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 .
Response to Amendment
Due to further review, the finality of the final rejection mailed 09/05/2025 is withdrawn.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-26 and 33-35 are canceled, Claims 27, 36, and 37 are currently amended, Claims 28-32 and 38-40 are previously presented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 27-32 and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 1472350, based on the machine translation and as evidenced by Encylopaedia Britannica.
CN 1472350 (CN ‘350) teaches refining magnesium alloy to remove non-metallic inclusions with a flux. The flux is prepared by mixing MgCl2, KCl, NaCl, CaCl2, and CsCl, melting the salts, adding CaF2, cooling, crushing, and sieving, and then adding hexachloroethane, MgCO3, and CaCO3 or CsCO3 (fourth page) in a ball mill (sixth page). The flux is added to molten magnesium alloy (third page). Regarding the limitation of forming granules, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the prepared flux of CN ‘350 reads on the claimed granules, since CN ‘350 teaches the same claimed preparation procedures of fusing (melting the salts), crushing, and sieving. Additionally, the instant specification recites “the term granule is intended to encompass forms such as particles, briquettes, pellets, strips, shavings, etc.” [0021].
Regarding Claims 28-30 CN ‘350 teaches the alkali chloride component is 20-42%, the alkaline earth chloride component is 41-60%, the fluoride-containing salt is 5-15%, and the carbonate is 5-25% (fourth page). CN ‘350 teaches overlapping ranges of alkali chloride salt, alkaline chloride salt, and carbonate. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the prior art discloses the utility of the composition over the entire disclosed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Further regarding Claim 30, CN ‘350 teaches a touching range for the amount of alkali chloride being the largest percentage of the mixture by weight, e.g. 42% alkali chloride and 41% alkaline earth chloride. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP § 2144.05 I.
Regarding Claim 31, the alkaline earth chloride component is 41-60% (fourth page), which is larger than another other component.
Regarding Claim 32, CN ‘350 teaches a mixture of melted salts but does not teach the claimed melting temperature range of 400-600 °C. A molten mixture of chlorides means that a eutectic melting temperature will be lower than the melting point of any individual component, as evidenced by Encylopaedia Britannica. CN ‘350 exemplifies the melting points of the metal chlorides (third page). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the eutectic mixture of chlorides taught by KR ‘317 reads on the claimed range of 400-600 °C, since if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 38, the mixture includes a fluoride salt as CaF2.
Regarding Claim 39, the mixture includes CaF2 and a carbonate.
Regarding Claim 40, the mixture is for refining aluminum magnesium alloy (page 2), which comprises aluminum.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 36 and 37 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding Claim 36, CN ‘350 teaches after crushing, the flux is put into a ball mill, ground to a powder, and sieved with a No. 40 sieve (eighth page), which has a 425 μm opening (Schwartz). CN ‘350 does not suggest a size of between 1 and 3 mm as claimed. Regarding Claim 37, CN ‘350 does not suggest compressing the flux or the powder having a density of between 1.5 and 2.0 g/cm3 as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4, filed 12/05/2025, with respect to the introduction of the limitation of Claim 33 (now cancelled) into independent Claim 27, does not place the claims in condition for allowance. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of CN ‘350 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
In Claim 27, the limitation of “granules” without any further description of how they are formed by pressing or compaction does not read over the flux of CN ‘350. The instant specification recites “the term granule is intended to encompass forms such as particles, briquettes, pellets, strips, shavings, etc” [0021], which is not limited to a compressed material.
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 Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 4:00 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, Keith D. Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
Tima M. McGuthry-Banks
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/TIMA M. MCGUTHRY-BANKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733