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, 3-11, 22-23, 26, 29-31, 33, 35, 37-38 and 41-43 are pending wherein claims 1, 3, 7-8 and 41 are amended, claims 2, 12-21, 24-25, 27-28, 32, 34, 36 and 39-40 are canceled, claim 42-43 are new, and claims 26 and 29-30 are withdrawn from consideration.
Status of Previous Rejections
The previous rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 1129d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment to claim 7. The previous rejection of claims 1, 3-11, 33, 35 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekiya et al. (US 2016/0194742) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment to claim 1. The previous rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 11, 22-23, 33, 35, and 37-38 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rioja et al. (US 4,869,870) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment to claim 1. The previous rejection of claims 1, 3-4, 7-11, 33, 35, 37-38 and 41 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradbury (GB 476,930) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
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, 4-11, 33, 35, 37-38 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al. (CN 111842915 A).
In regard to claim 1, Yin et al. (CN ‘915) discloses aluminum base alloys having compositions relative to that of the instant invention as set forth below (abstract and [0040]).
Element
Instant Claim
(weight percent)
Yin et al. (CN ‘915)
(weight percent)
Overlap
Mn
about 2.5 – 10
1 – 10
about 2.5 – 10
Zr
about 0.3 – 2
0.01 – 3.5
about 0.3 – 2
Fe
about 0 – 5
0.01 – 1.5
0.01 – 1.5
Si
about 0 – 5
0.01 – 2
0.01 – 2
Al
Balance
Balance
Balance
The Examiner notes that the amounts of manganese, zirconium, iron and silicon for the aluminum alloy disclosed by Yin et al. (CN ‘915) overlap the amounts of the instant invention, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to select the claimed amounts of manganese, zirconium, iron and silicon from the amounts disclosed by Yin et al. (CN ‘915) because Yin et al. (CN ‘915) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
With respect to the recitation “wherein the alloy does not comprise any intentionally added scandium” in claim 1 and in regard to claim 7, Yin et al. (CN ‘915) does not require the presence of scandium and therefore would read on the claims.
In regard to claim 4, Yin et al. (CN ‘915) does not require the presence of tin and therefore reads on the claim (abstract and [0040]).
In regard to claim 5, Yin et al. (CN ‘915) does not require the presence of copper and therefore reads on the claim (abstract and [0040]).
In regard to claim 6, Yin et al. (CN ‘915) discloses virtually no impurities [0040].
In regard to claim 8, Yin et al. (CN ‘915) discloses 1 to 10 weight percent manganese, which encompasses the range of the instant invention (abstract and [0040]).
In regard to claim 9, Yin et al. (CN ‘915) discloses 0.01 to 3.5 weight percent zirconium, which encompasses the range of the instant invention (abstract and [0040]).
In regard to claim 10, Yin et al. (CN ‘915) discloses 0.01 to 2 weight percent silicon, which overlaps the range of the instant invention (abstract and [0040}). MPEP 2144.05 I.
In regard to claim 11, Yin et al. (CN ‘915) discloses 0.01 to 1.5 weight percent iron, which is within the range of the instant invention (abstract and [0040]).
In regard to claim 33, Yin et al. (CN ’915) discloses 3D printing (additive manufacturing) the alloy powder having a substantially similar composition [0040]. Therefore, a yield strength greater than 300 MPa at room temperature and a yield strength greater than 180 MPa at the testing temperature of 250°C would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
In regard to claim 35, Yin et al. (CN ’915) discloses 3D printing (additive manufacturing) the alloy powder having a substantially similar composition [0040]. Therefore, a yield strength greater than 300 MPa at room temperature; a yield strength greater than 180 MPa at the testing temperature of 250°C; and a yield strength greater than 140 MPa at the testing temperature of 300°C would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
With respect to the recitation “wherein the alloy is thermally stable up to 400°C” in claim 37, Yin et al. (CN ’915) discloses 3D printing (additive manufacturing) the alloy powder having a substantially similar composition [0040]. Therefore, thermal stability up to 400°C would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
With respect to the recitation “wherein the alloy is creep resistant up to 400°C and has a threshold creep stress higher than 90 MPa at 250°C” in claim 38, Yin et al. (CN ’915) discloses 3D printing (additive manufacturing) the alloy powder having a substantially similar composition [0040]. Therefore, thermal stability up to 400°C and has a threshold creep stress higher than 90 MPa at 250°C would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
In regard to claim 41, Al-2.4Mn-1.2Fe-1.2Si-1.0Zr would be within the scope of Yin et al. (CN ‘915) (abstract and [0040]).
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oskarsson et al. (US 2008/0118393).
In regard to claim 42, Oskarsson et al. (‘393) discloses aluminum alloys having compositions relative to that of the instant invention as set forth below (abstract and claim 1). The Examiner notes that IVb, Vb or VIb as set forth by Oskarsson et al. (‘393) would include the elements titanium, zirconium, hafnium, vanadium, niobium, tantalum, chromium, molybdenum and tungsten.
Element
Instant Claim
(weight percent)
Oskarsson et al. (‘393)
(weight percent)
Overlap
Mn
1.2 – about 6
1 – 2
1.2 – 2
Zr
about 0.3 – 1
0 – 0.3 (Group IVb)
0.3/about 0.3
Fe
0.5 – about 3
0 – 0.5
0.5
Si
0.5 – about 3
0.3 – 1.5
0.5 – 1.5
Ti, Hf, V, Nb, Ta, Cr, Mo, V
about 0.1 – 1
0 – 0.3 each
about 0.1 - 1
Impurity
0 – 0.15
0 – 0.15
0 – 0.15
Al
Balance
Balance
Balance
The Examiner notes that the amounts of manganese, zirconium, iron, silicon, titanium, hafnium, vanadium, niobium, tantalum, chromium, molybdenum and vanadium for the aluminum alloy disclosed by Oskarsson et al. (‘393) overlap the amounts of the instant invention, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to select the claimed amounts of manganese, zirconium, iron, silicon, titanium, hafnium, vanadium, niobium, tantalum, chromium, molybdenum and vanadium from the amounts disclosed by Oskarsson et al. (‘393) because Oskarsson et al. (‘393) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
With respect to the recitation “wherein the alloy does not comprise any intentionally added scandium” in claim 42, Oskarsson et al. (‘393) does not require the presence of scandium and therefore would read on the claims.
With respect to the recitation “consisting of” in claim 42, Oskarsson et al. (‘393) does not require the presence of elements beyond what is specified in the claim and therefore would read on the claim. MPEP 2111.03.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-23 and 43 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.
In regard to claim 22, Yin et al. (CN ‘915) discloses substantially similar compositions relative to claim 1, but Yin et al. (CN ‘915) fails to disclose or adequately suggest Al3Zr primary precipitates having an average diameter ranging from about 0.05 to about 5 micrometers.
In regard to claim 43, Oskarsson et al. (‘393) discloses a maximum content of iron of 0.5 weight percent and therefore would fail to disclose or adequately suggest alloys having 0.9 weight percent iron as in claim 43.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-11, 22-23, 31, 33, 35 and 37-38 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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
Prosecution Insights