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
Receipt is acknowledged of a certified copy of JP 2020-084577 filed May 13, 2020 as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Receipt is also acknowledged of a copy of WO 2021/230080, the WIPO publication of PCT/JP2021/016908 filed April 18, 2021.
Response to Restriction Election
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on February 28, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 8-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventive group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification Objection
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Inconsistency of relational equation (1).
[0014], [0025], and [0041] define relational equation (1) as “Si (at%) ≥ 2Mg (at%)” and relate it to precipitating Mg2Si.
[0058] recites ““excess Si (wt%)” value related to the relational equation (1)” and [0059], [Table 1] presents “Excess Si”.
Applicant’s specification does not explain how the relationship between Si (at%) and Mg (at%) is related to excess Si (wt%) nor how Excess Si in Table 1 is related to relational equation (1).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 line 5 “Al-(Fe, Mn, Cr)-Si-based crystal precipitates” is interpreted as precipitates that require Al, Fe, Mn, Cr, and Si, such that the 6000 series aluminum alloy requires Al, Fe, Mn, Cr, and Si to form the “Al-(Fe, Mn, Cr)-Si-based crystal precipitates”.
Claim Objection
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
It does not end in a period. Equations (1) and (2) are after the period.
Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. MPEP 608.01(m).
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 line 1 “aluminum alloy forging material” renders the claim indefinite. Does this refer to an aluminum alloy material that will be forged or that has been forged? For the purpose of examination claim 1 will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation of referring to an aluminum alloy material that will be or has been forged.
Claim 1 lines 3-4 and 7-8 “the 6000 series aluminum alloy satisfying the following relational equations (1) and (2)…Si (at%) ≥ 2Mg (at%) (1)…0.2 ≤ excess Si (wt%) + Mn (wt%) + Cr (wt%) ≤ 1.7 (2)” renders the claim indefinite. How does the Si (at%) in equation (1) relate to the excess Si (wt%) of equation (2)? What is the Si (at%) of? For example, it could be the Si content of the 6000 series aluminum alloy, of the Al-(Fe, Mn, Cr)-Si-based crystal precipitates, or of the base metal crystal grain boundary precipitates. Further, what is “excess Si” and how does it relate to the 6000 series aluminum alloy composition? For the purpose of examination claim 1 will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the Si (at%) in equation (1) based on the total Si content of the 6000 series aluminum alloy and the excess Si (wt%) being calculated by “Si amount (wt%) – Mg amount (wt%)/1.731” (applicant’s specification [0015]) using the total Si content of the 6000 series aluminum alloy.
Claim 2 lines 1-2 “the content of Si is 0.5 to 1.4 wt%, and the content of Mg is 0.6 to 1.7 wt%” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the Si and Mg contents in claim 2 relate to the Si (at%) and 2Mg (at%) in relational equation (1) and how the Si content in claim 2 relates to the excess Si (wt%) in relational expression (2) in claim 1. For the purpose of examination claim 2 will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim 2 Si and Mg ranges satisfying relational expressions (1) and (2).
Claim 2 lines 1-2 “the content of Si…and the content of Mg” render the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 3 lines 1-2 “the content of Si is 0.9 to 1.2 wt%, and the content of Mg is 0.8 to 1.2 wt%” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the Si and Mg contents in claim 3 relate to the Si (at%) and 2Mg (at%) in relational equation (1) and how the Si content in claim 3 relates to the excess Si (wt%) in relational expression (2) in claim 1. For the purpose of examination claim 3 will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim 3 Si and Mg ranges satisfying relational expressions (1) and (2).
Claim 3 lines 1-2 “the content of Si…and the content of Mg” render the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 4 lines 2-3 “the average grain size of the precipitate in the crystal grain boundary of the base material” renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 5 lines 2-3 “the aspect ratio of the precipitate in the crystal grain boundary of the case material” renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 6 lines 2-3 “the width of the precipitation free zone centering on the crystal grain boundary of the base material” renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 7 lines 2-3 “the 0.2% proof stress” and “the elongation” render the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
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 3 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.
Claim 3 lines 1-2 “the content of Si is 0.9 to 1.2 wt%, and the content of Mg is 0.8 to 1.2 wt%” fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1 from which it depends. The Si and Mg contents of claim 3 do not satisfy relational equation (1) in claim 1 as evidenced by the following table, where 2Mg (at%) is 1.4 to 2.8, which is outside the range of Si at%.
Element
Claim 3 and [0032]-[0038] of applicant’s specification (wt%)
Calculated at%
Cu
0.2 to 1.0
0.09 to 0.4
Si
0.9 to 1.2
0.9 to 1.2
Mg
0.8 to 1.2
0.7 to 1.4
Mn
0.1 to 0.8
0.05 to 0.4
Cr
0.1 to 0.8
0.05 to 0.4
Fe
0.05 to 0.3
0.02 to 0.1
Al
Balance
Balance
In the above table the Mn, Cr, and Fe contents disclosed in applicant’s specification ([0032]-[0038]) were used in the at% calculation. In order for claim 1 to have “Al-(Fe, Mn, Cr)-Si-based precipitates”, Fe, Mn, and Cr must be present in the alloy composition.
For the purpose of examination claim 3 will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 3 requiring the recited composition that “Si is 0.9 to 1.2 wt%” and that “Mg is 0.8 to 1.2 wt%”.
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.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 2 lines 1-2 “the content of Si is 0.5 to 1.4 wt%, and the content of Mg is 0.6 to 1.7 wt%” appears to satisfy relational equation (1) in claim 1 as evidenced by the following table, where 1.4 at% Si ≥ 2*0.7 at% Mg.
Element
Claim 2 and [0032]-[0038] of applicant’s specification (wt%)
Calculated at%
Cu
0.2 to 1.0
0.09 to 0.4
Si
0.5 to 1.4
0.5 to 1.4
Mg
0.6 to 1.7
0.7 to 1.9
Mn
0.1 to 0.8
0.05 to 0.4
Cr
0.1 to 0.8
0.05 to 0.4
Fe
0.05 to 0.3
0.02 to 0.1
Al
balance
Balance
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 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakai (US 2009/0000705).
Regarding claim 1, Nakai discloses an aluminum alloy forging material ([0001]) characterized by
being formed from a 6000 series aluminum alloy ([0002], [0024], [0026], [0045]),
having a Cu content of 0.2 to 1.0 wt% (0.01 to 0.7 mass%) ([0026], [0045], [0054]),
the composition of the 6000 series aluminum alloy having precipitates in the base metal crystal grain boundary ([0076]-[0081]) and an Al-(Fe, Mn, Cr)-Si-based crystal precipitates (Al-Mn and Al-Cr intermetallic compounds include an Al-(Fe,Mn,Cr)-Si compound) in the base metal crystal grain ([0050], [0082]-[0086]).
Nakai satisfies the following relational equations (1) and (2):
Si (at%) ≥ 2Mg (at%) (1) (0.4 to 1.4 mass% Si and 0.5 to 1.25 mass% Mg converts to 0.38 to 1.36 at% Si and 0.56 to 1.41 at% Mg, such that (0.38 to 1.36) Si at% ≥ (1.11 to 1.36) 2Mg at% for 2(0.56) to 2(0.68)) ([0045])
0.2 ≤ excess Si (wt%) + Mn (wt%) + Cr (wt%) ≤ 1.7 (2) (0.011 to 1.45, 0+0.001+0.01 to 0.1+1.0+0.35) ([0045]).
(Applicant’s specification at [0015] recites “the excess Si amount (wt%) can be calculated by “Si amount (wt%) – (Mg amount (wt%) / 1.731”. Excess Si in Nakai is 0 to 0.1, 1.4-1.25/1.731) ([0045]).
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 2, Nakai discloses the content of Si is 0.5 to 1.4 wt% (0.4 to 1.4 mass%) ([0048]-[0049]), and the content of Mg is 0.6 to 1.7 wt% (0.5 to 1.25 mass%) ([0047]-[0048]) ([0045]). 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 3, Nakai discloses the content of Si is 0.9 to 1.2 wt% (0.4 to 1.4 mass%) ([0048]-[0049]), and the content of Mg is 0.8 to 1.2 wt% (0.5 to 1.25 mass%) ([0047]-[0048]) ([0045]). 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 4, the average grain size of the precipitate in the crystal grain boundary of the base material being 50 nm or less has been considered and determined to result from manufacturing the claim 1 composition by the disclosed process (applicant’s claim 9). The prior art discloses an overlapping composition (Nakai [0026], [0045], [0050], [0054], [0076]-[0086]) and a substantially similar process (Nakai [0099]-[0107]), such that the claimed average grain size of the precipitate in the crystal grain boundary of the base material being 50 nm or less naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
Applicant’s Claim 9
Nakai [0099]-[0107]
Preheating
300 to 550°C
1 to 3 hours
Homogenizing
460 to 570°C
2 hours or more
Hot forging
Hot forging
Regarding claim 5, the aspect ratio of the precipitate in the crystal grain boundary of the base material being 5 or less has been considered and determined to result from manufacturing the claim 1 composition by the disclosed process (applicant’s claim 9). The prior art discloses an overlapping composition (Nakai [0026], [0045], [0050], [0054], [0076]-[0086]) and a substantially similar process (Nakai [0099]-[0107]), such that the claimed aspect ratio of the precipitate in the crystal grain boundary of the base material being 5 or less naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claim 7, Nakai discloses the 0.2% proof stress (yield strength) is 350 MPa or more and the elongation is 10% or more ([0128], Table 4). 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagaki (US 2014/0367001).
Regarding claim 1, Inagaki discloses an aluminum alloy forging material ([0001]) characterized by
being formed from a 6000 series aluminum alloy ([0002], [0007], [0038]),
having a Cu content of 0.2 to 1.0 wt% (0.20 to 1.00 mass%) ([0010], [0039], [0046]-[0047]),
the composition of the 6000 series aluminum alloy having precipitates in the base metal crystal grain boundary and an Al-(Fe, Mn, Cr)-Si-based crystal precipitates (Al-Fe-Si-(Mn,Cr,Zr)-based crystallized precipitate) ([0043]-[0045], [0055]-[0056], [0069], [0073]).
Inagaki satisfies the following relational equations (1) and (2):
Si (at%) ≥ 2Mg (at%) (1) (0.80 to 1.80 mass% Si and 0.60 to 1.80 mass% Mg converts to 0.8 to 1.7 at% Si and 0.7 to 2.0 at% Mg, such that (0.8 to 1.7) Si at% ≥ (1.4 to 1.7) 2Mg at% for 2(0.7) to 2(0.85)) ([0010], [0039]-[0057])
0.2 ≤ excess Si (wt%) + Mn (wt%) + Cr (wt%) ≤ 1.7 (2) (0.2 to 1.7, 0+0.10+0.10 to 0.7+0.60+0.40) ([0010], [0039]-[0057]).
(Applicant’s specification at [0015] recites “the excess Si amount (wt%) can be calculated by “Si amount (wt%) – (Mg amount (wt%) / 1.731”. Excess Si in Inagaki is 0 to 0.7, 1.80-0.60/1.731) ([0010], [0039]-[0045]).
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).
Inagaki also discloses a manufacturing process ([0014], [0070]-[0079]) that is substantially similar to that recited in applicant’s claim 9.
Applicant’s Claims 9-10
Inagaki [0070]-[0079]
Preheating
300 to 550°C
1 to 3 hours
Homogenizing
450 to 550°C
2 hours or more
Hot forging
Hot forging
The limitation of Al-(Fe, Mn, Cr)-Si-based crystal precipitates being in the base metal crystal grain has been considered and determined to result from the composition of claim 1 undergoing the processing of claim 9. The prior art discloses a composition (Inagaki [0010], [0039]-[0057], [0069], [0073]) that renders the claim obvious processed by a substantially similar process (Inagaki [0014], [0070]-[0079]), such that Al-(Fe,Mn,Cr)-Si-based crystal precipitates being in the base metal crystal grain naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, Inagaki discloses the content of Si is 0.5 to 1.4 wt% (0.80 to 1.80 mass%) ([0044]-[0045]), and the content of Mg is 0.6 to 1.7 wt% (0.60 to 1.80 mass%) ([0042]-[0043]) ([0010], [0039]). 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 3, Nakai discloses the content of Si is 0.9 to 1.2 wt% (0.80 to 1.80 mass%) ([0044]-[0045]), and the content of Mg is 0.8 to 1.2 wt% (0.60 to 1.80 mass%) ([0042]-[0043]) ([0010], [0039]). 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 4-6, the limitations of the average grain size of the precipitate in the crystal grain boundary of the base material being 50 nm or less (claim 4), the aspect ratio of the precipitate in the crystal grain boundary of the base material being 5 or less (claim 5), and the width of the precipitation-free zone centering on the crystal grain boundary of the base material being 100 nm or less (claim 6) have been considered and determined to result from the composition of claim 1 undergoing the processing of claim 9. The prior art discloses a composition (Inagaki [0010], [0039]-[0057], [0069], [0073]) that renders the claim obvious processed by a substantially similar process (Inagaki [0014], [0070]-[0079]), such that the average grain size of the precipitate in the crystal grain boundary of the base material being 50 nm or less (claim 4), the aspect ratio of the precipitate in the crystal grain boundary of the base material being 5 or less (claim 5), and the width of the precipitation-free zone centering on the crystal grain boundary of the base material being 100 nm or less (claim 6) naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claim 7, Inagaki discloses the 0.2% proof stress is 350 MPa or more and the elongation is 10% or more (Table 2). 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih (US 2014/0261909).
Regarding claims 1-3, Shih discloses an aluminum alloy forging material ([0001]) characterized by
being formed from a 6000 series aluminum alloy (AA6xxx) ([0002]-[0004]), having
a Cu content of 0.2 to 1.0 wt% (0.2 to 1.0 wt%) ([0006], [0031]),
a content of Si of 0.5 to 1.4 wt% (claim 2) or 0.9 to 1.2 wt% (claim 3) (0.4 to 1.2 wt%) ([0029]), and
a content of Mg of 0.6 to 1.7 wt% (claim 2) or 0.8 to 1.2 wt% (claim 3) (0.6 to 1.6 wt%) ([0033]),
the composition of the 6000 series aluminum alloy satisfying the following relational equation (2): 0.2 ≤ excess Si (wt%) + Mn (wt%) + Cr (wt%) ≤ 1.7 (2) (applicant’s specification [0015], excess Si amount calculated by “Si amount (wt%) – Mg amount (wt%)/1.731”, such that excess Si in Shih is 0 to 0.3 and equation (2) is 0.05 (0+0+0.05) to 0.8 (0.3+0.2+0.3)) ([0029]-[0036]).
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).
The composition of the 6000 series aluminum alloy satisfying the following relational equation (1): Si (at%) ≥ 2Mg (at%) (1) has been considered and determined to be satisfied by the Mg and Si contents of claim 2 or claim 3 as discussed in the above 112(b) rejections. Since the composition of Shih overlaps with the Mg and Si contents of claims 2 and 3 ([0029], [0033]), then relational question (1): Si (at%) ≥ 2Mg (at%) naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
Shih discloses precipitate phases act as obstacles to dislocation movement ([0043], [0046]), where Mg2Si precipitates ([0033]), Fe achieves grain refinement ([0030]), Mn precipitation strengthens ([0032]), and Cr forms an intermetallic compound that obstructs re-crystallization ([0036]).
Shih also discloses a manufacturing process ([0009], [0040]-[0041]) that is substantially similar to that recited in applicant’s claim 9.
Applicant’s Claims 9-10
Shih [0009], [0040]-[0041]
Preheating
300 to 550°C
1 to 3 hours
Preheating
300 to 500°C
2-3 hours (120-180 mins)
Hot forging
Hot forging
The limitations of having precipitates in the base metal crystal grain boundary and an Al-(Fe, Mn, Cr)-Si-based crystal precipitates in the base metal crystal grain have been considered and determined to result from the composition of claim 1 undergoing the processing of claims 9-10. The prior art discloses a composition (Shih [0002]-[0004], [0006], [0029]-[0036]) that renders the claim obvious processed by a substantially similar process (Shih [0009], [0040]-[0041]), such that precipitates being in the base metal crystal grain boundary and the Al-(Fe,Mn,Cr)-Si-based crystal precipitates being in the base metal crystal grain naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claims 4-6, the limitations of the average grain size of the precipitate in the crystal grain boundary of the base material being 50 nm or less (claim 4), the aspect ratio of the precipitate in the crystal grain boundary of the base material being 5 or less (claim 5), and the width of the precipitation-free zone centering on the crystal grain boundary of the base material being 100 nm or less (claim 6) have been considered and determined to result from the composition of claim 1 undergoing the processing of claim 9. The prior art discloses a composition (Shih [0002]-[0004], [0006], [0029]-[0036]) that renders the claim obvious processed by a substantially similar process (Shih [0009], [0040]-[0041]), such that the average grain size of the precipitate in the crystal grain boundary of the base material being 50 nm or less (claim 4), the aspect ratio of the precipitate in the crystal grain boundary of the base material being 5 or less (claim 5), and the width of the precipitation-free zone centering on the crystal grain boundary of the base material being 100 nm or less (claim 6) naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claim 7, Shih discloses the 0.2% proof (yield) stress is 350 MPa or more and the elongation is 10% or more ([0018], [0021], Figs. 5, 8). 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu (CN 102337429 machine translation) in view of Shih (US 2014/0261909).
Regarding claims 1-3, Gu discloses an aluminum alloy forging material ([0002]) characterized by
being formed from a 6000 series aluminum alloy ([0006], [0010], [0024]), having
a Cu content of 0.2 to 1.0 wt% (0.2 to 0.8 wt%) ([0010], [0023], [0025]),
a content of Si of 0.5 to 1.4 wt% (claim 2) or 0.9 to 1.2 wt% (claim 3) (0.8 to 1.6 wt%), and
a content of Mg of 0.6 to 1.7 wt% (claim 2) or 0.8 to 1.2 wt% (claim 3) (0.8 to 1.4 wt%) ([0023]-[0024]),
the composition of the 6000 series aluminum alloy satisfying the following relational equation (2): 0.2 ≤ excess Si (wt%) + Mn (wt%) + Cr (wt%) ≤ 1.7 (2) (applicant’s specification [0015], excess Si amount calculated by “Si amount (wt%) – Mg amount (wt%)/1.731”, such that excess Si in Gu is 0 to 0.46 and equation (2) is 0.3 (0+0.2+0.1) to 1.9 (0.5+1.0+0.4)) ([0023], [0026]-[0027]).
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).
The composition of the 6000 series aluminum alloy satisfying the following relational equation (1): Si (at%) ≥ 2Mg (at%) (1) has been considered and determined to be satisfied by the Mg and Si contents of claim 2 or claim 3 as discussed in the above 112(b) rejections. Since the composition of Gu overlaps with the Mg and Si contents of claims 2 and 3, then relational question (1): Si (at%) ≥ 2Mg (at%) naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
Gu discloses optimizing the homogenization process based on a study of precipitation ([0015]), controlling the precipitates in order to control the grain structure during forging ([0030]), Mg and Si form a main strengthening phase of Mg2Si ([0024]), and Mn and Cr form intermetallic compounds ([0026]-[0027]) with Fe, such as AlFeSi(Mn,Cr) ([0029]).
Gu also discloses a manufacturing process ([0030], [0034]) that is substantially similar to that recited in applicant’s claims 9-10.
Applicant’s Claims 9-10
Gu [0030], [0034]
Homogenization
500 to 550°C
5 to 10 hours
Homogenization
520 to 570°C
4 to 10 hours
Preheating
300 to 550°C
1 to 3 hours
Reheated
450 to 500°C
Hot forging
Hot forging
The process of Gu is silent to holding during reheating.
Shih discloses an aluminum alloy forging material ([0001]) manufactured by preheating at 300 to 500°C and holding for 120 to 180 minutes (2 to 3 hours) ([0009], [0040]) then hot forging ([0009], [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Gu to hold during reheating for 2 to 3 hours in order to result in better mechanical properties (Shih [0042]) through the grain refinement effect (Gu [0046]).
The limitations of having precipitates in the base metal crystal grain boundary and an Al-(Fe, Mn, Cr)-Si-based crystal precipitates in the base metal crystal grain have been considered and determined to result from the composition of claim 1 undergoing the processing of claims 9-10. The prior art discloses a composition (Gu [0006], [0010], [0023]-[0027]), including Al-(Fe,Mn,Cr)-Si precipitates ([0029]), that renders the claim obvious processed by a substantially similar process (Gu [0030], [0034]; Shih [0009], [0040]-[0041]), such that precipitates being in the base metal crystal grain boundary and the Al-(Fe,Mn,Cr)-Si-based crystal precipitates being in the base metal crystal grain naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claims 4-6, the limitations of the average grain size of the precipitate in the crystal grain boundary of the base material being 50 nm or less (claim 4), the aspect ratio of the precipitate in the crystal grain boundary of the base material being 5 or less (claim 5), and the width of the precipitation-free zone centering on the crystal grain boundary of the base material being 100 nm or less (claim 6) have been considered and determined to result from the composition of claim 1 undergoing the processing of claims 9-10. The prior art discloses a composition (Gu [0006], [0010], [0023]-[0027]), including precipitates ([0024]-[0029]), that renders the claim obvious processed by a substantially similar process (Gu [0030], [0034]; Shih [0009], [0040]-[0041]), such that the average grain size of the precipitate in the crystal grain boundary of the base material being 50 nm or less (claim 4), the aspect ratio of the precipitate in the crystal grain boundary of the base material being 5 or less (claim 5), and the width of the precipitation-free zone centering on the crystal grain boundary of the base material being 100 nm or less (claim 6) naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claim 7, Gu discloses the 0.2% proof (yield) stress is 350 MPa or more (above 370 MPa) and the elongation is 10% or more (greater than 12%) ([0011], [0015], [0023], [0035]). 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).
Related Art
Yoshihara (US 2002/0014287)
Yoshihara discloses an Al-Mg-Si aluminum alloy ([0008]) with Mg2Si precipitates that are 20 nm or more inside the grains ([0011]) and Mg2Si precipitates on grain boundaries ([0010]) at a size of 500 nm or less ([0023]-[0027]). The alloy of Yoshihara includes 0.2 to 1.6% Si and 0.2 to 1.8% Mg ([0029]-[0030]), 0.15 to 0.7% Cu ([0031]-[0032]), and Mn and Cr ([0033]-[0034[, [0037]) and has a proof stress of 150 N/mm2 or more ([0046]).
Takemura (US 2016/0355914)
Takemura discloses an Al-Mg-Si-based aluminum alloy ([0001]) with an overlapping composition ([0020], [0054]-[0066]), 0.2% proof stress of 350 MPa or more, and elongation of 10.0% or more ([0028]). Takemura discloses Mg2Si precipitates and that Mn, Cr, and Fe crystallize with Al and Si ([0058]-[0062]) manufactured by homogenizing at 470°C to 540°C for 3 to 10 hours ([0075]-[0076]) followed by working such as by hot forging (]0077]-[0078]).
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-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