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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 3-5 and 8-20 are pending wherein claims 1, 5 and 11-12 are amended, claims 2 and 6-7 are canceled and claims 4 and 10 are withdrawn from consideration.
Status of Previous Rejections
The previous rejection of claims 1, 3, 8-9, 14-17 and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kündig et al. (Early crystallization stages in a Zr-Cu-Ni-Al-Ti metallic glass) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment to claim 1. The previous rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kündig et al. (Early crystallization stages in a Zr-Cu-Ni-Al-Ti metallic glass) as evidenced by Pauling (Atomic Radii and Interatomic Distances in Metals) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 20 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.
Everything after “when” is optional language that does not appear to be required processing. MPEP 2111.04. Therefore, claim 20 fails to further limit claim 19 and claim 1 upon which it depends.
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 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, 8-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (CN 108504969 A) in view of Chen (Increasing the cooling rate of Cu mold by liquid alloy coating).
In regard to claim 1, Song (CN ‘437) discloses a zirconium base block amorphous alloy with the formula (ZraMbAgcRE100-a-b-c)x (AldCu100-d)y (NieCofFe100-e-f)1-x-y where RE is a rare earth element, M is Ti or Nb, 85 ≤ a ≤ 95, 2 ≤ b ≤10, 0 ≤ c ≤1, 20 ≤ d ≤ 40, 60 ≤ e ≤80, 5 ≤ f ≤ 25; 0.45 ≤ x ≤ 0.65 and y ≤ 0.45. One such zirconium based amorphous alloy that would fall within the ranges specified would include an alloy having Zr50.2Ag0.5Ti4Y0.8Al-10Cu25Ni7-Co2Fe0.5 or Zr60Ag0.5Ti4Y0.5Al10Cu15Ni7Co2Fe1 (pages 3-5 of English Translation). As such, the scope of Song (CN ‘437) would at least overlap the scope of the instant invention.
With respect to the recitation “the additive element and the principal cluster form an icosahedral quenched-in nuclei (IQN) quasi-crystal cluster” in claim 1 and in regard to claim 3, Song (CN ‘437) discloses at least substantially similar compositions as well as cooling in a metal mold (page 7). However, the composition and structure would be a result of cooling the composition as it is referred to as being quenched in and this structure isn’t specified in Song (CN ‘437).
However, Chen teaches cooling in a copper metal mold that is coated with Ga-In-Sn alloy painted on the surface in order to achieve an upper limit of cooling of 1613K/s in order to provide refined microstructures and improved properties (Abstract and Introduction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to filing of the instant invention to utilize the copper mold painted with Ga-In-Sn alloy, as disclosed by Chen, when cooling the amorphous zirconium alloys, as disclosed by Song (CN ‘437), in order to achieve an upper limit of cooling of 1613K/s in order to provide refined microstructures and improved properties, as disclosed by Chen (Abstract and Introduction).
With respect to the properties “healable” and “superplastic”, Song (CN ‘437) in view of Chen discloses a substantially similar composition and microstructure. Therefore, these properties would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
With respect to the recitation “the radius of the element is 75% or more and 105% or less with respect to the atomic radius of the Zr” in claim 1, Song (CN ‘437) discloses wherein M would be titanium (132 to 136 pm (covalent) or 147 (empirical)) or niobium (143 to 146 pm) both of which would be within the 75% to 105% of the size of zirconium (155 to 160 pm).
With respect to the recitation “wherein Equation 1 below is satisfied for the X in said Formula 1:
[Equation 1]
1/3 (at.% of Ti) + 1/3 (at.% of Nb) + 1/3 (at.% of Ta) + 1/3 (at.% of Mo) + 1/7 (at.% of V) +1/7 (at.% of Hf) + 1/6 (at% of Ag) ≥ 1.0” in claim 1, the first alloy set forth above would have a value of 1.416 and the second alloy would have a value of 1.416 and each would therefore would read on the claim.
Still regarding claim 3, 1613 K/s as disclosed by Chen would be within the range of 100K/s to 106K/s as claimed.
In regard to claim 5, Zr60Ag0.5Ti4Y0.5Al10Cu15Ni7Co2Fe1 would be within the scope of Song (CN ‘437) and would therefore read on the claim.
With respect to the recitation “wherein in the cooling process of the molten metal of the healable superplastic amorphous alloy, the thickness of the molten metal is 10 µm or more and 20 mm or less” in claim 8, the Examiner notes that the claim refers to the status of the metal in molten form and not in a solid form and this would constitute a processing limitation whereas the claim is drawn to a product. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim 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." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2113. However, if this is deemed to be a limitation of the product, even though Song (CN ‘437) does not specify the thickness of the alloy, merely changing the thickness of a prior art product would not constitute a patentable distinction from that prior art product. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A).
In regard to claim 9, Chen teaches that normal casting in a copper mold would provide a cooling rate in the range of 100 to 103 K/s to produce bulk materials and thus one having ordinary skill in the could just remove the thin layer of Ga-In-Sn paint on the mold if one desired to achieve a lower cooling rate (Introduction).
In regard to claims 11-12, Zr60Ag0.5Ti4Y0.5Al10Cu15Ni7Co2Fe1 would be within the scope of Song (CN ‘437) and would therefore read on the claim.
With respect to the recitation “wherein Equation 2 below is satisfied for the X’ in said Formula 2:
[Equation 2]
1/3 (at.% of Ti) + 1/3 (at.% of Nb) + 1/3 (at.% of Ta) + 1/3 (at.% of Mo) + 1/7 (at.% of V) +1/7 (at.% of Hf) + 1/6 (at% of Ag) ≥ 1.0” in claim 13, Zr60Ag0.5Ti4Y0.5Al10Cu15Ni7Co2Fe1 would have a value of 1.416 and each would therefore would read on the claim.
With respect to the recitation “wherein in the cooling process of the molten metal of the healable superplastic amorphous alloy, the thickness of the molten metal is 10 µm or more and 20 mm or less” in claim 14, the Examiner notes that the claim refers to the status of the metal in molten form and not in a solid form and this would constitute a processing limitation whereas the claim is drawn to a product. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim 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." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2113. However, if this is deemed to be a limitation of the product, even though Song (CN ‘437) does not specify the thickness of the alloy, merely changing the thickness of a prior art product would not constitute a patentable distinction from that prior art product. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A).
In regard to claim 15, Song (CN ‘437) in view of Chen discloses treating a substantially similar composition in a substantially similar manner. Therefore, principal clusters of NiZr2 would be expected.
With respect to the recitation “wherein, in the principal cluster, the Ni and the Zr form a polyhedron, and the Ni is disposed at the center of the polyhedron” in claim 16, Song (CN ‘437) in view of Chen discloses treating a substantially similar composition in a substantially similar manner. Therefore, Ni and the Zr form a polyhedron, and the Ni is disposed at the center of the polyhedron would be expected.
With respect to the recitation “wherein the polyhedron is an icosahedron” in claim 17, Song (CN ‘437) in view of Chen discloses treating a substantially similar composition in a substantially similar manner. Therefore, the formation of icosahedron would be expected.
In regard to claim 18, Song (CN ‘437) discloses wherein M would be titanium (132 to 136 pm (covalent) or 147 (empirical)) or niobium (143 to 146 pm) both of which would be within the 75% to 105% of the size of zirconium (155 to 160 pm). When converting to nm, these would read on the claim.
With respect to the recitation “wherein a plastic deformation region of the healable superplastic amorphous alloy is recovered by application of external energy including one selected from the group consisting of mechanical energy, electrical energy, thermal energy, magnetic energy, and combinations thereof” in claim 19, the Examiner notes that the claims are drawn to a product and not a process. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim 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." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2113.
Additionally, Song (CN ‘437) discloses polishing and cleaning (page 7).
With respect to the recitation “wherein when the external energy is thermal energy, the thermal energy application is a thermocycling process in which an environment of -50°C or less and an environment of 100°C or more are alternately performed at intervals of a time period of 20 seconds or more” in claim 20, everything after “when” is optional language that does not appear to be required processing. MPEP 2111.04. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the claims are drawn to a product and not a process. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim 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." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2113.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 8-9, 11-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessee Roe whose telephone number is (571)272-5938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7:30 am to 4 pm.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759