DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 4 and 20 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 4 fails to further limit independent claim 1 and is thus indefinite.
Claim 20 improperly broadens the range of independent claim 1 and is thus indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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(s) 1-3, 9, 11-13, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mironov et al. “Abnormal grain growth in fine-grained aluminum produced by friction-stir welding” (hereafter Mironov) in view of Kay (US 20050139640A1).
With respect to claim 1, Mironov teaches a method of treating a granular metallic material to affect a grain size of the material (title), the method comprising: performing a friction stir processing (FSW/P) operation on the material, the friction stir processing operation comprising passing a rotating head (probe) of a friction stir welding tool (welding tool) through a surface thickness of the granular metallic material in a treatment path (Introduction on page 1; and Material and experimental procedure on pages 1-2); and performing an annealing operation on the granular metallic material to grow a size of the granular metallic material (Material and experimental procedure on page 2; Results and discussion on pages 2-4; and Figures 1-3).
With respect to claim 1, Mironov does not teach wherein the treatment path includes a treatment pattern lying within a surface region of the granular metallic material, wherein a first treatment path in the treatment pattern overlaps with a second treatment path in the treatment pattern, and wherein a degree of overlap of the second treatment path with respect to the first treatment path is in the range of 1 to 10 percent.
However, Kay teaches wherein the treatment path includes a treatment pattern lying within a surface region of the granular metallic material, wherein a first treatment path in the treatment pattern overlaps with a second treatment path in the treatment pattern, and wherein the second treatment path at least partially overlaps the first treatment path (figures 7 and 9; and paragraphs 8-15, 35-36, and 39), which overlaps and/or encompasses the range of 1 to 10 percent.
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the path overlap of Kay in the process of Mironov in order to form a multi-bead stirred zone with the desired microstructure.
With respect to claim 2, Mironov teaches the friction stir process operation is devoid of a friction stir welding operation (Introduction on page 1; and Material and experimental procedure on page 1). Note that Mironov explicitly teaches friction stir processing and a bead-on-plate configuration, which do not require welding two components together.
With respect to claim 3, Mironov teaches wherein the treatment path includes a treatment pattern (broadest reasonable interpretation), the treatment pattern lying within a surface region of the granular metallic material (figures 1-2; and the bead-on-plate configuration).
With respect to claim 9, Mironov teaches wherein the surface thickness of the granular metallic material is in the range 1 to 20 millimeters (2 mm thick cold rolled sheets) (Material and experimental procedure on page 1).
With respect to claim 11, Mironov teaches wherein the annealing operation is performed at a temperature in the range of 500 to 600°C (Material and experimental procedure on page 2; and Figure 2).
With respect to claim 12, Mironov teaches wherein the annealing operation is performed for a duration in the range 0.01 to 24 hours (Material and experimental procedure on page 2; and Figure 2).
With respect to claim 13, Mironov teaches wherein the granular metallic material includes aluminum (title).
With respect to claim 16, Mironov teaches wherein the annealing operation on the granular metallic material causes the size of the granular material to be great than an original size of the granular metallic material (Title; Introduction on page 1; and Material and experimental procedure on pages 1-2; Results and discussion on pages 2-4; and Figures 1-3).
With respect to claim 20, Kay teaches wherein the degree of overlap of the second treatment path with respect to the first treatment path is in the range of 0.5 to 99 percent (figures 7 and 9; and paragraphs 8-15, 35-36, and 39).
Claim(s) 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mironov and Kay as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Hori et al. (WO2006/093125A1) (hereafter Hori).
With respect to claim 4-8, Mironov and Kay do not teach wherein a first treatment path in the treatment pattern overlaps with a second treatment path in the treatment pattern; wherein in the treatment pattern includes a raster pattern; a spiral pattern; a reciprocating pattern; and a serpentine pattern.
However, Hori teaches wherein a first treatment path in the treatment pattern overlaps with a second treatment path in the treatment pattern (figure 5C); wherein in the treatment pattern includes a raster pattern (figure 4A); a spiral pattern (5D); a reciprocating (broadest reasonable interpretation) pattern (figure 4Q); and a serpentine pattern (figure 4A).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the patterns of Hori in the collective process of Mironov and Kay in order to form a friction stir processed region in the desired pattern on the workpiece.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mironov and Kay as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN-109500485A) (hereafter Wang).
With respect to claim 6-8, Mironov and Kay do not teach wherein the treatment pattern includes a spiral pattern; a reciprocating pattern; and a serpentine pattern.
However, Wang teaches friction stir processing in a spiral (vortex) pattern (claim 4); a reciprocating (broadest reasonable interpretation) pattern (figure 1; and claim 4); and a serpentine pattern (figure 1; and claim 4).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the patterns of Wang in the collective process of Mironov and Kay in order to form a friction stir processed region in the desired pattern on the workpiece.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US2016/0354861A1) (hereafter Xu) in view of Mironov and Kay.
With respect to claim 14, Xu teaches a computer-readable storage medium, the computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform operations comprising, at least: implement a friction stir processing operation on a granular metallic material to affect a grain size thereof, the friction stir processing operation comprising passing a rotating head of a friction stir welding tool through a surface thickness of the granular metallic material in a treatment path (figures; paragraphs 6, 13, 16, 18, 24, 42, 45, and 48; and claims 19-20).
Xu fails to teach performing an annealing operation on the granular metallic material to grow a size of the granular metallic material; and wherein the treatment path includes a treatment pattern lying within a surface region of the granular metallic material, wherein a first treatment path in the treatment pattern overlaps with a second treatment path in the treatment pattern, and wherein a degree of overlap of the second treatment path with respect to the first treatment path is in the range of 1 to 10 percent.
However, Mironov teaches performing an annealing operation on the granular metallic material to grow a size of the granular metallic material (Introduction on page 1; and Material and experimental procedure on pages 1-2; Results and discussion on pages 2-4; and Figures 1-3).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the annealing of Mironov with the computer-readable storage medium of Xu in order to automate the collective friction stir processing and annealing process. Note that the court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.) In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958).
While, Kay teaches wherein the treatment path includes a treatment pattern lying within a surface region of the granular metallic material, wherein a first treatment path in the treatment pattern overlaps with a second treatment path in the treatment pattern, and wherein the second treatment path at least partially overlaps the first treatment path (figures 7 and 9; and paragraphs 8-15, 35-36, and 39), which overlaps and/or encompasses the range of 1 to 10 percent.
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the path overlap of Kay in the process of Xu and Mironov in order to form a multi-bead stirred zone with the desired microstructure.
With respect to claim 15, Xu teaches a computing apparatus, the computing apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the computing apparatus to perform operations comprising, at least: implement a friction stir processing operation on a granular metallic material to affect a grain size thereof, the friction stir processing operation comprising passing a rotating head of a friction stir welding tool through a surface thickness of the granular metallic material in a treatment path (figures; paragraphs 6, 13, 16, 18, 24, 42, 45, and 48; and claims 19-20)
Xu fails to teach performing an annealing operation on the granular metallic material to grow a size of the granular metallic material; and wherein the treatment path includes a treatment pattern lying within a surface region of the granular metallic material, wherein a first treatment path in the treatment pattern overlaps with a second treatment path in the treatment pattern, and wherein a degree of overlap of the second treatment path with respect to the first treatment path is in the range of 1 to 10 percent.
However, Mironov teaches performing an annealing operation on the granular metallic material to grow a size of the granular metallic material (Introduction on page 1; and Material and experimental procedure on pages 1-2; Results and discussion on pages 2-4; and Figures 1-3).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the annealing of Mironov with the computing apparatus of Xu in order to automate the collective friction stir processing and annealing process. Note that the court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.) In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958).
While, Kay teaches wherein the treatment path includes a treatment pattern lying within a surface region of the granular metallic material, wherein a first treatment path in the treatment pattern overlaps with a second treatment path in the treatment pattern, and wherein the second treatment path at least partially overlaps the first treatment path (figures 7 and 9; and paragraphs 8-15, 35-36, and 39), which overlaps and/or encompasses the range of 1 to 10 percent.
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the path overlap of Kay in the process of Xu and Mironov in order to form a multi-bead stirred zone with the desired microstructure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner agrees that Mironov does not teach overlapping treatment paths; however, Kay teaches at least partially overlapping treatment paths. It should also be noted that at least references US2011/0076419A1, US2014/0261900, and WO2006/093125A1, which are of record also teach overlapping treatment paths.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KILEY SHAWN STONER whose telephone number is (571)272-1183. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KILEY S STONER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights