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 § 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 1-12 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 recites “a twist angle from one end to the other end”. This limitation is indefinite. The actual shape of the claimed α+β titanium alloy shape is not specified so it is unclear what “from one end to the other end” actually means. For example, how does one measure the twist angle from one end to the other end of a sphere? In addition, it is apparent from the specification that the claimed alloy shape is an elongated article and the twist angle is measured along a longitudinal axis parallel to elongation. However, the claim does not require this to be the case and the twist angle could instead be measured along a different dimensional axis. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted assuming the claimed alloy shape is an elongated article and the twist angle is measured along the elongation direction. Dependent claims 2-12 are indefinite by virtue of dependence from an indefinite 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyama et al. (JP 2018-154922) in view of Liu et al. (CN 105750367).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 6, Nishiyama teaches an extruded α+β titanium alloy having an acicular microstructure (¶ 32). The alloy has a 0.2% proof stress of 900 MPa or more and an elongation of 10% or more (¶ 33). The fatigue strength is 450 MPa or more (¶ 48). The alloy has a warpage of 2.25 mm per 1 m (¶ 87). Nishiyama does not expressly teach the claimed area fraction of voids. However, the present specification states the claimed area fraction is necessary to achieve the necessary strength, fatigue, and ductility properties (¶ 67). Since the alloy of Nishiyama also exhibits the same claimed strength, fatigue, and ductility properties, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed area fraction of voids to be present in the prior art alloy, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Nishiyama does not expressly teach the claimed twist angle. Liu teaches a method of hot stretching and rotational straightening of titanium alloy extruded products (¶ 7) to address bending and twisting of the titanium alloy during the extrusion process (¶ 4), thereby resulting in an extruded product having a twist angle within 2° (¶ 13). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention to apply the hot stretching and rotational straightening process of Liu to the extruded titanium alloy of Nishiyama in order to obtain an extruded titanium alloy having no bending or twisting due to extrusion.
Regarding claim 4, Nishiyama teaches the average prior β grain size is 250 μm or less (¶ 48).
Regarding claim 5, Nishiyama states no residual stress is generated (¶ 74).
Regarding claims 7-8, the α+β titanium alloy of Nishiyama has the following composition as compared to the claimed composition:
Claim 7
Claim 8
Nishiyama (¶¶ 40-47)
Al
4.4%-6.5%
4.4%-5.5%
4.4%-5.5%
Fe
0.5%-2.9%
1.4%-2.3%
1.4%-2.3%
Mo
-
1.5%-5.5%
1.5%-5.5%
Si
0-0.50%
0-0.10%
0-0.1%
O
0-0.25%
0-0.20%
0-0.20%
C
0-0.08%
0-0.08%
0-0.08%
N
0-0.05%
0-0.05%
0-0.05%
Ni
0-0.15%
0-0.15%
0-0.15%
Cr
0-0.25%
0-0.25%
0-0.25%
Mn
0-0.25%
0-0.25%
0-0.25%
Ti
Remainder
Remainder
Remainder
Fe+Ni+Cr+Mn
0.5%-2.9%
1.4%-2.3%
1.4%-2.3%
The composition of Nishiyama lies within or is the same as the claimed range.
Regarding claim 9, Nishiyama teaches an extruded α+β titanium alloy having an acicular microstructure (¶ 32). The alloy has a 0.2% proof stress of 900 MPa or more and an elongation of 10% or more (¶ 33). The fatigue strength is 450 MPa or more (¶ 48). The alloy has a warpage of 2.25 mm per 1 m (¶ 87). Nishiyama does not expressly teach the claimed area fraction of voids. However, the present specification states the claimed area fraction is necessary to achieve the necessary strength, fatigue, and ductility properties (¶ 67). Since the alloy of Nishiyama also exhibits the same claimed strength, fatigue, and ductility properties, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed area fraction of voids to be present in the prior art alloy, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112. Nishiyama teaches the extruded titanium alloy is produced by hot extrusion (¶ 52), corresponding to the claimed hot working.
Nishiyama does not expressly teach the claimed twist angle. Liu teaches a method of hot stretching and rotational straightening of titanium alloy extruded products (¶ 7) to address bending and twisting of the titanium alloy during the extrusion process (¶ 4), thereby resulting in an extruded product having a twist angle within 2° (¶ 13). The straightening process of Liu includes heating the titanium alloy to a temperature of 550°C-850°C (¶ 19), applying a rotation to achieve a twist within 2° (¶ 13), and applying a strain of not more than 1% (¶ 21). The prior art ranges overlap the claimed ranges, creating a prima facie case of obviousness as to these parameters. See MPEP 2144.05 I. The titanium alloy is cooled to room temperature before unloading the titanium (¶¶ 15-16); thus, it is understood that the titanium is still subject to stress during cooling. It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention to apply the hot stretching and rotational straightening process of Liu to the process of making the extruded titanium alloy of Nishiyama in order to obtain an extruded titanium alloy having no bending or twisting due to extrusion.
Regarding claim 10, Liu teaches the pulling force P satisfies the equation P ≤ (σ -50 MPa) × A, where σ is the yield strength (equivalent to 0.2% proof stress) and A is the profile sectional area of the titanium alloy (¶ 18). The tensile stress would thus be equal to P/A, and is less than or equal to the quantity (σ -50 MPa). This overlaps the claimed range, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 11, it is necessarily the case that the titanium alloy is held at the temperature of 500°C -650°C during cooling of the titanium alloy to room temperature from the heating temperature of 550°C-850°C suggested by Liu. The titanium alloy is cooled to room temperature before unloading the titanium (¶¶ 15-16), the shape is held during this time.
Regarding claim 12, Liu does not expressly teach a cooling rate. However, Liu teaches the cooling is air cooling (¶ 15). The present invention also uses air cooling (¶ 90). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the air cooling of Liu to also exhibit a cooling rate of 10°C/s or less from the straightening temperature to 500°C, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nishiyama (JP 2019-167621) and Nishiyama (WO 2018/116444) disclose subject matter substantially identical to Nishiyama (JP 2018-154922). A rejection over Nishiyama JP ‘621 or WO ‘444 is not included in this Office Action because such a rejection would be cumulative. See MPEP 2120.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOBEI WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5705. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/XIAOBEI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784