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 .
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.
Claim 1 is 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 term “recovered state” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “recovered state” is not defined by the claim, the specification states that the “recovered structure” is a structure with a “low” percentage of recrystallized grains, Para[0027]. However, “low” is not defined in the specification, and it is not clear to what degree of recrystallization would be considered “low”. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20170073802 of Hori in view of WO2014054485 of Kaneda.
Claim 1 claims a plate made of rolled aluminum alloy comprising the following alloy components: from 0.7 to 1.5 wt% silicon (Si),from 0.5 to 1.3 wt% magnesium (Mg) from 0.05 to 0.6 wt% manganese (Mn),from 0.1 to 0.3 wt% zirconium (Zr), and optionally up to 0.5 wt% copper (Cu),up to 0.7 wt% iron (Fe),up to 0.1 wt% chromium (Cr),up to 0.2 wt% titanium (Ti),up to 0.5 wt% Zink (Zn),up to 0.2 wt% tin (Sn),up to 0.1 wt% strontium (Sr), up to 0.2 wt% vanadium (V),up to 0.2 wt% molybdenum (Mo) a balance aluminum, and inevitable production-related impurities, with at most 0.05 wt% of each and at most 0.15 wt% collectively, wherein the plate has a partially recrystallized structure with a degree of recrystallization of less than 25%, and a non-recrystallized structure region of the structure is in a recovered state and has an average subgrain size of less than 10 µm in a rolling direction.
Hori disclose a forged aluminum alloy material and method for producing the same in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Hori teaches The forged aluminum alloy includes Mg in a content of 0.70 to 1.50 mass percent, Si in a content of 0.80 to 1.30 mass percent, Cu in a content of 0.30 to 0.90 mass percent, Fe in a content of 0.10 to 0.40 mass percent, Ti in a content of 0.005 to 0.15 mass percent, and at least one element selected from the group consisting of Mn in a content of 0.10 to 0.60 mass percent, Cr in a content of 0.10 to 0.45 mass percent, and Zr in a content of 0.05 to 0.30 mass percent, with the remainder consisting of Al and inevitable impurities, Para[0015]. Hori also teaches an area percentage of recrystallized grains of 30.0% or less, Para[0073]. Hori does not teach a specific subgrain size.
Kaneda discloses a combination-pressable aluminum alloy fin material for heat exchanger and method for producing the same in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Kaneda discloses a subgrain size of 2.5 µm or less, Para[0023]. Kaneda teaches that when the average grain size of the subgrains exceeds the upper limit value, the proof stress is less than the lower limit value, which is inferior in color cracking resistance and handling property, Para[0068].
The ranges disclosed in Hori and Kaneda overlap for all non-optional elements of the claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, based on the teachings of Hori and Kaneda, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the aluminum alloy plate with the claimed composition, degree of recrystallization, and average subgrain size in the rolling direction to achieve better handling properties and color cracking resistance. Thus, Hori in view of Kaneda covers all limitations of claim 1. Claims 2-8, 17 are also rejected as they depend on claim 1.
Claim 2 further limits claim 1 by stating that the degree of recrystallization is less than 15%.
Hori disclose a forged aluminum alloy material and method for producing the same in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Hori teaches an area percentage of recrystallized grains of 30.0% or less, Para[0073]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, Hori in view of Kaneda covers all limitations of claim 2.
Claim 3 further limits claim 1 by stating that the average subgrain size in the rolling direction is less than or equal to 5 µm.
Kaneda discloses a combination-pressable aluminum alloy fin material for heat exchanger and method for producing the same in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Kaneda discloses a subgrain size of 2.5 µm or less, Para[0023]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Kaneda teaches that when the average grain size of the subgrains exceeds the upper limit value, the proof stress is less than the lower limit value, which is inferior in color cracking resistance and handling property, Para[0068]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the alloy disclosed in Hori with the subgrain size disclosed in Kaneda to achieve better handling properties and color cracking resistance. Thus, Hori in view of Kaneda covers all limitations of claim 3.
Claim 4 further limits claim 1 by stating that the plate is in a T6 state.
Hori disclose a forged aluminum alloy material and method for producing the same in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Hori teaches a T6 tempering step in order to give maximum strength, Para[0121]. Therefore, Hori in view of Kaneda covers all limitations of claim 4.
Claim 5 further limits claim 4 by stating that the plate has a yield strength of greater than 350 MPa.
Hori disclose a forged aluminum alloy material and method for producing the same in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Hori discloses a yield strength of 360 MPa or more, Para[0167]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, Hori in view of Kaneda covers all limitations of claim 5.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20170073802 of Hori in view of WO2014054485 of Kaneda, taken as cited above, further in view of US3642542 of Sperry.
Claim 6 further limits claim 1 by stating that the rolled aluminum alloy comprises: from 0.9 to 1.3 wt% silicon (Si) and/or from 0.75 to 0.95 wt% magnesium (Mg) and/or from 0.3 to 0.5 wt% manganese (Mn) and/or from 0.15 to 0.25 wt% zirconium (Zr) and/or from 0.1 to 0.5 wt% copper (Cu) and/or up to 0.5 wt% iron (Fe). While Hori and Kaneda disclose overlapping ranges for Si, Mg, Mn, and Cu, Hori and Kaneda only teach bordering ranges for Zr and Fe.
Sperry teaches a process for preparing aluminum base alloys in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Sperry disclose Zr in the range of 0.03 to 0.20 percent, Para[0015], and Fe in the range of 0.60 percent maximum, Para[0017]. These ranges overlap with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Sperry discloses this amount of Fe as a normal impurity, Para[0017]. Sperry also discloses that before or during hot working some high temperature precipitate should be formed due to Zr, as this is the mechanism by which recrystallization is inhibited, Para[0018]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the alloy disclosed in Hori in view of Kaneda with the amounts of Zr and Fe disclosed in Sperry to inhibit recrystallization, and as an impurity, respectively. Thus, Hori in view of Kaneda further in view of Sperry covers all limitations of claim 6.
Claims 7,8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20170073802 of Hori in view of WO2014054485 of Kaneda, taken as cited above, further in view of WO2015133588 of Matsuo and CN104520061 of Oskarsson.
Claim 7 further limits claim 1 by stating that an intermetallic phase of the aluminum alloy has Zr-containing particles with an average particle size of at most 100 nm, and a quantity of Zr-containing particles is greater than or equal to 1 x 106 particles/mm2.
Hori disclose a forged aluminum alloy material and method for producing the same in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Kaneda discloses a combination-pressable aluminum alloy fin material for heat exchanger and method for producing the same in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Hori and Kaneda do not teach a specific average particle size of the Zr containing particles, or a specific quantity of Zr-containing particles.
Matsuo teaches a terminal and method for manufacturing terminal in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Matsuo teaches and average particle size of 10 to 100 nm for the particles which may contain Zr, Para[0006]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Matsuo teaches this range for excellent strength and heat resistance, Para[0047]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the alloy disclosed in Hori in view of Kaneda with the average size of Zr containing particles disclosed in Matsuo to achieve excellent strength and heat resistance.
Oskarsson teaches a strip material with excellent corrosion resistance after brazing in a similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Oskarsson teaches precipitate containing particles in the range of 1.4 x 10 6 - 20 x 10 6 particles/mm2,Para[0028]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Oskarsson teaches that the number density of the particles is proportional to the retardation that hinders recrystallization, Para[0046]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the alloy disclosed in Hori in view of Kaneda with the quantity of precipitate containing particles disclosed in Oskarsson in order to retard recrystallization.
Thus, Hori in view of Kaneda further in view of Matsuo further in view of Oskarsson covers all limitations of claim 7.
Claim 8 further limits claim 1 by stating that the average particle size of the Zr-containing particles is in the range from 30 nm to 100 nm.
Matsuo teaches a terminal and method for manufacturing terminal in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Matsuo teaches and average particle size of 10 to 100 nm for the particles which may contain Zr, Para[0006]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Matsuo teaches this range for excellent strength and heat resistance, Para[0047]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the alloy disclosed in Hori in view of Kaneda further in view of Oskarsson with the average size of Zr containing particles disclosed in Matsuo to achieve excellent strength and heat resistance. Thus, Hori in view of Kaneda further in view of Matsuo further in view of Oskarsson covers all limitations of claim 8.
Claim 17 further limits claim 7 by stating that the quantity of Zr-containing particles is less than or equal to 100 x 106 particles/mm2 and/or greater than or equal to 5 x 106 particles/mm2.
Oskarsson teaches a strip material with excellent corrosion resistance after brazing in a similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Oskarsson teaches precipitate containing particles in the range of 1.4 x 10 6 - 20 x 10 6 particles/mm2,Para[0028]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Oskarsson teaches that the number density of the particles is proportional to the retardation that hinders recrystallization, Para[0046]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the alloy disclosed in Hori in view of Kaneda further in view of Matsuo with the quantity of precipitate containing particles disclosed in Oskarrson to achieve adequate retardation of recrystallization. Thus, Hori in view of Kaneda further in view of Matsuo further in view of Oskarsson covers all limitations of claim 17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BENJAMIN STILES whose telephone number is (571)272-0598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JACOB BENJAMIN STILES/Examiner, Art Unit 1733