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 Claims
Claims 1, 16 and 19 are amended in view of applicant’s response filed 4/6/2026. Claims 12 and 21-27 are canceled. Therefore, claims 1-11 and 13-20 are currently under examination.
Status of Previous Rejections
The rejection of claims 1 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s claim amendment in the response filed 4/6/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. US 2014/0230974(Lin).
Lin teaches a process of preparing a functionally gradient aluminum alloy product(Figs. 4-5, 9, 12), comprising;
Casting the Al alloy ingot in a mold [0066] or a molten liquid to a casting cavity[0018] to form a cast product, wherein the casting product comprises peritectic forming elements and eutectic forming elements[0018];
Homogenizing the cast product[0007-0008];
Hot rolling the casting product to form a functionally gradient Al alloy([0008, 0057], Figs. 9, 12).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Lin further teaches the claimed formation of first type grain which reads on the primary grains as claimed[0182-0184]. Lin additionally teach the controlling of the twin-roll casting{0030-0032], which inherently controls the movement and accumulation of the primary grains as claimed.
Additionally, Fig. 6b-2 of Lin and related disclosure[0018] further teaches that small dendrites 20-50 microns in size (Fig. 6b-2 #18-6) are concentrated in the center of the cast product, wherein the small dendrites are depleted of eutectic elements and enriched and enriched in peritectic elements[0019], which meets the amended limitation of the instant claim 1. The small dendrites located at the center of the cast product of Lin reads on the primary grain as claimed. The size of the small dendrites as taught by Lin overlaps the claimed primary grain size. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The selection of claimed primary grain size from the size taught by Lin would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since Lin teach the same utilities in its disclosed small dendrites size.
Furthermore, the claimed controlling casting condition to influence movement and accumulation of the primary grains towards a center of the cast product is implicitly taught by Lin[0018], because Lin’s process produces a cast produce with a center enriched in peritectic forming elements and depleted in eutectic forming elements as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Lin further teaches that the Al alloy may be a 2xxx, a 6xxx or a 7xxx series Al alloy[0376].
Regarding claims 3-4, Fig. 6l of Lin further teaches that the amount of peritectic forming elements such as Ti or V is less than 0.2 wt% as claimed. Fig. 6K of Lin further teaches that the amount of eutectic forming elements is more than 0.2 wt% as claimed.
Regarding claims 5-8, Lin further teaches that the casting can be performed via a direct chill casting process or a continuous casting process such as twin-rolling casting [0006, 0009-0010].
Regarding claim 9, since Lin teaches that its Al alloy product is predominately unrecrystallized[0143], the examiner concludes that the inhibition of recrystallization occurs during the rolling step as claimed.
Regarding claims 10-11, Fig. 6r-6s of Lin show that the aluminum alloy product has a functionally gradient across the thickness or a width of the product as claimed.
Regarding claim 14, Lin further teaches that the peritectic forming elements and the eutectic forming elements were added into molten metal during casting[0018-0019].
Regarding claim 15, Lin further teaches that functionally gradient aluminum alloy comprising alumina(i.e. reinforcing particles) as claimed[0062].
Regarding claim 17, Lin further teaches that the Al alloy product comprising peritectic forming element and is predominately unrecrystallized, which implies the claimed unrecrystallized center[0143].
Regarding claims 18-19, Fig. 6l of Lin further teaches that the amount of peritectic forming elements such as Ti or V is less than 0.2 wt% as claimed.
Regarding claim 20, Lin further teaches that the predominately unrecrystallized grains are at least 55% by volume, which implies recrystallized grains are no more than 45% by volume. Therefore, the examiner concludes that the Al alloy of Lin comprises at least one eutectic forming element in recrystallized surface based on the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is 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: The closest prior art Lin teaches that the cast product has predominately unrecrystallized structure. Lin does not teach or fairly suggest, either alone or in combination, the claimed Al product comprising an unrecrystallized center and a recrystallized surface as required by claim 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks applicant argues that Lin does not teach the amended limitation of “forming primary grains enriched in the at least one peritectic forming elements and depleted in the at least one eutectic forming elements compared to a composition of the ingot or the molten liquid at a surface of the mold or the casting cavity, wherein the primary grains have a largest dimension from 25-250 microns”.
The examiner does not find applicant’s argument convincing because Lin clearly teaches that the center of the Al cast alloy comprising small dendrites enriched in peritectic forming elements and depleted of eutectic forming elements, and the small dendrites are 20-50mciron in size, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. Therefore, the examiner maintains that the rejection is proper.
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 LOIS L ZHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-1248. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45.
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 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.
LOIS ZHENG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/LOIS L ZHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights