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 Objections
Claims 1 and 7 and objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding Claim 1, at four lines from the end, “0.03mmm” should read “0.03 mm”. Regarding Claim 7, at line 2, the presence of references (2), (1), and (200) may not be desired. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 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.
Regarding Claim 1, it is unclear what is meant by “Vickers hardness”. It is unclear what load and conditions are being claimed. The hardness value obtained would be expected to be dependent on these. It is unclear what conditions are claimed for the “modulus of elasticity”. It is presumed that this is Young’s modulus, which is recognized as being dependent on testing conditions. It is unclear what conditions are being claimed. Analogous rejection applies to Claim 6. See, for example, Ogawa JP 2009-228053 which provides detailed description of manner of determination of Vickers hardness and Young’s modulus. See Ogawa (paragraphs 74 and 75).
Regarding Claim 1, it is unclear what conditions are being claimed for determining “maximum value”. The Specification explains that this is based on 200,000 bending repetitions with various further details. See Specification (paragraph 97, et seq.). It is unclear whether these conditions are being claimed. It is unclear what test conditions are being used to conduct each repetition of bending. Analogous rejection applies to Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 5, it is unclear whether the claim requires that the alloy be this beta-type titanium alloy or whether the claim requires that the alloy, should it be a beta-type titanium alloy, be this beta-type titanium alloy, as per the plain meaning.
Regarding Claim 6, it is unclear how to understand the meaning of Claim 6 when the material has a thickness of less than 0.03 mm since Claim 6 appears to only specify prediction value for material that is 0.03 mm thick. Do limitations of Claim 6 only apply to 0.03 mm thick material?
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.
Claim 8 is 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. Regarding Claim 8, the limitations of this claim appear to be fully expressed in previous Claim 1, and so it fails to further limit the subject matter of previous 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claims 2-7 and 9 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.
Regarding Claims 1-9, the reviewed prior art does not teach or suggest the subject matter of these claims. Particularly, the reviewed prior art does not teach or suggest rolled material comprising alloy or pure metal wherein the index value is satisfied for thickness that is 0.03 mm or less and wherein “maximum value” of not greater than 2.1 mm, in the claimed context, is obtained. For example, Wang USPA 2022/0123237 teaches multi-layer metal foil (paragraph 20) that may be 0.03 mm (paragraph 6) wherein hardnesses, elastic coefficients, and relative thicknesses of respective layers (paragraph 6) are recognized as important influences on minimum bending radius for flexible foil. However, Wang fails to expressly teach or suggest the claimed index relationship and other claimed features or provide basis for establishing inherency of these relationships and features. See Wang (entire document). For example, Ogawa JP 2009-228053 teaches or suggests metal material sheet having hardness and Young’s modulus meeting index requirements of Claim 1 (as derivable from rightmost columns of Table 3), but fails to expressly teach or suggest meeting index requirements for rolled material of 0.03 mm or less and fails to expressly teach or suggest meeting “maximum value” relationship or otherwise provide basis for establishing inherency of these features. See Ogawa (Claims; paragraph 46, 47, 74, and 75; and Tables 1-4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL E. LA VILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-1539. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. from 9:00 a.m. ET to 5:30 p.m. ET.
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 N. 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.
/MICHAEL E. LA VILLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
9 January 2026