio of 1.8 to 5 and then final heat treatment is performed under the conditions of solution heat treatment after heating to beta transus temperature minus 50°C to beta transus temperature minus 80°C with a holding time of 1 to 8 hours and cooling down at a rate of over 10°C/minute to a temperature equal to or lower than the subsequent aging and then aging at a temperature of 400 to 530°C for at least 8 hours with subsequent cooling to room temperature which is a different heat treatment procedure including higher temperature heating steps.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessee Roe whose telephone number is (571)272-5938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7:30 am to 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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 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.
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759