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Claims 1-16 are pending wherein claims 1-6 and 8-13 are currently under examination and claims 7 and 14-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected method for manufacturing display panels. Applicant’s election of claims 1-6 and 8-13 with traverse was made in the Response filed on September 28, 2026.
First, Applicant traverses on the ground that the special technical features of amended claim 1 are not merely “a titanium alloy foil” but “a β-type titanium alloy” having a specific crystallographic texture defined by X-ray diffraction- - namely, (i) a 200-plane peak intensity of the BCC crystal that is at least 5.0 times the maximum peak intensity from other crystal structures, and (ii) a 200-plane or 211-plane peak intensity that is larger than the 110-plane peak intensity-in combination with a tensile strength of 1,000-1,800 MPa and this provides a technical contribution of markedly improved repeated durability of a thin foil, not present in Foltz, IV (‘003).
In response, the Examiner notes that merely reciting “β-type” or that indicating “wherein the β-type titanium alloy foil includes a body-centered cubic structure” would be sufficient to distinguish from Foltz, IV (‘003) because indicating it as “β-type” may be interpreted as merely resembling β-phase or only containing some β-phase. “β-type” would not necessarily indicate that the entire titanium alloy would be β-phase. As such an α-β titanium alloy would contain β-phase and therefore would still read on “β-type”. Additionally, β phase would inherently have a bcc or body-centered cubic structure.
Second, the Applicant primarily argues that the α-β alloy of Foltz, IV (‘003) would not exhibit a 200-plane peak intensity of the BCC crystal that is 5.0 times larger than the maximum peak intensity from other crystal structures, as required by amended claim 1; Foltz, IV (‘003) is not directed to and does not disclose “a β-type titanium alloy foil” in which the β-phase is the main phase to the degree recited in amended claim 1.
In response, the Examiner notes that whether or not one plane intensity is a degree higher than another plane intensity of other crystal structure is going to depend on how much of each phase is present and since the claim does not appear to require that the β-phase be the main phase but merely something that resembles β-phase in some way, this argument is not persuasive.
Third, the Applicant primarily argues that the recited feature “a peak intensity of a 200 plane of a crystal of the body-centered cubic structure is 5.0 times or larger a maximum peak intensity from other crystal structures, in the X-ray diffraction intensities of the crystal of the body-centered cubic structure among the X-ray diffraction intensities, the peak intensity of the 200 plane or a peak intensity of a 211 plane is larger than a peak intensity of a 110 plane” presupposes a β-dominant material subjected to heavy cold rolling. This property is a property of a β-type foil and not of an alpha-beta foil and since the material of Foltz, IV (‘003) is an alpha-beta alloy that retains substantial alpha phase, the recited β dominant X-ray diffraction signature is not a necessary result of the process and inherency is not established.
In response, the Examiner notes that in Foltz, IV (‘003) there is mention of aluminum equivalency as well as molybdenum equivalency. Aluminum equivalency pertains to the alpha phase and molybdenum equivalency pertains to the beta phase. The aluminum equivalency in Foltz, IV (‘003) would be from 2 to 10 whereas the molybdenum equivalency would be from 0 to 20 (column 4). Thus, it would appear from Foltz, IV (‘003) that the beta phase could possible be present in an amount that is 10x that of the alpha phase, which would provide a β-dominant structure. Applicant has not provided any x-ray diffractions that demonstrate that an alloy with a molybdenum equivalency of 20 and an aluminum equivalency of 2 would not meet the intensity ratio as claimed. Therefore, the Examiner considers Applicant’s argument not persuasive.
Finally, the Examiner notes that to examine both of these inventions would require not only additional searching but also consideration of additional 112 issues, consideration of the combinability of prior art references the formulation of rejections, etc. Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL
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 1-6 and 8-13 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.
In regard to claim 1, it is unclear if by the amendment to claim 1, “β-type”, Applicant is intending to claim that the alloy merely has a structure that resembles a β microstructure, has a base of a β microstructure, or merely contains a β microstructure. The addition of the word "type" to an otherwise definite expression (e.g., Friedel-Crafts catalyst) extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1955). Likewise, the phrase "ZSM-5-type aluminosilicate zeolites" was held to be indefinite because it was unclear what "type" was intended to convey. The interpretation was made more difficult by the fact that the zeolites defined in the dependent claims were not within the genus of the type of zeolites defined in the independent claim. Ex parte Attig, 7 USPQ2d 1092 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986). MPEP 2173.05 (b)(III)(E).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2, 4, 8, 10, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In regard to claim 2, claim 1 indicates that “a peak intensity of a 200 plane of a crystal of a body-centered cubic structure is 5.0 times or larger a maximum peak intensity from other crystal structures” whereas claim 2 indicates “the peak intensity of the 200 plane is larger than all other peak intensities” which appears to be a broader statement relative to claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 has been deemed to fail to further limit claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foltz, IV (US 10,094,003).
In regard to claim 1, Foltz, IV (‘003) discloses titanium alloy foil having final thicknesses below 0.76 mm (column 14). With respect to the recitation “in X-ray diffraction intensities obtained when X-ray diffraction is performed on a surface, a peak intensity of a 200 plane of a crystal of a body-centered cubic structure is 5.0 times or larger a maximum peak intensity from other crystal structures, in X-ray diffraction intensities of the crystal of the body-centered cubic structure among the X-ray diffraction intensities, the peak intensity of the 200 plane or a peak intensity of a 211 plane is larger than a peak intensity of a 110 plane” in claim 1, Foltz, IV (‘003) discloses cold working at least 35 percent and annealing at a temperature in the range of 600 to 880°C between cold rolling steps (column 11) and the instant invention teaches that the claimed texture can be obtained by cold rolling [0029-0030]. With respect to the recitation “a tensile strength is 1,000 MPa or more and 1,800 or less” in claim 1, Foltz, IV (‘003) discloses wherein the beta phase would have a body centered cubic structure (column 2) and tensile strengths of 154 ksi (1061 MPa) and 162 ksi (1116 MPa) (Table 2), which would overlap the scope of the instant invention. MPEP 2144.05 I.
Still regarding claim 1, Foltz IV (‘003) discloses an alpha-beta alloy wherein the aluminum equivalency would range from 0 to 20 (column 4). Thus, it would appear from Foltz, IV (‘003) that the beta phase could be present in an amount that is 10x that of the alpha phase, which would provide a β-dominant structure.
With respect to the recitation “wherein in the X-ray diffraction intensities, the peak intensity of the 200 plane is larger than all other peak intensities” in claim 2, Foltz, IV (‘003) discloses cold working at least 35 percent and annealing at a temperature in the range of 600 to 880°C between cold rolling steps (column 11) and the instant invention teaches that the claimed texture can be obtained by cold rolling [0029-0030]. With respect to the recitation “a tensile strength is 1,000 MPa or more and 1,800 or less” in claim 1, Foltz, IV (‘003) discloses wherein the beta phase would have a body centered cubic structure (column 2) and tensile strengths of 154 ksi (1061 MPa) and 162 ksi (1116 MPa) (Table 2), which would overlap the scope of the instant invention. MPEP 2144.05 I. Foltz IV (‘003) discloses an alpha-beta alloy wherein the aluminum equivalency would range from 0 to 20 (column 4). Thus, it would appear from Foltz, IV (‘003) that the beta phase could be present in an amount that is 10x that of the alpha phase, which would provide a β-dominant structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-6, 9 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 and to address the 112 rejections as set forth above.
In regard to claims 3, 9 and 12, Foltz, IV (‘003) discloses cold rolling titanium alloy substrates as set forth above, but Foltz IV (‘003) does not specify wherein the average roughness of the surface would be 0.010 micrometers or more and a maximum valley depth of 0.180 micrometers or less.
In regard to claims 5-6, Foltz, IV (‘003) discloses processing titanium alloys as set forth above wherein the titanium alloys would be used in aerospace, aeronautic, defense, marine, and automotive applications such as for landing gear members, engine frames, ballistic armor, hulls and fasteners, but Foltz, IV does not suggest placing an adhesive layer on the surface and a light emitting element on the surface of the adhesive layer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Holcomb (US 2011/0214987).
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
