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
Applicant’s claim to priority of US Provisional 62/437,489 filed December 21, 2016 is acknowledged. The pending application was filed November 28, 2017.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks and Claim Amendments filed April 28, 2026.
Claims Filing Date
April 28, 2026
Amended
1, 25, 29-31
Cancelled
10-20
Pending
1-9, 21-31
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following 112(b) rejections are withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 1 lines 2-3 “a thickness of from 0.006 inch to 0.400 inch” and line 14 “the specified depth is 3,000 micrometers”.
Claim 25 line 2 “a thickness of from 0.006 inch to 0.400 inch” and line 13 “the specified depth is 3,000 micrometers”.
Response to Remarks filed April 28, 2026
Su
Applicant's arguments filed April 28, 2026 with respect to Su have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues Su discusses twin roll casting that modifies a conventional twin roll caster by applying one of three different electromagnetic fields during casting (Su Fig. 1) (para. spanning pp. 5-6) and Chen describes a similar set-up (p. 6 para. 2), where the equipment of Su and Chen is complex (p. 7 paras. 1-2) and Su’s products were cast at 1.5 m/min (Su 280), such that the metal would be expected to have several seconds (e.g., 2-3 seconds) of exposure to the EM field (p. 7 para. 3).
The pending claims are directed to a “cast 7xxx aluminum alloy product”. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. If the claimed product is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113(I).
The applicant argues Su tested hardness of the surface and center for all four twin roll casting methods (Su Fig. 6) (p. 7 para. 3), where the surface was significantly higher in hardness than in the center of the products by around 20 HV, which is mainly due to macrosegregation, such that there appears to be no change in macrosegregation attributable to the use of the three electromagnetic field technologies tested by Su in a conventional twin-roll cast 7075 aluminum alloy product (para. spanning pp. 7-8, p. 8 paras. 2-3).
A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2123(I).
With respect to Fig. 6, Su discloses “The increase in hardness attributes to fine microstructure and increasing solution strengthening.” Therefore, contrary to applicant’s arguments, the difference in hardness is not related to zinc macrosegregation.
Su also discloses “oscillating fields block the growth of the segregation…and…that under appropriate TRC condition the central segregation can completely disappear”, where precipitates are replaced by equiaxed grains and the resulting microstructure has uniformity (with respect to macro segregation) (3.1. Macro segregation observation para. 3). Su discloses introducing alternating oscillating electromagnetic field contributes to “complete disappearance of segregation”, which includes Zn segregation (4. Conclusions para. 1).
Further, Su discloses Zn content for different casting processes (2. Experimental methods para. 3) at the surface in the grain boundaries and at the center in the grain boundaries (3.2. Micro segregation analysis paras. 1-3, Fig. 5), where a comparison of values indicates a variation of zinc weight percent within the claim scope.
Therefore, the rejection over Su is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 and 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 lines 13-14 “the specified depth is 3,000 micrometers or through thickness, whichever is smaller” fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 25 lines 14-15 “the specified depth is 3,000 micrometers or through thickness, whichever is smaller” fails to comply with the written description requirement.
With respect to a specified depth, applicant discloses:
A thickness depth of 3,000 micrometers ([00014]-[00021], Figs. 3-10, [00043], [00045]-[00046], [00082]-[00084]).
Variation of a weight percent of the zinc is 15% or less between a surface and a thickness center ([0004]-[0007], [0011], [00035], [00037], [00042], [00055], [00059], [00079]-[00081]).
The applicant argues claim amendment as supported by Figures 4, 9, and 10 that “the specified depth is 3,000 micrometers or through thickness, whichever is smaller” (p. 5 para. 4).
Figures 4, 9, and 10 show the variation in zinc weight percentage from surface to a thickness depth of 3,000 micrometers in a cast product ([00015], [00020], [00021]), but are silent to the through thickness of the cast product. Applicant’s specification does not disclose the variating of zinc to a specified depth, where the depth is the through thickness. Rather, in light of applicant’s specification as a whole, it appears that the variation of a weight percent of zinc being 15% or less is between a surface and a thickness center.
Claims 2-9 and 21-24 are rejected as depending from claim 1.
Claims 26-31 are rejected as depending from claim 25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 7-9, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Su (Su et al. Abatement of segregation with the electro and static magnetic field during twin-roll casting of 7075 alloy sheet. Materials Science & Engineering A 599 (2014) 279-285.).
Regarding claim 1, Su discloses a (twin-roll) cast 7xxx aluminum product in the form of a 7xxx aluminum alloy strip (sheet) (2. Experimental methods paras. 1-2, Fig. 1), wherein the aluminum alloy strip has a thickness of from 0.006 inch to 0.400 inch (transverse section of 5 x 300 mm; 5 mm thickness is 0.197 inches) (2. Experimental methods para. 2);
wherein the 7xxx aluminum alloy strip comprises a globular (equiaxed) grain structure (3.1. Macro segregation observation para. 3, Fig. 3(c), (d));
wherein the 7xxx aluminum alloy strip consists essentially of aluminum, zinc, magnesium, and one or more of copper, manganese, chromium, zirconium, iron, silicon and titanium (Al-2.65 wt%Mg-5.30 wt%Zn-1.55 wt%Cu-0.42 wt%Zi-0.05 wt%Fe-0.25 wt%Cr-0.20 wt% Mn) (2. Experimental methods para. 1);
wherein the 7xxx aluminum alloy strip includes:
from 4 wt. % to 28 wt. % zinc (5.30 wt% Zn);
from 1 wt.% to 3 wt. % magnesium (2.65 wt% Mg); and
up to 3 wt. % copper (1.55 wt% Cu).
With respect to the specified depth of 3,000 micrometers or through thickness, whichever is smaller, in Su, the sheet thickness is 5 mm (transverse section of 5 x 300 mm; 5 mm thickness is 0.197 inches) (2. Experimental methods para. 2), such that the “center” is 2.5 mm (2,500 micrometers). Therefore, the claimed depth is 500 micrometers past the center of Su, such that Su’s disclosure regarding the “center” reads on the claimed depth.
With respect to a variation of a weight percent of the zinc being 15% or less between a surface and a specified depth from the surface of the 7xxx aluminum alloy strip;
wherein the zinc variation is calculated as:
{(the maximum weight percent of zinc across the specified depth minus (-) the minimum weight percent of zinc across the specified depth) divided by (/) (the average mean weight percent of the zinc across the specified depth)}*100, the following disclosed by Su read on this claim limitation.
Su discloses that “oscillating fields block the growth of the segregation…and…that under appropriate TRC condition the central segregation can complete disappear”, where precipitates are replaced by equiaxed grains and the resulting microstructure has uniformity (3.1. Macro segregation observation para. 3). Su also discloses that application of the electro- and static magnetic fields contributes to the increase in the solute solid solubility and a steep decrease of the undercooling degree from the edges to the center of the melt (3.2. Micro segregation analysis para. 5). Further, Su discloses that introducing the alternating oscillating electromagnetic field contributes to “complete disappearance of segregation” (4. Conclusions para. 1).
In the third casting Su applies a half-wave current and static magnetic field (2. Experimental methods para. 3). With respect to the micro segregation analysis, Su discloses at the surface a maximum average Zn content of 14.5 wt% in the grain boundaries and at the center a maximum average Zn content of 13 wt% in the grain boundaries (3.2. Micro segregation analysis paras. 1-3). This has a variation of a weight percent of zinc of 10% ((14.5-13/14.5)*100), which is within the scope of the claimed 15% or less. Su also discloses at the surface a minimum average Zn content of 3.5 wt% in the grain boundaries and at the center a minimum average Zn content of 3.2 wt% in the grain boundaries (3.2. Micro segregation analysis paras. 1-3). This results in a variation of a weight percent of zinc of 8.6% ((3.5-3.2/3.5)*100), which is also within the scope of the claimed 15% or less.
In the fourth casting Su applies a combination of three-phase AC and static magnetic field (2. Experimental methods para. 3). Su Fig. 5 discloses a Zn segregation for AC magnetic field of 4.1 at both the surface and center of the sheet. Therefore, as discussed above, in light of Su’s disclosure of a uniform microstructure without segregation, since Zn has the same amount of segregation in both the surface and center, the Zn variation in the surface and center of the AC magnetic field sheet tends to 0%, which is within the scope of the claim 15% or less.
For the above cited reasons the disclosure of Su anticipates claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Su discloses the aluminum alloy strip comprises 6 wt. % to 28 wt. % zinc (5.30 wt%) (2. Experimental methods para. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Su discloses the aluminum alloy strip comprises 5 wt. % to 10 wt. % zinc (5.30 wt%) (2. Experimental methods para. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Su discloses the aluminum alloy strip comprises 4 wt. % to 8 wt. % zinc (5.30 wt%) (2. Experimental methods para. 1).
Regarding claim 9, with respect to the variation of the zinc weight percent being 12% or less between the surface and the specified depth from the surface of the aluminum alloy strip, the following disclosures of Su read on this claim limitation.
Su discloses that “oscillating fields block the growth of the segregation…and…that under appropriate TRC condition the central segregation can complete disappear”, where precipitates are replaced by equiaxed grains and the resulting microstructure has uniformity (3.1. Macro segregation observation para. 3). Su also discloses that application of the electro- and static magnetic fields contributes to the increase in the solute solid solubility and a steep decrease of the undercooling degree from the edges to the center of the melt (3.2. Micro segregation analysis para. 5). Further, Su discloses that introducing the alternating oscillating electromagnetic field contributes to “complete disappearance of segregation” (4. Conclusions para. 1).
In the third casting Su applies a half-wave current and static magnetic field (2. Experimental methods para. 3). With respect to the micro segregation analysis, Su discloses at the surface a maximum average Zn content of 14.5 wt% in the grain boundaries and at the center a maximum average Zn content of 13 wt% in the grain boundaries (3.2. Micro segregation analysis paras. 1-3). This has a variation of a weight percent of zinc of 10% ((14.5-13/14.5)*100), which is within the scope of the claimed 12% or less. Su also discloses at the surface a minimum average Zn content of 3.5 wt% in the grain boundaries and at the center a minimum average Zn content of 3.2 wt% in the grain boundaries (3.2. Micro segregation analysis paras. 1-3). This results in a variation of a weight percent of zinc of 8.6% ((3.5-3.2/3.5)*100), which is within the scope of the claimed 12% or less.
In the fourth casting Su applies a combination of three-phase AC and static magnetic field (2. Experimental methods para. 3). Su Fig. 5 discloses a Zn segregation for AC magnetic field of 4.1 at both the surface and center of the sheet. Therefore, as discussed above, in light of Su’s disclosure of a uniform microstructure without segregation, since Zn has the same amount of segregation in both the surface and center, the Zn variation in the surface and center of the AC magnetic field sheet tends to 0%, which is within the scope of the claim 12% or less.
Regarding claim 21, with respect to the variation of the zinc weight percent being 10% or less between the surface and the specified depth from the surface of the aluminum alloy strip, the following disclosures of Su read on this claim limitation.
Su discloses that “oscillating fields block the growth of the segregation…and…that under appropriate TRC condition the central segregation can complete disappear”, where precipitates are replaced by equiaxed grains and the resulting microstructure has uniformity (3.1. Macro segregation observation para. 3). Su also discloses that application of the electro- and static magnetic fields contributes to the increase in the solute solid solubility and a steep decrease of the undercooling degree from the edges to the center of the melt (3.2. Micro segregation analysis para. 5). Further, Su discloses that introducing the alternating oscillating electromagnetic field contributes to “complete disappearance of segregation” (4. Conclusions para. 1).
During the third casting Su applies a half-wave current and static magnetic field (2. Experimental methods para. 3). With respect to the micro segregation analysis, Su discloses at the surface a maximum average Zn content of 14.5 wt% in the grain boundaries and at the center a maximum average Zn content of 13 wt% in the grain boundaries (3.2. Micro segregation analysis paras. 1-3). This has a variation of a weight percent of zinc of 10% ((14.5-13/14.5)*100), which is within the scope of the claimed 10% or less. Su also discloses at the surface a minimum average Zn content of 3.5 wt% in the grain boundaries and at the center a minimum average Zn content of 3.2 wt% in the grain boundaries (3.2. Micro segregation analysis paras. 1-3). This results in a variation of a weight percent of zinc of 8.6% ((3.5-3.2/3.5)*100), which is within the scope of the claimed 10% or less.
Further, during the fourth casting Su applies a combination of three-phase AC and static magnetic field (2. Experimental methods para. 3). Su Fig. 5 discloses a Zn segregation for AC magnetic field of 4.1 at both the surface and center of the sheet. Therefore, as discussed above, in light of Su’s disclosure of a uniform microstructure without segregation, since Zn has the same amount of segregation in both the surface and center, the Zn variation in the surface and center of the AC magnetic field sheet tends to 0%, which is within the scope of the claimed 10% or less.
Regarding claim 22, with respect to the variation of the zinc weight percent being 8% or less between the surface and the specified depth from the surface of the aluminum alloy strip, the following disclosures of Su read on this claim limitation.
Su discloses that “oscillating fields block the growth of the segregation…and…that under appropriate TRC condition the central segregation can complete disappear”, where precipitates are replaced by equiaxed grains and the resulting microstructure has uniformity (3.1. Macro segregation observation para. 3). Su also discloses that application of the electro- and static magnetic fields contributes to the increase in the solute solid solubility and a steep decrease of the undercooling degree from the edges to the center of the melt (3.2. Micro segregation analysis para. 5). Further, Su discloses that introducing the alternating oscillating electromagnetic field contributes to “complete disappearance of segregation” (4. Conclusions para. 1).
During the fourth casting Su applies a combination of three-phase AC and static magnetic field (2. Experimental methods para. 3). Su Fig. 5 discloses a Zn segregation for AC magnetic field of 4.1 at both the surface and center of the sheet. Therefore, as discussed above, in light of Su’s disclosure of a uniform microstructure without segregation, since Zn has the same amount of segregation in both the surface and center, the Zn variation in the surface and center of the AC magnetic field sheet tends to 0%, which is within the scope of the claimed 8% or less.
Regarding claim 23, Su discloses the 7xxx aluminum alloy strip is substantially free of micro-segregation (element content tends towards equilibrium and stability and block segregation with complete disappearance of segregation) (3.1. Macro segregation observation para. 3; 3.2. Micro segregation analysis para. 5; 4. Conclusions para. 1).
Regarding claim 24, Su discloses the 7xxx aluminum alloy strip is substantially free of dendrites (dendrite arms act as seeds for equiaxed grains and can completely disappear) (3.1. Macro segregation observation para. 3) (dendrites give rise to equiaxed grains) (3.2. Micro segregation analysis para. 4).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su (Su et al. Abatement of segregation with the electro and static magnetic field during twin-roll casting of 7075 alloy sheet. Materials Science & Engineering A 599 (2014) 279-285.) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Teal Sheets (Teal Sheets. International Alloy Designations and Chemical Composition Limits for Wrought Aluminum and Wrought Aluminum Alloys. The Aluminum Association. Revised: January 2015.).
Regarding claim 6, the example aluminum alloy strip composition of Su is silent to comprising 6 wt. % to 12 wt. % zinc.
Su discloses a 7075 aluminum alloy (abstract, 2. Experimental methods para. 1).
Teal Sheets discloses a 7075 aluminum alloy has 5.1 to 6.1 wt% Zn (p. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the 7075 aluminum alloy strip of Su to include 5.1 to 6.1 wt% Zn because this is the standard amount of Zn in a 7075 aluminum alloy (Teal Sheets p. 12). 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 25, 27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su (Su et al. Abatement of segregation with the electro and static magnetic field during twin-roll casting of 7075 alloy sheet. Materials Science & Engineering A 599 (2014) 279-285.) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Teal Sheets (Teal Sheets. International Alloy Designations and Chemical Composition Limits for Wrought Aluminum and Wrought Aluminum Alloys. The Aluminum Association. Revised: January 2015.).
Regarding claim 25, Su discloses a (twin-roll) cast (TRC) 7xxx aluminum alloy product in the form of a 7xxx aluminum alloy strip (sheet) (2. Experimental methods paras. 1-2, Fig. 1), wherein the 7xxx aluminum alloy strip has a thickness of from 0.006 inch to 0.400 inch (transverse section of 5 x 300 mm; 5 mm thickness is 0.197 inches) (2. Experimental methods para. 2);
wherein the 7xxx aluminum alloy strip comprises a globular (equiaxed) grain structure (3.1. Macro segregation observation para. 3, Fig. 3(c), (d)) and is substantially free of both micro-segregation and dendrites (block segregation with complete disappearance of segregation) (3.1. Macro segregation observation para. 3; 3.2. Micro segregation analysis para. 5; 4. Conclusions para. 1);
wherein the 7xxx aluminum alloy strip consists essentially of aluminum, zinc, magnesium, copper, and one or more of manganese, chromium, zirconium, iron, silicon and titanium (Al-2.65 wt%Mg-5.30 wt%Zn-1.55 wt%Cu-0.42 wt%Zi-0.05 wt%Fe-0.25 wt%cr-0.20 wt% Mn) (2. Experimental methods para. 1);
wherein the 7xxx aluminum alloy strip includes:
from 1 wt. % to 3 wt. % magnesium (2.65 wt% Mg);
from 1 wt. % to 3 wt. % copper (1.55 wt% Cu).
With respect to the specified depth of 3,000 micrometers or through thickness, whichever is smaller, in Su, the sheet thickness is 5 mm (transverse section of 5 x 300 mm; 5 mm thickness is 0.197 inches) (2. Experimental methods para. 2), such that the “center” is 2.5 mm (2,500 micrometers). Therefore, the claimed depth is 500 micrometers past the center of Su, such that Su’s disclosure regarding the “center” reads on the claimed depth.
The example aluminum alloy strip composition of Su is silent to comprising 6 wt. % to 28 wt. % zinc.
Su discloses a 7075 aluminum alloy (abstract, 2. Experimental methods para. 1).
Teal Sheets discloses a 7075 aluminum alloy has 5.1 to 6.1 wt% Zn (p. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the 7075 aluminum alloy strip of Su to include 5.1 to 6.1 wt% Zn because this is the standard amount of Zn in a 7075 aluminum alloy (Teal Sheets p. 12). 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).
With respect to a variation of a weight percent of the zinc being 12% or less between a surface and a specified depth from the surface of the 7xxx aluminum alloy strip;
wherein the zinc variation is calculated as:
{(the maximum weight percent of zinc across the specified depth minus (-) the minimum weight percent of zinc across the specified depth) divided by (/) (the average mean weight percent of the zinc across the specified depth)}*100, the following disclosures of Su read on this claim limitation.
Su discloses that “oscillating fields block the growth of the segregation…and…that under appropriate TRC condition the central segregation can complete disappear”, where precipitates are replaced by equiaxed grains and the resulting microstructure has uniformity (3.1. Macro segregation observation para. 3). Su also discloses that application of the electro- and static magnetic fields contributes to the increase in the solute solid solubility and a steep decrease of the undercooling degree from the edges to the center of the melt (3.2. Micro segregation analysis para. 5). Further, Su discloses that introducing the alternating oscillating electromagnetic field contributes to “complete disappearance of segregation” (4. Conclusions para. 1).
During the third casting Su applies a half-wave current and static magnetic field (2. Experimental methods para. 3). With respect to the micro segregation analysis, Su discloses at the surface a maximum average Zn content of 14.5 wt% in the grain boundaries and at the center a maximum average Zn content of 13 wt% in the grain boundaries (3.2. Micro segregation analysis paras. 1-3). This has a variation of a weight percent of zinc of 10% ((14.5-13/14.5)*100), which is within the scope of the claimed 12% or less. Su also discloses at the surface a minimum average Zn content of 3.5 wt% in the grain boundaries and at the center a minimum average Zn content of 3.2 wt% in the grain boundaries (3.2. Micro segregation analysis paras. 1-3). This results in a variation of a weight percent of zinc of 8.6% ((3.5-3.2/3.5)*100), which is within the scope of the claimed 12% or less.
Further, during the fourth casting Su applies a combination of three-phase AC and static magnetic field (2. Experimental methods para. 3). Su Fig. 5 discloses a Zn segregation for AC magnetic field of 4.1 at both the surface and center of the sheet. Therefore, as discussed above, in light of Su’s disclosure of a uniform microstructure without segregation, since Zn has the same amount of segregation in both the surface and center, the Zn variation in the surface and center of the AC magnetic field sheet tends to 0%, which is within the scope of the claim 12% or less.
Regarding claim 26, Su in view of Teal Sheets discloses the 7xxx aluminum alloy strip comprises from 6 to 12 wt. % Zn (5.1 to 6.1 wt% Zn) (7075 aluminum alloy, Su abstract, 2. Experimental methods para. 1; Teal Sheets p. 12). 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 29, with respect to the variation of the zinc weight percent being 10% or less between the surface and the specified depth from the surface of the aluminum alloy strip, the following disclosures of Su read on this claim limitation.
Su discloses that “oscillating fields block the growth of the segregation…and…that under appropriate TRC condition the central segregation can complete disappear”, where precipitates are replaced by equiaxed grains and the resulting microstructure has uniformity (3.1. Macro segregation observation para. 3). Su also discloses that application of the electro- and static magnetic fields contributes to the increase in the solute solid solubility and a steep decrease of the undercooling degree from the edges to the center of the melt (3.2. Micro segregation analysis para. 5). Further, Su discloses that introducing the alternating oscillating electromagnetic field contributes to “complete disappearance of segregation” (4. Conclusions para. 1).
During the third casting Su applies a half-wave current and static magnetic field (2. Experimental methods para. 3). With respect to the micro segregation analysis, Su discloses at the surface a maximum average Zn content of 14.5 wt% in the grain boundaries and at the center a maximum average Zn content of 13 wt% in the grain boundaries (3.2. Micro segregation analysis paras. 1-3). This has a variation of a weight percent of zinc of 10% ((14.5-13/14.5)*100), which is within the scope of the claimed 10% or less. Su also discloses at the surface a minimum average Zn content of 3.5 wt% in the grain boundaries and at the center a minimum average Zn content of 3.2 wt% in the grain boundaries (3.2. Micro segregation analysis paras. 1-3). This results in a variation of a weight percent of zinc of 8.6% ((3.5-3.2/3.5)*100), which is within the scope of the claimed 10% or less.
Further, during the fourth casting Su applies a combination of three-phase AC and static magnetic field (2. Experimental methods para. 3). Su Fig. 5 discloses a Zn segregation for AC magnetic field of 4.1 at both the surface and center of the sheet. Therefore, as discussed above, in light of Su’s disclosure of a uniform microstructure without segregation, since Zn has the same amount of segregation in both the surface and center, the Zn variation in the surface and center of the AC magnetic field sheet tends to 0%, which is within the scope of the claim 10% or less.
Related Art
Hosch (Hosch et al. The effect of planar solidification on mechanical properties of Al-Zn-Mg-Cu-Zr alloy plate. International Conference on Aluminum Alloys, 13th, Pittsburgh, PA, US. June 3-7, 2012 (2012), 1377-1382.)
Hosch discloses an AL-ZN-Mg-Cu-Zr aluminum alloy 7050 composition with a thickness of 25 mm (about 1 inch) (Materials) with little composition variation through-thickness in the ingot cast by planar solidification (Composition, Fig. 3), where the lack of macrosegregation reduces the property variable (Properties, Figs. 4-6), such that significant macrosegregation pattern is avoided (Conclusions).
Nadella (Nadella et al. Macrosegregation in direct-chill casting of aluminum alloys. Progress in Materials Science 53 (2008) 421-480.)
Nadella discloses a globular grains in a grain refine DC cast 7075 billet (2.4. Structure patterns in DC cast billets, Fig. 8(b)) and macrosegregation of Zn occurs during solidification and partitioning of solute elements between liquid and solid phases (3. Macrosegregation in direct-chill casting of aluminum alloys).
Nadella STN (Nadella et al. Effect of grain refining on defect formation in DC cast Al-Zn-Mg-Cu alloy billet. Light Metals. (Warrendale, PA, US) (2007) 727-732. STN Abstract.)
Nadella STN discloses casting of an Al-Zn-Mg-Cu alloy billet with an overlapping composition in which the concentration profile of Zn was studied, where casting speed raises the segregation levels.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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