DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, and species A in the reply filed on January 6, 2026 is acknowledged. Species A has been examined and has been found to be directed to subject matter distinguishing over the prior art. Species B has therefore been fully examined for patentability and claim 3 found to distinguish over the prior art.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 recites the limitation "the low melting elements", however there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which elements applicants intend to reference in claim 1 as no elements are explicitly designated as low melting elements. Correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 sets forth a titanium alloy matrix that includes “One or more of:” elements including Al, Sn, Sb, and Bi some of which are defined by an upper limit with no lower limit. The lower limit is considered to be greater than zero where the alloy is considered to include one or more of the selected alloys. Therefore, if aluminum is selected it must be present, but at an amount no greater than 5 wt. %. i.e. an alloy having 0% aluminum does not satisfy the requirement of “One or more of:”
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, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (CN104818408A, references herein made to the English translation obtained from EPO espacenet dated March 4, 2026) in view of Ritter (US Patent 4,045,407)
Regarding applicants’ claim 1, Chang et al. disclose a high-tensile strength Ti-Al-Fe-Si alloy comprising, in weight percent: 3-8% aluminum, 1-6% iron, 0-2% silicon, and less than 0.5% N, O, C, and H, with Ti the balance (page 3 lines 7-9). While Chang et al. do not appear to disclose the exact proportions claimed, the disclosed proportions are overlapping, or at least so close to applicants’ claimed range as to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. With regards to the overlapping proportions, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the disclosed proportions including those proportions which fall within applicants’ claimed ranges. The balance of titanium does not appear to directly overlap applicants’ claimed range, however given the claimed range only requires the balance to be “about” 70 to “about” 85 wt. %, and given that the alloying elements are present in proportions within the claimed ranges, the alloy would be expected to have the same properties thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Chang et al. do not appear to explicitly disclose a fiber reinforcement coated with chromium; however, Ritter disclose a silicon carbide fiber-reinforced titanium base composite where the fibers are coated to form a beta phase zone in proximity to the fibers within the composite thereby increasing the strength and ductility of the matrix by reducing cracks (col. 2 line 45 – col. 3 line 20). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to reinforce the titanium alloy of Change et al. with the coated fibers of Ritter in order to improve the strength of the titanium alloy. Where the coated fibers are used it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicants’ claimed invention to select from the coating materials disclosed by Ritter including chromium.
Regarding applicants’ claim 2, Chang et al. disclose that N, O, C, and H are limited to less than 0.5 wt. % (page 3 lines 7-9).
Regarding applicants’ claim 4, the fibers of Ritter are silicon carbide (col. lines 56-60).
Regarding applicants’ claim 6, Ritter disclose that the coating is provide in a small thickness (col. 3 lines 58-59 and col. 4 lines 1-2). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention would have found it obvious to discover a workable range for the coating thickness for the fibers of Ritter. There is a reasonable expectation that the thickness will fall within applicants’ claimed range where Ritter provides an example with a coating thickness of 1 micron (col. 4 lines 50-51).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Chang et al. in view Ritter disclose a titanium matrix composite as discussed above, but do not disclose a protective coating comprising either a glass or a flux coating surrounding the titanium alloy matrix, the fiber reinforcement, and the low melting elements. Further there is insufficient motivation such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the modified titanium alloy of Chang et al. to include a protective coating comprising either a glass or a flux coating surrounding the titanium alloy matrix, the fiber reinforcement, and the low melting elements.
Claim 5 is objected to as depending from a rejected claim but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Chang et al. in view Ritter disclose a titanium matrix composite as discussed above, but do not appear to disclose or suggest the fiber reinforcement to comprise titanium wire. Further there is insufficient motivation such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the reinforcement fibers to comprise titanium wire.
Claims 7 and 8 is objected to as depending form a rejected claims but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Chang et al. in view Ritter disclose a titanium matrix composite as discussed above, but do not appear to disclose the fiber reinforcement to be further coated with either nickel or copper between the chromium and the fiber reinforcement. Further there is insufficient motivation such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the fibers of Ritter to include a layer of either nickel or copper between the chromium and the fiber reinforcement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM C KRUPICKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7086. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5pm 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.
/Adam Krupicka/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784