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 priority claim to US provisional 62/967,923 filed January 30, 2020 is acknowledged.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks and Claim Amendments filed February 27, 2026.
Claims Filing Date
February 27, 2026
Amended
1, 3
Cancelled
2, 4, 9
Pending
1, 3, 5-8, 10-23
Withdrawn
14-23
Under Examination
1, 3, 5-8, 10-13
Withdrawn Claim Objection
The following objection is withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 3 line 1 “where in”.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following 112(b) rejection is withdrawn due to claim cancellation:
Claim 4 lines 1-2 “at least one solute is two solutes”.
Response to Remarks filed February 27, 2026
Applicant's arguments filed February 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
112(a)
The applicant argues claim 1 has been amended (Remarks p. 7 para. 2).
The claim 1 amendment does not address the pending 112(a) rejection. Applicant’s specification discloses a supersaturated solid solution in [0057], [0067], and [0072]-[0074] with respect to an Al-Fe-Ti alloy. Applicant’s specification in [0017], [0020]-[0021], [0032], [0047], [0061], Fig. 2a discloses at least one solute acting to retain a microstructure of coating comprising 9R phase, grains in the size range of 2-100 nm and nanotwins in the temperature range of 25-400°C with respect to an Al-Ti-Fe composition. Applicant’s specification supports an aluminum alloy comprising solutes of iron and titanium with the additionally claimed microstructure features, but not an aluminum alloy comprising at least one of iron and titanium, which includes aluminum and iron or aluminum and titanium in combination with the additionally claimed microstructure features.
112(b)
The applicant argues the indefiniteness has been corrected in amended claim 3 (Remarks p. 7 para. 4).
Amended claim 3 introduces a new 112(b) rejection as detailed below.
Kita
The applicant argues Kita mentions high cooling rates with no mention of cooling rate, whereas applicant discloses specified cooling rates in [0067] and [0072], such that it is highly speculate that Kita produces the same structure as described (Remarks p. 8 para. 6).
Arguments present by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. MPEP 716.01(c)(II).
Applicant’s specification at [0067] states in the last sentence that “the supersaturated Fe and Ti in the current study far exceed the equilibrium solubilities, benefitting from the high quenching rate, in the range of 106 to 1010 K/s, during sputtering”. Kita discloses depositing the alloy by irradiating the vapor deposition source and depositing the alloy component on the deposited substrate (3:27 to 4:6). The sputtering process disclosed by applicant is a physical vapor deposition process, such that, absent evidence to the contrary, the cooling rate of Kita is substantially similar to that of the sputtering of applicant. Further, with respect to structure, Kita discloses a hypersaturated solute solid single phase (Kita 3:6-8, 6:12-14, 10:12-16), providing evidence that the resulting structure of Kita renders that claimed obvious.
Nakamura as evidenced by Li; Nakamura as evidenced by Kita; Li in view of Zhang and Kita
In the Remarks filed February 27, 2026 arguments directed to Nakamura as evidenced by Li, Nakamura as evidenced by Kita, and Li in view of Zhang and Kita were not presented. The claim amendments do not overcome these rejections. Therefore, the rejections of Nakamura as evidenced by Li, Nakamura as evidenced by Kita, and Li in view of Zhang and Kita are maintained.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 line 4 “9R phase” is given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with applicant’s specification of being a diffuse ITB (incoherent twin boundary) ([0057]).
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, 3-8, and 10-13 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 7-12 “at least one solute taken from a group consisting of iron and titanium…, wherein the at least one solute acts to retain a microstructure of coating comprising 9R phase, grains in the size range of 2-100 nm and nanotwins in the temperature range of 25-400°C, and wherein the at least one solute is in a supersaturated state exceeding its equilibrium solubility” fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Applicant’s specification discloses suitable solutes include iron, titanium, and chromium ([0082]) and that the aluminum alloy can contain chromium ([0085]). However, these disclosures are silent to the coating microstructure stability in the temperature range of 25-400°C and to the solutes or constituents being in a supersaturated state exceeding their respective equilibrium solubility.
With respect to a supersaturated state, applicant’s specification at [0067], directed to Al-Fe-Ti alloys, supports that Fe and Ti are supersaturated, far exceeding their respective equilibrium solubilities. Further, a supersaturated solid solution is disclosed in [0057] and [0072]-[0074] with respect to Al-Fe-Ti ternary alloys.
With respect to the at least one solute acting to retain a microstructure of coating comprising 9R phase, grains in the size range of 2-100 nm and nanotwins in the temperature range of 25-400°C, applicant’s specification discloses an Al-Ti-Fe composition retains columnar nanograins with nanotwins and 9R phase after annealing at 350°C ([0020]-[0021], [0061]), that Al-Fe-Ti shows out-of-plane texture and extra phases at temperatures that reach or exceed 400°C ([0017], Fig. 2A), remains high strength up to 400°C ([0032]), and has superb thermal stability up to 400°C ([0047]).
Therefore, applicant’s specification does not support “at least one solute taken from the group consisting of iron and titanium…, wherein the at least one solute acts to retain a microstructure of coating comprising 9R phase, grains in the size range of 2-100 nm and nanotwins in the temperature range of 25-400°C, and wherein the at least one solute is in a supersaturated state exceeding its equilibrium solubility.”
Claims 3-8 and 10-13 are rejected as depending from claim 1.
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 3, 5-8, and 11-13 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.
Claim 3 lines 2-3 “at least one solute is more than one solute taken from a group consisting of iron and titanium” renders the claim indefinite. The limitation of “more than one” includes any amount more than one. However, the group consists of only two solutes, iron and titanium. It is unclear if the at least one solute can be any amount of more than one solute or if the solute is being limited to being two solutes of iron and titanium. For the purpose of examination claim 3 is interpreted as requiring two solutes of iron and titanium.
Claim 5 lines 1-2 “The high-strength aluminum alloy coating of claim 4, wherein the two solutes are iron and titanium” renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis. Claim 5 also depends from claim 4, which is cancelled. For the purpose of examination claim 5 is interpreted as depending from claim 1 and further limit the at least one solute to being two solutes that are iron and titanium.
Claims 6-8 and 11-13 are rejected as depending from claim 5.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3 and 5 are duplicates. See the above respective 112(b) rejections regarding the interpretation of claims 3 and 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3, 5-7, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kita (JP 2004-211117 machine translation).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 10-13, Kita teaches a high-strength, high-heat-resistant aluminum alloy (1:3-4) with a formula of Al(bal)Fe(c)Ti(d) where (c) is 0.6 to 3.5 at% and (d) is 1 to 4.5 at% (i.e. Fe and Ti read on at least one solute taken from a group consisting of iron and titanium in the aluminum capable of stabilizing grains of the aluminum matrix, claim 1; the at least one solute is more than one solute taken from a group consisting of iron and titanium, claim 3; the two solutes are Fe and Ti, claim 5; Fe is 2 to 10 at% and Ti is 2 to 10 at%, claim 11) and a hypersaturated (i.e. the at least one solute is in a supersaturated state exceeding its equilibrium solubility, claim 1) solid solution single phase structure (3:3-8, 4:24 to 5:3, 5:29 to 6:1, Table 1) of alpha-Al (i.e. aluminum matrix) having an average crystal grain size of 40 nm to 10 um (i.e. grains in the size range of 1 to 100 nm) (6:12-14, 10:12-16) where Fe has a very high effect on microstructure miniaturization and solid solution strengthening and causes grain boundary precipitation (4:12-24) and Ti makes the structure finer and strengthens the solid solution (4:24-29, 5:1-3). 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).
Kita teaches manufacturing the alloy by irradiating vapor deposition source material containing the alloy component with an electron beam to evaporate the alloy component and deposit the alloy component on a substrate (i.e. coating) with a high cooling state to manufacture a thick plate (3:27-29, 4:1-6, 6:16-18, 21-29, 7:1-14, Fig. 1).
The composition (Al: balance, Fe: 0.6 to 3.5 at%, Ti: 1 to 4.5 at%, Kita 3:6-8), structure (hypersaturated solid solution single phase of alpha-Al with a fine grain size of 40 nm to 10 um, Kita 3:6-8, 6:12-14, 10:12-16), and process (vapor deposition onto a substrate, Kita 3:27-29, 4:1-6) of the prior art is substantially similar to the claimed composition and structure and applicant’s process to make the claimed coating (sputtering Al, Fe, and Ti onto a substrate, applicant’s specification [0049], where sputtering is a physical vapor deposition process). It appears that the structure and properties of the prior art aluminum alloy coating are substantially similar to those claimed, including a 9R phase and nanotwins, the at least one solute (i.e. Fe and Ti) acting to retain a microstructure of coating comprising 9R phase, grains in the size range of 1 to 100 nm, and nanotwins in the temperature range of 25 to 400°C (claim 1), a compressive strength of 1.5 to 2.5 GPa at 25 to 400°C (claim 6), inter-twin spacing of nanotwins of 5 to 30 nm (claim 10), deformability of 5 to 25% (claim 12), and a hardness of 4.5-7.0 GPa (claim 13).
With respect to the 9R phase and nanotwins (claim 1), it is recited in applicant’s specification that “The formations of 9R phase and nanotwin structure are highly technique- and composition-dependent. The high quenching rate of the sputtering technique rendered a supersaturated solid solution in the ternary alloys and the pinning effects of the solutes and coating texture effect gave rise to high density ITBs with 9R phase.” ([0057]). The vapor deposition process (Kita 3:27-29, 4:1-6) is substantially similar to sputtering, and it includes a high quenching rate. The hypersaturated solid solution single phase structure (Kita 3:6-8) reads on a supersaturated solid solution. The Fe-Ti-Al alloy (Kita 3:6-8) is a ternary alloy using the same two solutes as claimed in overlapping amounts. Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, the prior art coating is substantially similar to the coating, including having a 9R phase and nanotwins.
Regarding claim 7, Kita teaches during vapor film deposition the temperature is controlled to 423 to 623 K, where a deposition temperature lower than 423 K the material tends to be columnar (i.e. the fine grains are equiaxed because the temperature is controlled to prevent the material from being columnar) (7:8-11).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kita (JP 2004-211117 machine translation) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Yamagishi (JP H06-264215 machine translation).
Regarding claim 8, Kita teaches manufacturing a thick plate (7:3-7), but is silent to the thickness.
Yamagishi teaches a stainless steel sheet coated with an Al-Ti alloy plating film ([0008]) with a thickness of 0.2 to 20 um deposited by vapor deposition ([0011], [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to deposit the thick plate in Kita to a thickness of 0.2 to 20 um because this is an effective plating thickness without film cracking and film powdering during processing (Yamagishi [0021], [0023]). 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 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (JP 2007-092153 machine translation) as evidenced by Li (Li et al. High temperature thermal and mechanical stability of high-strength nanotwinned Al alloys. Acta Materialia 165 (2019) 142-152.).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Nakamura teaches an Al alloy reflective film ([0001]) containing 1.0 to 4.0 at% of Cr, Fe, and Ti, respectively (i.e. at least one solution in the aluminum capable of stabilizing grains of the aluminum matrix and the at least one solute taken from a group consisting of iron and titanium, claim 1), and balance Al (i.e. high-strength aluminum alloy coating), where the growth of crystal grains due to temperature changes can be suppressed (i.e. fine grains) ([0011]) formed by sputtering ([0014]) to a thickness of 1500 angstroms (0.15 microns) ([0016]).
As evidenced by Li, Fe has limited equilibrium solid solubility (~0.3 at.%) in Al at room temperature (Li 4.1. The influence of Fe solute on lattice parameters of Al alloys). In Al more than ~0.3 at% Fe is a supersaturated state. Therefore, the 1.0 to 4.0 at% of Fe in the Al alloy (Nakamura [0011]) reads on the at least one solute (Fe) being in a supersaturated state exceeding its equilibrium solubility.
The composition (Cr, Fe, and Ti at 1.0 to 4.0 at% each and Al as balance, Nakamura [0011]), structure (growth of crystal grains due to temperature change is suppressed, Nakamura [0011]; the at least one solute in a supersaturated state exceeding its equilibrium solubility, Nakamura [0011], Li 4.1.), and process (sputtering onto a substrate, Nakamura [0014], [0016]) of the prior art is substantially similar to the claimed composition and structure and applicant’s process to make the claimed coating (sputtering onto a substrate, applicant’s specification [0049]). It appears that the structure and properties of the prior art aluminum alloy coating are substantially similar to those claimed, including a 9R phase, grains in the size range of 1 to 100 nm, nanotwins, the at least one solute (i.e. Cr, Fe, and Ti) acting to retain a microstructure of coating comprising 9R phase, grains in the size range of 1 to 100 nm, and nanotwins in the temperature range of 25 to 400°C, the at least one solute is in a supersaturated state exceeding its equilibrium solubility (claim 1), and inter-twin spacing of nanotwins of 5 to 30 nm (claim 10).
Regarding claims 3, 5, and 11, Nakamura teaches an Al alloy ([0001]) containing 1.0 to 4.0 at% of Cr, Fe, and Ti, respectively ([0011]). The 1.0 to 4.0 at% of Cr and Fe read on “the at least one solute is more than one solute taken from a group consisting of iron and titanium” (claim 3 lines 2-3) and the 1.0 to 4.0 at% Fe and Ti read on “the two solutes are iron and titanium” (claim 5 lines 1-2) and “iron content is in the range of 2-10 atomic percent and the titanium content is in the range of 2-10 atomic percent” (claim 11 lines 1-3). 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 claims 6, 12, and 13, the composition (Cr, Fe, and Ti at 1.0 to 4.0 at% each and Al as balance, Nakamura [0011]), structure (growth of crystal grains due to temperature change is suppressed, Nakamura [0011]), and process (sputtering onto a substrate, Nakamura [0014], [0016]) of the prior art is substantially similar to the claimed composition and structure and applicant’s process to make the claimed coating (sputtering onto a substrate, applicant’s specification [0049]). It appears that the structure and properties of the prior art aluminum alloy coating are substantially similar to those claimed, including a compressive strength of 1.5 to 2.5 GPa at 25 to 400°C (claim 6), deformability of 5 to 25% (claim 12), and hardness of 4.5 to 7.0 GPa (claim 13).
Regarding claim 8, Nakamura teaches a thickness of 1500 angstroms (0.15 microns) ([0016]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (JP 2007-092153 machine translation) as evidenced by Li (Li et al. High temperature thermal and mechanical stability of high-strength nanotwinned Al alloys. Acta Materialia 165 (2019) 142-152.) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Thornton (Thornton. Influence of apparatus geometry and deposition conditions on the structure and topography of thick sputtered coatings. Journal of Vacuum Science and Technology (1974), 11(4), 666-670. STN abstract.).
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura is silent to the fine grains being equiaxed or columnar.
Thornton teaches Movchan and Demchishin proposed a 3-zone model for microstructures of Al alloy coatings formed by sputtering where zone 1 is densely packed fibrous grains (i.e. columnar), zone 2 is columnar grains, and zone 3 is equiaxed grains (Thornton STN abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the fine grains in Nakamura to be columnar or equiaxed because these are two grain morphologies (i.e. zones 1-3) that are known to be present in the microstructure of Al alloy coatings formed by sputtering (Thornton STN abstract), which is the same method as taught by Nakamura (Nakamura [0014]).
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (JP 2007-092153 machine translation) as evidenced by Kita (JP 2004-211117 machine translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Nakamura teaches an Al alloy reflective film ([0001]) containing 1.0 to 4.0 at% of Cr, Fe, and Ti, respectively (i.e. at least one solution in the aluminum capable of stabilizing grains of the aluminum matrix and the at least one solute is one of Fe and Ti, claim 1), and balance Al (i.e. high-strength aluminum alloy coating), where the growth of crystal grains due to temperature changes can be suppressed (i.e. fine grains) ([0011]) formed by sputtering ([0014]) to a thickness of 1500 angstroms (0.15 microns) ([0016]).
As evidenced by Kita, in an Al-Fe-Ti alloy with 0.6 to 3.5 at% Fe and 1 to 4.5 at% Ti the Fe is hypersaturated (supersaturated) and the Ti is supersaturated (Kita 3:3-8, 4:12 to 5:3, 5:29 to 6:1). Therefore, 1.0 to 4.0 at% of Fe and Ti in an Al alloy (Nakamura [0011]) are both in a supersaturated state exceeding their respective equilibrium solubilities.
The composition (Cr, Fe, and Ti at 1.0 to 4.0 at% each and Al as balance, Nakamura [0011]), structure (growth of crystal grains due to temperature change is suppressed, Nakamura [0011]; the at least one solute in a supersaturated state exceeding its equilibrium solubility, Nakamura [0011], Kita 3:3-8, 4:12 to 5:3, 5:29 to 6:1), and process (sputtering onto a substrate, Nakamura [0014], [0016]) of the prior art is substantially similar to the claimed composition and structure and applicant’s process to make the claimed coating (sputtering onto a substrate, applicant’s specification [0049]). It appears that the structure and properties of the prior art aluminum alloy coating are substantially similar to those claimed, including a 9R phase, grains in the size range of 1 to 100 nm, nanotwins, the at least one solute (i.e. Cr, Fe, and Ti) acting to retain a microstructure of coating comprising 9R phase, grains in the size range of 1 to 100 nm, and nanotwins in the temperature range of 25 to 400°C, the at least one solute is in a supersaturated state exceeding its equilibrium solubility (claim 1), and inter-twin spacing of nanotwins of 5 to 30 nm (claim 10).
Regarding claims 3, 5, and 11, Nakamura teaches an Al alloy ([0001]) containing 1.0 to 4.0 at% of Cr, Fe, and Ti, respectively ([0011]). The 1.0 to 4.0 at% of Cr and Fe read on “the at least one solute is more than one solute taken from a group consisting of iron and titanium” (claim 3 lines 2-3) and the 1.0 to 4.0 at% Fe and Ti read on “the two solutes are iron and titanium” (claim 5 lines 1-2) and “iron content is in the range of 2-10 atomic percent and the titanium content is in the range of 2-10 atomic percent” (claim 11 lines 1-3). 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 claims 6, 12, and 13, the composition (Cr, Fe, and Ti at 1.0 to 4.0 at% each and Al as balance, Nakamura [0011]), structure (growth of crystal grains due to temperature change is suppressed, Nakamura [0011]), and process (sputtering onto a substrate, Nakamura [0014], [0016]) of the prior art is substantially similar to the claimed composition and structure and applicant’s process to make the claimed coating (sputtering onto a substrate, applicant’s specification [0049]). It appears that the structure and properties of the prior art aluminum alloy coating are substantially similar to those claimed, including a compressive strength of 1.5 to 2.5 GPa at 25 to 400°C (claim 6), deformability of 5 to 25% (claim 12), and hardness of 4.5 to 7.0 GPa (claim 13).
Regarding claim 8, Nakamura teaches a thickness of 1500 angstroms (0.15 microns) ([0016]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (JP 2007-092153 machine translation) as evidenced by Kita (JP 2004-211117 machine translation) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Thornton (Thornton. Influence of apparatus geometry and deposition conditions on the structure and topography of thick sputtered coatings. Journal of Vacuum Science and Technology (1974), 11(4), 666-670. STN abstract.).
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura is silent to the fine grains being equiaxed or columnar.
Thornton teaches Movchan and Demchishin proposed a 3-zone model for microstructures of Al alloy coatings formed by sputtering where zone 1 is densely packed fibrous grains (i.e. columnar), zone 2 is columnar grains, and zone 3 is equiaxed grains (Thornton STN abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the fine grains in Nakamura to be columnar or equiaxed because these are two grain morphologies (i.e. zones 1-3) that are known to be present in the microstructure of Al alloy coatings formed by sputtering (Thornton STN abstract), which is the same method as taught by Nakamura (Nakamura [0014]).
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (Li et al. High temperature thermal and mechanical stability of high-strength nanotwinned Al alloys. Acta Materialia 165 (2019) 142-152.) in view of Zhang (Zhang et al. Microstructure and mechanical behavior of nanotwinned AlTi alloys with 9R phase. Scripta Materialia 148 (2018) 5-9. Citations as page:column:paragraph(s).) and Kita (JP 2004-211117 machine translation).
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 5, Li discloses an Al-xFe (x = 1-10 at%) (i.e. Fe reads on at least one solute) film manufactured by co-sputtering then annealing (2. Experimental techniques para. 1) with an inventive example being Al-5.5 at% Fe having an average grain size of columnar grains of about 4 nm as-deposited as well as after annealing at 200°C and after annealing at 300°C the fcc Al crystals (i.e. aluminum matrix) have a grain size of 50 +/- 18 nm and a structure of intermingled 9R and narrow twin columns (i.e. nanotwins) (3.1. Microstructural and chemical characterizations, Figs. 2-4) that is stable up to 280°C (i.e. temperature range of 25-280°C) (5. Conclusions). 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).
Li discloses Fe has limited equilibrium solid solubility (~0.3 at.%) in Al at room temperature (4.1. The influence of Fe solute on lattice parameters of Al alloys). The 1-10 at% Fe (2. Experimental techniques para. 1) exceeds the ~0.3 at% equilibrium solid solubility, such that it is in a supersaturated state.
Li is silent to the at least one solute acting to retain a microstructure of coating comprising 9R phase, grains in the size of range 1 to 100 nm, and nanotwins in the temperature range of 280-400°C.
Zhang discloses an Al-Ti film sputtered to contain 0.15 to 5.1 at% Ti with a highly twinned structure and 9R phase (5:2:2-3, 9:1:3, Fig. 3).
Kita discloses an aluminum alloy with a fine crystal structure (1:5-7) that includes 1 to 4.5 at% Ti to make the structure finer and to solid solution strengthen without impairing toughness, where the diffusion rate of Ti in Al is slow, such that the heat resistance of the structure is enhanced without lowering ductility (4:24-29, 5:1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the Al-xFe (x = 1-10 at%) alloy coating of Li to include 1 to 4.5 at% Ti because the diffusion rate of Ti in Al is slow, which enhances the heat resistance of the structure (Kita 4:24-29, 5:1-3). Further, adding 1 to 4.5 at% Ti to Al and adding 1 to 10 at% Fe to Al both form the same structure of twins, 9R phase, and aluminum matrix (Zhang 5:2:2-3, 9:1:3, Fig. 3; Li 3.1. Microstructural and chemical characterizations, Figs. 2-4).
Li in view of Zhang and Kita discloses an Al-(1-10 at%)Fe-(1 to 4.5 at%)Ti alloy (Li 2. Experimental techniques para. 1; Zhang 5:2:2-3, 9:1:3; Kita 4:24-29, 5:1-3), where an Al-xFe (x = 1-10 at%) has a grain size of 50 +/- 18 nm (Li 3.1. Microstructural and chemical characterizations, Figs. 2-4) and the addition of 1 to 4.5 at% Ti to an Al alloy makes the structure finer (Kita 4:24-29, 5:1-3). Therefore, the combination of Li in view of Zhang and Kita in which 1 to 4.5 at% Ti is added to the Al alloy with 1 to 10 at% Fe has a finer grain size, such that it is less than a grain size of 50 +/- 18 nm, which overlaps with a grain size of 1 to 100 nm. 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).
Li in view of Zhang and Kita discloses an Al-(1-10 at%)Fe-(1 to 4.5 at%)Ti alloy (i.e. the at least one solute is Fe and Ti, claims 1, 3, 5) (Li 2. Experimental techniques para. 1; Zhang 5:2:2-3, 9:1:3; Kita 4:24-29, 5:1-3), where the Fe content stabilizes the structure up to 280°C (Li 5. Conclusions), and the Ti content further enhances the heat resistance of the structure (i.e. further improves the stability of the structure beyond 280°C) (Kita 4:24-29, 5:1-3). The prior art also discloses a composition and structure (i.e. Al alloy film containing at least one solute with an Al matrix, 9R phase, 1-100 nm grains, and nanotwins: Li 3.1. Microstructural and chemical characterizations, Figs. 2-4; Zhang 5:2:2-3, 9:1:3, Fig. 3) and method of manufacturing (i.e. co-sputtering: Li 2. Experimental techniques para. 1; Zhang 5:2:2-3) that are substantially similar to the claimed composition and structure (claim 1) and the method that produces the claimed alloy (i.e. co-sputtering: applicant’s specification [0010], [0049]). It appears the properties of the product are substantially similar to the properties claimed, including the at least one solute acting to retain a microstructure of coating comprising 9R phase, grains in the size range of 1 to 100 nm, and nanotwins in the temperature range of 25-400°C.
Regarding claim 6, Li in view of Zhang and Kita discloses an Al-(1-10 at%)Fe-(1 to 4.5 at%)Ti alloy (Li 2. Experimental techniques para. 1; Zhang 5:2:2-3, 9:1:3; Kita 4:24-29, 5:1-3), where 5.5 at% Fe in aluminum has a flow stress of about 1.73 and 1.5 GPa at room temperature and 100°C, respectively (Li 3.3. Temperature-dependent in-situ compression experiments, Fig. 6) and the addition of 1 to 4.5 at% Ti to Al increases strength and ductility through grain refinement and the presence of ITBs (incoherent twin boundaries) and the 9R phase that resist dislocation transmission (Zhang Abstract, 5:1:1, 8:2:1-4) and enhances the heat resistance of the structure due to the slow diffusion rate in Ti, such that high strength, high hardness, and excellent hot workability can be obtained (Kita 4:24-29, 5:1-3) (i.e. due to the effect of heat resistance, the addition of Ti to the Al-Fe alloy improves the flow stress at elevated temperature).
The prior art also discloses a composition and structure (i.e. Al alloy film containing two solutes of Fe and Ti with an Al matrix, 9R phase, 1-100 nm grains, and nanotwins: Li 3.1. Microstructural and chemical characterizations, Figs. 2-4; Zhang 5:2:2-3, 9:1:3, Fig. 3) and method of manufacturing (i.e. co-sputtering: Li 2. Experimental techniques para. 1; Zhang 5:2:2-3) that are substantially similar to the claimed composition and structure (claim 1) and the method that produces the claimed alloy (i.e. co-sputtering: applicant’s specification [0010], [0049]). It appears the properties of the product are substantially similar to the properties claimed, including the compressive strength of the coating being in the range of 1.5 to 2.5 GPa in the temperature range of 25 to 400°C.
Regarding claim 7, Li in view of Zhang discloses columnar grains (Li 3.1. Microstructural and chemical characterizations, Figs. 2-4; Zhang 6:2:2, 8:2:4, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Li discloses a sputtered film with a thickness of 3-4 um (Li 2. Experimental techniques para. 1).
Regarding claim 10, the prior art discloses a composition and structure (i.e. Al alloy film containing at least one solute with an Al matrix, 9R phase, 1-100 nm grains, and nanotwins: Li 3.1. Microstructural and chemical characterizations, Figs. 2-4; Zhang 5:2:2-3, 9:1:3, Fig. 3) and method of manufacturing (i.e. co-sputtering: Li 2. Experimental techniques para. 1; Zhang 5:2:2-3) that are substantially similar to the claimed composition and structure (claim 1) and the method that produces the claimed alloy (i.e. co-sputtering: applicant’s specification [0010], [0049]). It appears the properties of the product are substantially similar to the properties claimed, including the inter-twin spacing of the nanotwins being in the range of 5 to 30 nm.
Regarding claim 11, Li in view of Zhang and Kita discloses an Al-(1-10 at%)Fe-(1 to 4.5 at%)Ti alloy, with an example having 5.5 at% Fe (Li 2. Experimental techniques para. 1, 3.1. Microstructural and chemical characterizations para. 1; Zhang 5:2:2-3, 9:1:3; Kita 4:24-29, 5:1-3). 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 12, Li in view of Zhang and Kita discloses an Al-(1-10 at%)Fe-(1 to 4.5 at%)Ti alloy (Li 2. Experimental techniques para. 1; Zhang 5:2:2-3, 9:1:3; Kita 4:24-29, 5:1-3), where an Al-xFe (x = 1-10 at%) (Li 3.1. Microstructural and chemical characterizations, Figs. 2-4) has final epsilon values (i.e. deformability) of 15.6%, 15.3%, 15.9%, and 16.1% for as-deposited, 100°C, 200°C, and 300°C (Li 4.4. Plasticity of deformed pillars, Fig. 5) and the addition of 1 to 4.5 at% Ti to an Al alloy does not impair the toughness (i.e. toughness is related to deformability) (Kita 4:24-29, 5:1-3). Therefore, the combination of Li in view of Zhang and Kita in which 1 to 4.5 at% Ti is added to the Al alloy with 1 to 10 at% Fe has a unimpaired toughness (i.e. deformability).
Further, the prior art discloses a composition and structure (i.e. Al alloy film containing at least one solute with an Al matrix, 9R phase, 1-100 nm grains, and nanotwins: Li 3.1. Microstructural and chemical characterizations, Figs. 2-4; Zhang 5:2:2-3, 9:1:3, Fig. 3) and method of manufacturing (i.e. co-sputtering: Li 2. Experimental techniques para. 1; Zhang 5:2:2-3) that are substantially similar to the claimed composition and structure (claim 1) and the method that produces the claimed alloy (i.e. co-sputtering: applicant’s specification [0010], [0049]). It appears the properties of the product are substantially similar to the properties claimed, including deformability of the coating being in the range of 5 to 25%.
Regarding claim 13, Li in view of Zhang and Kita discloses an Al-(1-10 at%)Fe-(1 to 4.5 at%)Ti alloy (Li 2. Experimental techniques para. 1; Zhang 5:2:2-3, 9:1:3; Kita 4:24-29, 5:1-3), where an Al-xFe (x = 1-10 at%) (Li 3.1. Microstructural and chemical characterizations, Figs. 2-4) with 5.5 at% Fe has a maximum hardness of about 5.7 GPa (Li p. 150 col. 1 para. 2) and the addition of 1 to 4.5 at% Ti makes the structure finer and strengthens by solid solution to increase the strength and form a material with high hardness (Kita 4:24-49, 5:1-3). Therefore, the combination of Li in view of Zhang and Kita in which 1 to 4.5 at% Ti is added to the Al alloy with 1 to 10 at% Fe has increased hardness (i.e. more than the maximum hardness of 5.7 GPa disclosed by Li, p. 150 col. 1 para. 2).
Further, the prior art discloses a composition and structure (i.e. Al alloy film containing at least one solute with an Al matrix, 9R phase, 1-100 nm grains, and nanotwins: Li 3.1. Microstructural and chemical characterizations, Figs. 2-4; Zhang 5:2:2-3, 9:1:3, Fig. 3) and method of manufacturing (i.e. co-sputtering: Li 2. Experimental techniques para. 1; Zhang 5:2:2-3) that are substantially similar to the claimed composition and structure (claim 1) and the method that produces the claimed alloy (i.e. co-sputtering: applicant’s specification [0010], [0049]). It appears the properties of the product are substantially similar to the properties claimed, including hardness being in the range of 4.5 to 7.0 GPa.
Related Art
Sasaki (Sasaki et al. Nanocrystalline structure and mechanical properties of vapor quenched Al-Zr-Fe alloy sheets prepared by electron-beam deposition. Materials Transactions, Col. 44, No. 10 (2003) pp. 1948 to 1954.)
Sasaki teaches nanocrystalline Al ternary alloys (abstract) prepared by PVD (i.e. physical vapor deposition) with Al 99.3-x, Zr x, Fe 0.7, where x is 2.8, 4.0, and 6.7 (2. Experimental Procedure) with decreased grain size caused by suppression of grain growth due to ultrahigh cooling rate during vaporous quenching and the addition of Zr and/or Fe that has a low diffusion coefficient in Al, where the Al 92.6-Zr 6.7-Fe 0.7 alloy predominantly consists of alpha-Al containing supersaturated Zr and Fe solutes (3.1 Microstructures) and Vickers hardness data presented for vapor quenched (Fig. 6) and annealed samples (Fig. 7).
Kita Kazuhiko (JP H08-283921 machine translation)
Kita Kazuhiko teaches a high-strength aluminum alloy with a fine crystal structure ([0001], [0005]) with an average crystal grain size of 100 nm or less and a thickness of 1 mm or more ([0006]) with a formula AlbalMaXb ([0007]) where M is Fe and X is Ti ([0008]) manufactured by electron beam vapor deposition ([0009], [0010])
Miki (US 2008/0253271)
Miki discloses a reflective film including Al(100-x-y)FexTiy, where x is 3 to 15 and y is 3 to 15 ([0017], [0020], [0037]) manufactured by sputtering ([0038]) to a thickness of 10 to 40 nm ([0017]).
Li-AdvMat (Li et al. High-strength nanotwinned Al alloys with 9R phase. Adv. Mater. 2018, 30, 1704629.)
Li-AdvMat discloses fabrication of high-strength nt (nanotwin) Al-xFe (x=1-10 at%) solid solution alloys with substantial 9R phase and a film hardness that reaches 5.5 GPa with a flow stress exceeding 1.5 GPa (2:1:2, Figs. 2-5) with columnar grains (2:1:3).
Zhang-AlTi (Zhang et al. Microstructure and mechanical behavior of nanotwinned AlTi alloys with 9R phase. Scripta Materialia 148 (2018) 5-9)
Zhang-AlTi discloses Al with 0.15 to 5.1 at% Ti solute with incoherent nanotwin boundaries bounding broad 9R phase in sputtered AlTi films (Abstract, para. 3) where 0.15 at% Ti has a grain size of 1900 nm, 5.1 at% Ti has a grain size of 180 nm, and increasing Ti reduces average grain size (para. 6).
Zhang-AlTi is silent to the behavior of the AlTi film at temperatures up to 400°C.
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 on 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