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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of a certified copy of FR 2103027 filed March 25, 2021 as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Receipt is acknowledged of a copy of WO 2022/200736, the WIPO publication of PCT/FR 2022/050541 filed March 23, 2022.
Response to Restriction Election
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species I-V, claims 1-3, 6-9, 17, and 20, in the reply filed on February 13, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4, 5, 10-16, 18, and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventive group or additive element species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s February 13, 2026 Restriction Election and September 25, 2023 claims.
Claims Filing Date
September 25, 2023
Amended
1-11
New
12-20
Pending
1-20
Withdrawn
4, 5, 10-16, 18, 19
Under Examination
1-3, 6-9, 17, 20
Abstract Objection
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because
Line 2 uses legal phraseology “comprising”.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims should be avoided.
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 1-3, 6-9, 17, and 20 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.
Claim 1 line 1 “foundry alloy” renders the claim indefinite. What is a foundry alloy? According to Merriam-Webster “foundry” is defined as “an establishment where founding is carried on” or “the act, process, or art of casting metals”. Is the alloy used to make a foundry? Is the alloy used in a foundry (casting) process? If used in a process, is the claim directed to a specific state of the process, such as the melt for casting or the solid casting? For the purpose of examination claim 1 will be interpreted as foundry reciting the purpose or intended use that does not further limit the structure of the claimed alloy.
Claim 1 lines 1-8 “A TiAl intermetallic foundry alloy comprising:” specified amounts of Al, Zr, W, and V renders the claim indefinite. The alloy composition of the TiAl intermetallic foundry alloy does not recite Ti. Is Ti present in the alloy? For the purpose of examination claim 1 will be interpreted as comprising titanium as supported by applicant’s specification at 4:18-19 and Tables 1 and 4.
Claim 3 lines 1-6 “The alloy according to Claim 1, comprising: 44 ≤ Al ≤ 46 at.%; 0 < Zr < 2 at,%; 1 ≤ W ≤ 2 at.%; and 0.5 ≤ V ≤ 2 at.%.” renders the claim indefinite. The transitional phrase “comprising” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements. MPEP 2111.03(I). Is claim 3 broader than claim 1, such that it no longer requires only one of V, Zr, and Nb because it “comprises” and does not limit Cr and/or Nb? Or does claim 3 limit “only one of the following elements” (claim 1 line 5) to V? For the purpose of examination claim 3 is interpreted as comprising the recited alloy.
Claim 8 line 2 “conventional elastic limit” renders the claim indefinite. Elastic limit is dependent upon the composition and structure of an alloy. What is the conventional elastic limit relative to? How does one determine a conventional elastic limit for a TiAl alloy? Is it conventional for an alloy of just Ti and Al, but with how much Ti and Al? Is it conventional because it is the typical range for all TiAl-based alloys? For the purpose of examination claim 8 will be interpreted as the alloy having an elastic limit Rp0.2 of between 400 and 700 MPa at a temperature between 25 and 900°C.
Claim 20 line 1 “the single-phase domain” renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis. Claim 20 depends from claim 1. Claim 7 line 2 recites “a single-phase domain”. Claim 1 does not.
Claims 2, 6, 7, 9, and 17 are rejected as depending from claim 1.
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 1-3, 6-9, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto (US 2004/0071585).
Regarding claim 1, Hashimoto discloses a TiAl intermetallic foundry alloy ([0008], [0051]) with an overlapping composition ([0024], [0027], [0031], [0037]-[0046]). 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).
Element
Claim 1
(at%)
Claim 3
(at%)
Hashimoto (at%)
Hashimoto (wt%)
Hashimoto
Citation
Al
44 to 47
44 to 46
41.1 to 51.0
28.0 to 35.0
[0037]-[0039]
Zr
More than 0 to less than 2
More than 0 to less than 2
0.04 to 0.4
0.1 to 1.0
[0042]-[0044]
W
1 to 2
1 to 2
0.2 to 1.3
1.0 to 6.0
[0042]-[0044]
Only one of the following
V
0.5 to 2
0.5 to 2
0.4 to 4.6
0.5 to 6.0
[0045]-[0046]
Cr
0.5 to 2
-
-
-
-
Nb
More than 0 to less than 4
-
-
-
-
Regarding claim 2, Hashimoto discloses less than 0.1 at.% of Si, C and B in total (0.1 at% or less C; while Si and B are elements recited in group III and [0031] discloses an alloy containing only the base elements plus group I and group II elements, such that Si and B are not included) ([0024], [0040]-[0041]).
Regarding claim 3, Hashimoto discloses an overlapping composition ([0024], [0027], [0031], [0037]-[0046]). 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).
Regarding claim 6, Hashimoto discloses a beta phase fraction of less than 1 vol.% (content of V is limited to not exceed 6.0% so that a third phase such as a beta-phase that decreases ductility is not formed) ([0046]).
Regarding claim 7, a single-phase domain at a temperature below 1350°C has been considered and determined to recite a property of the Claim 1 alloy. Hashimoto renders obvious the Claim 1 alloy (Hashimoto [0008], [0024], [0027], [0031], [0037]-[0046]), such that the claimed single-phase domain being at a temperature below 1350°C naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claim 8, a conventional elastic limit Rp0.2 of between 400 and 700 MPa at a temperature between 25 and 900°C has been considered and determined to recite a property of the Claim 1 alloy. Hashimoto renders obvious the Claim 1 alloy (Hashimoto [0008], [0024], [0027], [0031], [0037]-[0046]), such that the claimed conventional elastic limit Rp0.2 of between 400 and 700 MPa at a temperature between 25 and 900°C naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claim 9, at least 20% alpha2 phase by volume has been considered and determined to recite a property of the Claim 1 alloy. Hashimoto renders obvious the Claim 1 alloy (Hashimoto [0008], [0024], [0027], [0031], [0037]-[0046]), such that the claimed at least 20% alpha2 phase by volume naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claim 17, Hashimoto discloses Al at. % is 44.5 ≤ Al ≤ 45.5 at.% (28.0 to 35.0 wt% converts to 41.4 to 51.0 at%) ([0037]-[0039]). 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).
Regarding claim 20, the single-phase domain being at a temperature below 1300°C has been considered and determined to recite a property of the Claim 1 alloy. Hashimoto renders obvious the Claim 1 alloy (Hashimoto [0008], [0024], [0027], [0031], [0037]-[0046]), such that the claimed single-phase domain being at a temperature below 1300°C naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto (US 2004/0071585) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koyanagi (US 2015/0275673).
Regarding claim 9, Hashimoto discloses not forming a third beta phase ([0043], [0046]).
Hashimoto is silent to the first and second phases.
Koyanagi discloses a TiAl intermetallic foundry alloy ([0045], [0124]-[0130]) with a gamma(TiAl)/alpha2(Ti3Al) lamellar structure (two phases) ([0041]) comprising at least 20% alpha2 phase by volume (5% by volume or higher and less than 30% by volume) ([0109]-[0110]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the TiAl intermetallic foundry alloy of Hashimoto to include 5% by volume or higher and less than 30% by volume alpha2 phase inside the alloy to obtain sufficient strength without reducing toughness by causing brittleness (Koyanagi [0109]-[0110]). 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).
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyanagi (US 2015/0275673) in view of Takagi (JP H06-220560 machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Koyanagi discloses a TiAl intermetallic foundry alloy ([0045], [0124]-[0130]) with an overlapping composition ([0027]-[0032], [0061]-[0066], [0071]-[0082]). 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).
Koyanagi is silent to the presence of Zr.
Takagi discloses a TiAl alloy ([0001]) comprising 0.5 to 3.0 at% Zr ([0015]-[0021], [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the TiAl alloy of Koyanagi to add 0.5 to 3.0 at% Zr to increase the strength, especially high-temperature strength, and hardness without decreasing room-temperature ductility (Takagi [0017], [0020], [0025]), where Zr concentrates in the gamma single-phase regions distributed in a network-like manner between the lamellar tissues (Takagi [0021]). 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).
Element
Claim 1
(at%)
Claim 3
(at%)
Koyanagi (at%)
Koyanagi (mass%)
Koyanagi Citation
Al
44 to 47
44 to 46
41.1 to 53.3
28.0 to 35.0
[0028], [0062], [0072]-[0074]
Zr
More than 0 to less than 2
More than 0 to less than 2
-
-
-
W
1 to 2
1 to 2
0.2 to 3.4
1.0 to 15.0
[0029], [0063], [0075]-[0077]
Si
-
-
0.1 to 1.5
0.1 to 1.0
[0031], [0065], [0081]-[0082]
Only one of the following
V
0.5 to 2
0.5 to 2
0.2 to 4.0
0.1 to 5.0
[0030], [0064], [0078]-[0080]
Cr
0.5 to 2
-
-
-
-
Nb
More than 0 to less than 4
-
-
-
-
Regarding claim 2, Koyanagi discloses less than 0.1 at.% of Si, C and B in total (0.1 to 1.0 mass% Si converts to 0.1 to 1.5 at% Si and C and B may be further contained, but are not required) ([0031], [0065], [0081]-[0085]). 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).
Regarding claim 3, Koyanagi in view of Takagi discloses an overlapping composition (Koyanagi [0027]-[0032], [0061]-[0066], [0071]-[0082]; Takagi [0015]-[0021], [0025]). 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).
Regarding claim 6, Koyanagi discloses a beta phase fraction of less than 1 vol.% (cooling after casting results in the beta phase configuring to a lamellar alpha2 (Ti3Al) phase and a gamma (TiAl) phase, such that beta phase is not present in the cooled alloy) ([0045], [0074], [0126]-[0128], [0134]-[0135]).
Regarding claim 7, a single-phase domain being at a temperature below 1350°C has been considered and determined to recite a property of the Claim 1 alloy. Koyanagi in view of Takagi renders obvious the Claim 1 alloy (Koyanagi [0027]-[0032], [0061]-[0066], [0071]-[0082], [0124]-[0130]; Takagi [0001], [0015]-[0021], [0025]), such that the claimed single-phase domain being at a temperature below 1350°C naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claim 8, a conventional elastic limit Rp0.2 of between 400 and 700 MPa at a temperature between 25 and 900°C has been considered and determined to recite a property of the Claim 1 alloy. Koyanagi in view of Takagi renders obvious the Claim 1 alloy (Koyanagi [0027]-[0032], [0061]-[0066], [0071]-[0082], [0124]-[0130]; Takagi [0001], [0015]-[0021], [0025]), such that the claimed conventional elastic limit Rp0.2 of between 400 and 700 MPa at a temperature between 25 and 900°C naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claim 9, Koyanagi discloses at least 20% alpha2 phase by volume (5 vol% or higher and 30 vol% or lower) ([0109]-[0110]). 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).
Regarding claim 17, Koyanagi discloses Al at. % is 44.5 ≤ Al ≤ 45.5 at.% (28.0 to 35.0 mass% converts to 41.4 to 53.0 at%) ([0028], [0062], [0072]-[0074]). 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).
Regarding claim 20, the single-phase domain being at a temperature below 1300°C has been considered and determined to recite a property of the Claim 1 alloy. Koyanagi in view of Takagi renders obvious the Claim 1 alloy (Koyanagi [0027]-[0032], [0061]-[0066], [0071]-[0082], [0124]-[0130]; Takagi [0001], [0015]-[0021], [0025]), such that the claimed single-phase domain being at a temperature below 1300°C naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
Related Art
Song (CN 104480444 machine translation)
Song discloses a titanium-aluminum alloy ([0002], [0008]) with 10 to 50 at %Ti, 40 to 90 at% Al, and at least two of 0.1 to 10 at% W, 0.1 to 10 at% Zr, and 0.1 to 10 at% V ([0009]).
Kawamura (JP H03-193837 machine translation)
Kawamura discloses an intermetallic compound TiAl system alloy containing 0.05 to 3 at% Nb and 0.05 to 4 at% W (p. 1) with up to 3.5 at% V (p. 2), where the Al content is 41 to 46 at% (para. spanning pp. 2-3). Kawamura discloses the W improves high-temperature oxidation resistance (p. 3 paras. 2-3).
Jain (US 5,296,056)
Jain discloses a 46 at% Al, 3 at% Nb, 1 at% W, 1 at% V, balance Ti alloy (Table I Alloy No. 210) to form a combination of alpha-2 (Ti3Al) with gamma (TiAl) (6:26-36, 8:50-57).
Guther (US 2004/0045644)
Guther discloses an intermetallic gamma-TiAl alloy ([0001]) with alpha2/gamma-TiAl lamellae ([0018]) and a composition of Ti-Al (44-48)- (Cr, Mn, V) (0.5-5)- (Zr, Cu, Nb, Ta, Mo, W, Ni) (0.1-10)- (Si, B, C, Y) (0.05-1) ([0032]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANI HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday-Friday 7am-12pm.
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.
/STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights