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 3-6, 8-16 and 19-20 are amended in view of applicant’s preliminary amendment filed 2/10/2023. Claims 21-27 are canceled. Therefore, claims 1-20 are currently under examination.
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 and 16 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.
The terms “enriched” and “depleted” in claim 1 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “enriched” and “depleted” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this case, the term “enriched” is relative to the content of at least one peritectic forming element as well as the state of the cast product without (or with less of) the peritectic forming element. Similarly, the term “depleted” is relative to the content of at least one eutectic forming element and implies that the amount of the at least one eutectic forming element is reduced or removed. Since the extend of these terms “enriched” and “depleted” is not clear, the instant claim 1 is rendered vague and indefinite.
Additionally, claim 1 recites “controlling movement and accumulation of the primary grains”, but does not recite any actual physical, tangible steps or conditions by which one is to accomplish this step. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite.
In claim 16, the phrase in line 3 reciting "wherein the functional gradient comprises an unrecrystallized center and a recrystallized surface, and/or a reinforcement particle proportion variation from center to surface" renders claim indefinite. It is unclear which previous portion of claim 16 the "and/or" modifies. It is unclear if the functional gradient is intended to comprise:
(A) (an unrecrystallized center and a recrystallized surface) and/or (B) (a reinforcement particle proportion variation);
(A) an unrecrystallized center and (B) (a recrystallized surface and/or a reinforcement particle proportion variation);
or some other interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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. Therefore, the examiner concludes that the method of Lin anticipates the claimed method.
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 16, Figs. 6r and 6s of Lin further show the presence of reinforcement particle portion variable from center to surface as claimed[0062]. Therefore, the Al alloy product made by the process of Lin reads on the claimed Al alloy product.
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.
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin.
The teachings of Lin are discussed in section 12 above.
Regarding claim 12, Fig. 6r further shows grain size distribution that appears to overlap the claimed grain size. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
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