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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 29, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has been entered. As of entry, claims 1-4, 9-12, and 17-19 are pending. Claims 5-8 and 13-16 are canceled. Deleting “so that the second forged body is naturally cooled and then cooled to room temperature using air cooling through blowing air” has overcome the previously set fort rejection under 35 USC 112(a).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the preamble of claim 1 please delete “for manufacturing a forged product” from “of manufacturing a forged product for manufacturing a forged product”. As worded, the preamble may be misinterpreted as claiming a method of manufacturing a forged product, the forged product itself used for manufacturing a separate forged product.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 claims “a first upper die having an upper molding part and a first lower die having a lower molding part, which are shaped in a shape of a forged product; a second forging step of obtaining a second forged body by forging the first forged body between a second upper die having an upper molding part and a second lower die having a lower molding part”. The specification states “lower molding part 12a may be a concave part which is open on the side of a surface facing the first upper die 11” [0033]; “upper molding part11a may be a concave part which is open on the side of a surface facing the first lower die12” [0034]; “lower molding part 22a may be a concave part which is open on the side of a surface facing the second upper die 21” [0039], and “upper molding part 21 a may be a concave part which is open on the side of a surface facing the second lower die 22”. Fig. 3 further shows that the first and second lower molding parts on the side of the lower die facing the respective first and second upper dies, and first and second upper molding parts on the side of the upper die facing the respective first and second lower dies. As the side of the lower die which faces the upper die is the upper surface of the lower die, and the side of the upper die which faces the lower die is the lower surface of the upper die, the claimed designation “upper” in upper molding part associates the upper molding part with the upper molding die and does not claim a part on an upper surface of an upper die. Similarly, the claimed designation “lower” in lower molding part associates the lower molding part with the lower molding die and does not claim a part on a lower surface of a lower die. This statement of claim interpretation is necessary to avoid improperly limiting upper and lower molding parts to a specific position on respective upper and lower dies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
New claim 18 claims “The method of manufacturing a forged product according to claim 1, the aluminum alloy comprises [emphasis added] Si: 0.65 mass% to 0.80 mass%, Fe: 0.20 mass% to 0.40 mass%, Cu: 0.27 mass% to 0.40 mass%, Mn: 0.08 mass% to 0.15 mass%, Mg: 0.97 mass% to 1.20 mass%, Cr: 0.20 mass% to 0.30 mass%, and the balance which may be Al and the inevitable impurities.” The transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps (MPEP 2111.03(I)). Within the present disclosure, the only mention of the specific composition is the passage from paragraph [0029]:
PNG
media_image1.png
258
597
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The transitional phrase "consisting of" excludes any element, step, or ingredient not specified in the claim (MPEP 2111.03(II)). The disclosure as filed is sufficient to show that an inventor or joint-inventor was in possession of the method of manufacturing a forged product wherein the aluminum alloy is a 6000-series aluminum alloy, and the method of manufacturing a forged product wherein the aluminum alloy consists of (closed to additional elements) the recited elements, but the disclosure as filed is not sufficient to show than an inventor or joint inventor was in possession of a method of manufacturing a forged product wherein the aluminum alloy comprises (open to additional elements) elements in the specific ranges recited in claim 18.
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 1-4, 9-12, and 17-19 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 1 recites the limitation "the cooling water" in the last two lines of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Quenching does not necessarily use water as a quenching medium. This particular ground of uncertainty may be overcome by deleting the word “the” from “the cooling water”. See claims 5-8 as originally filed.
Claims 2-4, 9-12, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) because they depend on claim 1.
Claim 17 claims “the surface temperature of the lower molding part of the second lower die are higher than the surface temperature of the upper molding part of the first upper die and the surface temperature of the upper molding part of the second upper die by 5°C or more and 80°C or less”. In claiming that a surface temperature of a single molding part “are” higher than a surface temperature of the upper molding part of both the first and second upper die, whereas the disclosure as filed only appears to set a temperature difference between the surface temperature of the lower molding part of the second lower die and the surface temperature of the upper molding part of the second upper die and not between the surface temperature of the lower molding part of the second lower die and the surface temperature of the upper molding part of the first upper die. It is not clear from the disclosure as filed, if applicant intends to claim a surface temperature of a lower molding part of the second lower die higher than a surface temperature of the upper molding part of both the first and second upper die or if applicant intends to claim the surface temperature of the lower molding part of the first lower die and the surface temperature of the lower molding part of the second lower die are higher than the surface temperature of the upper molding part of the first upper die and the surface temperature of the upper molding part of the second upper die by 5°C or more and 80°C or less. Note that claim 17 does not specify an upper limit for surface temperature limits on the surface temperature of the lower molding part of the first lower die. See claims 1 and 19.
Claim 18 claims “the balance which may be Al and the inevitable impurities” in the last line of claim 18. Claim 18 claims that the aluminum alloy comprises the recited elements. In claiming the balance “may be” aluminum and the inevitable impurities, claim 18 raises uncertainty as to whether or not the balance is or is not Al and inevitable impurities. Claim 18 further raises uncertainty as to how an aluminum alloy can comprise a balance which is not Al and impurities. If applicant intends the balance to be Al and inevitable impurities, please claim a balance of Al and inevitable impurities.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the inevitable impurities" in the last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Please delete “the” from “the inevitable impurities” introduced on the last line of claim 18.
Claim 19 claims a temperature difference “by 5°C or more and 40°C or more”. It is not clear if applicant intends claim 19 to encompass a temperature difference of 5°C or more and less than 40°C. Claim 19 appears intended to claim a temperature difference by 5°C or more and 40°C or less.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9-10, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (JP2010110810A) in view of Sato (JP2010131613A) and Takemura (WO2011129431A1). Yoshida and Sato were cited in prior office action(s). References to Yoshida, Sato, and Takemura are directed to the examiner supplied English language translations.
Regarding claim 1, Yoshida discloses a method of manufacturing a forged product [0001], [0014] the forged product being a forged product of a suspension arm for an automobile ([0026-27], [0050], [0096], Fig. 2). Yoshida discloses a heating step of heating a forging material (forging material W) [0048] and that the forged material is a cylindrical forging material made of an aluminum alloy [0024-25]. Yoshida discloses heating to a forging temperature range [0076], [0090], [0108]. Yoshida discloses that the forging temperature in the heating step is 480-550°C [0076] which lies entirely within a range of 450°C or higher and 550°C or lower.
Yoshida discloses a first forging step (primary forming/rough forming) of obtaining a first forged body (primary formed product) (claim 1, [0034], [0054], [0060]). Yoshida obtains the first formed body by forging the forging material between a first upper die (upper die 3) having an upper molding part (lower surface side of the upper mold 3) and a first lower die (lower die 2) having a lower molding part (upper surface of the lower mold 2) ([0055-59], Figs. 5-7). Yoshida discloses that forming dies are shaped in a shape of a forged product [0058-59], Figs. 5-7). Yoshida discloses a second (final/finish) forging step of obtaining a second forged body (forged product W2) (claim 1 [0034], [0075]). Yoshida discloses forging the first forged body in a final finish die which includes a lower die and an upper die, and when both the dies are closed, a forming space portion (die portion) having a shape corresponding to the forged product (W2) having burr-like excess formed piece formed between both the dies [0073], thereby disclosing obtaining the forged body (forged product W2) by forging the first formed body between a second upper die having an upper molding part (the part of the final upper die contributing to the forming space portion) and a second lower die having a lower molding part (the part of the final lower die contributing to the forming space portion), which are shaped in a shape of a forged product [0073].
Yoshida discloses a solution treatment step of subjecting the second forged body to solution treatment; a quenching step of subjecting the second forged body to quenching; and an age hardening step (aging treatment) of obtaining the suspension arm by subjecting the second forged body to age hardening [0049].
Yoshida discloses that the forging material is placed in the forming space of the first dies at the forging temperature [0076], but Yoshida does not disclose keeping the forging material within the forging temperature range during the forging. Further, the dies disclosed by Yoshida must necessarily exist at some temperatures, but Yoshida is silent on temperatures of the surfaces of first and second, upper and lower dies.
Sato teaches a method of manufacturing a forged product for manufacturing a forged product [0001], [0008]. Sato teaches a heating step of heating a forging material made of aluminum or aluminum alloy to a forging temperature range [0020], [0086]. Sato teaches a forging temperature range of 380 to 540°C [0086]. Sato teaches a first forging step of obtaining a first forged body by forging the forging material (primary forming on a workpiece by die forging to obtain a primary formed product) [0012] between a first upper die and a first lower die (the primary molding die (1) includes a lower die (11) and a punch (16) as an upper die) [0070]. Sato teaches that the first upper die has an upper molding part on the surface of the die (male mold portion) and that the first lower die a lower molding part on the surface of the die (female mold portion) which are shaped in a shape of a forged product ([0071], [0074], [0077], Figs. 2 and 8). Sato teaches a second forging step of obtaining a second forged body forging the first forged body (performing secondary forming on a primary formed product by die forging) [0012], between a second upper die and a second lower die (secondary molding die (2) includes a lower die (21) and a punch (26) as an upper die [0078]). Sato teaches that the second upper die has an upper molding part on the surface of the die (male die portion) and that the second lower die a lower molding part on the surface of the die (female mold portion) which are shaped in a shape of a forged product ([0079-80], [0082], Figs. 9 and 10). Sato teaches that a temperature of the upper die in the first forging step and a temperature of the upper die in the second forging step are within a range of 100 to 250°C [0086]. Sato teaches that a temperature of the lower die in the first forging step and a temperature of the lower die in the second forging step are within a range of 150 to 370°C [0086]. Sato teaches heating the workpiece to a forging temperature range [0020], [0086]. Sato teaches a forging temperature range of 380 to 540°C, maintaining the workpiece temperature at 30-60°C below the solidus temperature in the first forging, maintaining temperature at 20-60°C below the temperature of the first forming step in the second forming step, and that the temperature in the second forming step is not to become 370°C or less [0086]; therefore, Sato teaches that the temperature in the first forming step is greater than 390°C
(
390
=
370
+
20
)
[0020], [0086].
Both Yoshida and Sato teach substantially similar, multi-step processes for forging aluminum alloy forging materials.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to keep the temperature during the first forging step at greater than 390°C, to keep both the first and second upper dies at 100 to 250°C, and to keep the first and second lower dies at 150 to 370°C. The first forging step disclosed by Yoshida applied above, and the forging dies disclosed by Yoshida applied above must necessarily exist at some temperature, and Sato teaches that keeping the first forging step at greater than 390°C, keeping both the first and second upper dies at 100 to 250°C, keeping the first and second lower dies at 150 to 370°C as suitable for performing a substantially similar forming process for substantially similar forging material [0020], [0086]. Setting the forging parts disclosed by Yoshida applied above, to the temperatures taught by Sato [0086] would predictably result in maintaining operating conditions appropriate for die forging aluminum alloy parts [0086]. Respective dies necessarily comprise the surface of molding parts of respective dies; therefore, such application would set a surface temperature of the upper molding part of the first upper die in the first forging step and a surface temperature of the upper molding part of the second upper die in the second forging step to within a range of range of 100 to 250°C which encompasses a range of 150
°
C or higher and 190
°
C or lower; would set a surface temperature of the lower molding part of the first lower die and a surface temperature of the lower molding part of the second lower die to within a range of at 150 to 370°C which encompasses a range of 190
°
C or higher and 230
°
C or lower, and would keep the first forging temperature at
390
°
C or greater which encompasses the forging temperature of is 480-550°C disclosed by Yoshida [0076]. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Considering the lower die temperatures taught by Sato encompass higher temperature than the upper die temperatures [0086], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the surface temperature of the lower molding part of the first lower die and the surface temperature of the lower molding part of the second lower die disclosed by Yoshida in view of Sato would be are higher than the surface temperature of the upper molding part of the first upper die and the surface temperature of the upper molding part of the second upper die disclosed by Sato in view of Yoshida. The difference between lower dies at 150 to 370°C and upper dies at 100 to 250°C significantly overlaps a surface temperature difference in a range of 5
°
C or greater.
Yoshida discloses ejecting the second forged body from the lower molding part of the second molding die by inserting a knockout pin [0084]. As ejecting by inserting a knockout pin requires separating the lower and upper molding parts in order to provide space for the ejection, in disclosing ejecting the forged body from the lower molding part of second molding die, Yoshida discloses that forged body remains in the lower molding part of the second molding die, exposed to the ejection area [0084]. Such exposure to the ejection surface would result in at least a minimal degree cooling of the second forged body while maintaining the same position as during the second forging step, because the forged body is still in the lower molding part of the second molding die. Note that paragraph [0044] of the specification indicates that the cooling comprises letting the forged body stand, and even minimal degree of standing to cool would meet the cooling to maintain posture limitation of claim 1. Yoshida is silent on the conditions of the disclosed solution treating, quenching, and aging [0049].
Takemura teaches a method of manufacturing a forged product for manufacturing a forged product of a suspension arm for an automobile [0001], [0033]. Takemura teaches a heating step of heating a cylindrical (round bar) forging material made of an aluminum alloy to a forging temperature range [0109], [0116], [0132]. Takemura teaches a forging step of obtaining a forged body by forging the forging material in a forging die [0118-119], [0135]. Takemura teaches a solution treatment step of subjecting the forged body to solution treatment; a quenching step of subjecting the forged body to quenching; and an age hardening step of obtaining the suspension arm by subjecting the forged body to age hardening [0126], [0135]. Takemura teaches a solution treatment temperature in the solution treatment step is within a range of 525 to 570° C [0126], and a water temperature of the cooling water in the quenching step is 60°C [0126], [0135]. Takemura teaches performing the solution, quenching, and aging treatments for the purpose of improving the strength [0126], and teaches that the degree of distortion depends on quenching temperature [0126].
Both Takemura and Yoshida in view of Sato teach methods of manufacturing a forged product for manufacturing a forged product of a suspension arm for an automobile
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to perform the solution treatment temperature disclosed by Yoshida [0049] at a temperature in the range of 525 to 570°C and the quenching disclosed by Yoshida [0049] with cooling water at a temperature of 60°C because Takemura teaches a solution treatment temperature at 525 to 570°C and quenching with water at 60°C following forging for a forged aluminum alloy part for a suspension arm of an automobile [0033], [0126], [0132], [0135]. The solution treatment and quenching treatment disclosed by Yoshida [0049] must necessarily occur under some conditions, and a solution treatment temperature at 525 to 570°C and quenching with water at 60°C following forging would predictably result in treating the forged aluminum alloy body under conditions to improving strength and controlling deformation, as taught by Takemura [0126]. A range of solution treatment temperatures of 525 to 570°C overlaps a range of 500°C or higher and 530°C or lower, and a water temperature of 60°C lies within a range of 60°C or higher and 65°C or lower. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 2, Yoshida discloses that a surface of the forging material is subjected to a peeling process in advance [0108].
Regarding claims 9-10 and 18, Yoshida is silent on the grade/composition of the disclosed aluminum alloy [0025]. Takemura teaches that the 0.35 to 1.2% by mass of Mg, 0.2 to 1.3% by mass of Si, 0.5% by mass or less of Cu, 0.15% by mass or more of Fe, 0.15% by mass or more of Cr, 0.05% by mass or less of Mn, and the balance Al with inevitable impurities [0041]. Takemura teaches that by specifying the alloy composition of the forging material a forged member (forged product) capable of solving problems encountered in the prior art can be obtained [0040], and Takemura teaches reasons for providing elements in the taught ranges [0042-51]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the suspension arm disclosed by Yoshida from the alloy taught by Takemura [0041] because Takemura teaches that by specifying the alloy composition of the forging material a forged member (forged product) capable of solving problems encountered in the prior art can be obtained [0040], [0042-51]. As the alloy taught by Takemura [0041] is an Al-Si-Mg alloy [0041], the alloy is a 6000-series alloy, thereby meeting the additional limitations of claims 9 and 10. The amounts of Si, Mg, Cu, Fe, Cr, and Al taught by Takemura overlap the ranges recited in claim 18, and the range of 0.05% by mass or less of Mn taught by Takemura closely approach the claimed range of 0.08 mass% to 0.15 mass%. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists, and a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 3-4, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (JP2010110810A) in view of Sato (JP2010131613A) and Takemura (WO2011129431A1) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Yasunaga (JP2008248283A). Yasunaga was cited in prior office action(s). References to Yasunaga are directed to the examiner supplied English language translation.
Regarding both claim 3 and claim 4 which recite the same additional limitations, Yoshida is silent on the conditions of the disclosed solution treating, quenching, and aging [0049].
Yasunaga teaches a method for quenching forged aluminum alloy parts [0001], [0020]. Yasunaga teaches placing forged bodies in a storage case and holding them at fixed (approximately single value) intervals [0060]. Yasunaga shows that the bodies are arranged in the case in parallel (Fig. 1). Yasunaga teaches solution treating, quenching, and aging the forged parts while in the case [0061]. Yasunaga teaches that with the taught arrangement, particularly during quenching, the occurrence of the soft spot, which could yield uneven mechanical properties [0010], is suppressed or prevented in each of the forged materials regardless of how an individual part is arranged [0054]. The forged product taught by Yasunaga is a suspension arm for an automobile ([0022], [0048], [0055], claim 3, Fig. 2).
Both Yasunaga and Yoshida teach solution treating, quenching, and aging a forged aluminum alloy part for an automobile suspension arm.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to accommodate a plurality of the second forged bodies in a storage case in which the forged bodies are held at a fixed (approximately single value) intervals so that longitudinal directions thereof are parallel to each other because Yasunaga teaches that such an arrangement for solution treating, quenching, and aging for the same type of forged parts (aluminum alloy automobile suspension arms) suppresses or prevents the occurrence of the soft spot, in each of the forged materials regardless of how an individual part is arranged [0054], thereby suppressing or preventing mechanical unevenness caused by such spots [0010]. The solution treating, quenching, and aging disclosed by Yoshida [0049] must occur under some conditions, and it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to perform such steps under conditions known for solution treating, quenching, and aging, forged aluminum alloy parts for automobile suspension arms.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Yoshida is silent on the grade/composition of the disclosed aluminum alloy [0025]. Takemura teaches that the 0.35 to 1.2% by mass of Mg, 0.2 to 1.3% by mass of Si, 0.5% by mass or less of Cu, 0.15% by mass or more of Fe, 0.15% by mass or more of Cr, 0.05% by mass or less of Mn, and the balance Al with inevitable impurities [0041]. Takemura teaches that by specifying the alloy composition of the forging material a forged member (forged product) capable of solving problems encountered in the prior art can be obtained [0040], and Takemura teaches reasons for providing elements in the taught ranges [0042-51]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the suspension arm disclosed by Yoshida from the alloy taught by Takemura [0041] because Takemura teaches that by specifying the alloy composition of the forging material a forged member (forged product) capable of solving problems encountered in the prior art can be obtained [0040], [0042-51]. As the alloy taught by Takemura [0041] is an Al-Si-Mg alloy [0041], the alloy is a 6000-series alloy, thereby meeting the additional limitations of claims 11 and 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Independent claim 1 appears intended to claim a method of manufacturing a forged product of a suspension arm for an automobile. Claim 1 claims a heating step of heating a cylindrical forging material made of an aluminum alloy to a forging temperature range. Claim 1 later specifies the forging temperature in the heating step is within a range of 450°C or higher and 550°C or lower. Claim 1 claims a first forging step of obtaining a first forged body by forging the forging material kept within the forging temperature range between a first upper die having an upper molding part and a first lower die having a lower molding part, which [the upper and lower molding parts] are shaped in a shape of a forged product. Claim 1 claims a second forging step of obtaining a second forged body by forging the first forged body between a second upper die having an upper molding part and a second lower die having a lower molding part, which [upper and lower molding parts] are shaped in a shape of a forged product. The designations upper/lower molding parts indicate whether the molding part is associated with the upper or lower die and does not indicate a position of the molding part within the respective die. See the above statement of claim interpretation. Claim 1 claims a surface temperature of the upper molding part of the first upper die in the first forging step and a surface temperature of the upper molding part of the second upper die in the second forging step are within a range of 150°C or higher and 190°C or lower. Claim 1 claims a surface temperature of the lower molding part of the first lower die and a surface temperature of the lower molding part of the second lower die are within a range of 190°C or higher and 230°C or lower. Claim 1 claims the surface temperature of the lower molding part of the first lower die and the surface temperature of the lower molding part of the second lower die are higher by 5°C or more than the surface temperature of the upper molding part of the first upper die and the surface temperature of the upper molding part of the second upper die. Claim 1 claims subjecting the second forged body to solution treatment; subjecting the second forged body to quenching; and subjecting the second forged body to age hardening. Claim 1 claims a solution treatment temperature in the solution treatment step is within a range of 500°C or higher and 530°C or lower, and a water temperature of the cooling water in the quenching step is within the range of 60°C or higher and 65°C or lower. Claim 17 and claim 19 each depends on claim 1. Claim 17 appears intended to claim the surface temperature of the lower molding part of the first lower die and the surface temperature of the lower molding part of the second lower die are higher by 5°C or more and 80°C or less than the surface temperature of the upper molding part of the first upper die and the surface temperature of the upper molding part of the second upper die. Claim 19 appears intended to claim the surface temperature of the lower molding part of the first lower die and the surface temperature of the lower molding part of the second lower die are higher by 5°C or more and 40°C or less than the surface temperature of the upper molding part of the first upper die and the surface temperature of the upper molding part of the second upper die.
The present office action rejects independent claim 1 over Yoshida (JP2010110810A) in view of Sato (JP2010131613A) and Takemura (WO2011129431A1). Yoshida in view of Sato and Takemura is the combination of prior art closest to claims 17 and 19. The action relies on Sate to meet temperature differences between upper and lower dies. Sato teaches a temperature of lower dies at 150 to 370°C and of upper dies at 100 to 250°C [0020], [0086], which significantly overlaps a difference in a range of 5
°
C or greater, but Sato does not teach the effects of those temperatures. The present specification exemplifies a temperature difference of 80°C and discloses results of the difference [0054-61]. The present specification further specifically names a temperature difference of 40°C [0036]. Comparative examples where upper and lower dies do not differ in temperature yield unfavorable results [0054-61]. In claiming the specific temperature differences disclosed in the present disclosure to yield the results of the present disclosure, claims 17 and 19 define over the ranges of temperatures derived from the ranges taught by Sato which do not indicate a preference for a narrower range or results of selecting temperatures from within that range. Claims 17 and 19 define over Yoshida in view of Sato and Takemura at least in appearing intended to claim the surface temperature of the lower molding part of the first lower die and the surface temperature of the lower molding part of the second lower die are higher by 5°C or more and 40°C/80°C or less than the surface temperature of the upper molding part of the first upper die and the surface temperature of the upper molding part of the second upper die.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN P O'KEEFE whose telephone number is (571)272-7647. The examiner can normally be reached MR 8:00-6:30.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/SEAN P. O'KEEFE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/ SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights