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 .
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claims 1-10, 12-13, 15-17, 19-22, and 31, drawn to methods for processing aluminum-lithium alloy.
Group II, claim 24, drawn to a cohesive compact.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a cohesive compact comprising aluminum-lithium alloy chips, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Kruzynski et al. (US2020/0255922 A1, hereinafter “Kruzynski”).
Kruzynski teaches a puck formed from machining scrap that has been compressed and where the machining scrap comprises aluminum and lithium (Kruzynski, [0017-0018]). The compressed aluminum-lithium puck of Kruzynski corresponds to the cohesive compact of the present invention and therefore, the limitation fails to define a contribution over Kruzynski and fails to constitute a special technical feature resulting in a lack of unity between the cited claims.
During a telephone conversation with Robert Sovesky on 2/4/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-10, 12-13, 15-17, 19-22, and 31. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 24 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10, line 1: amend “comprising;” to “comprising”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 8, 10, 12-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al. (JPH11269564A, hereinafter “Kaneko”) in view of Kruzynski et al. (US2020/0255922 A1, hereinafter “Kruzynski”). Applicant provided a machine translation of JPH11269564A with the IDS filed 6/15/2023.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 15, Kaneko teaches a method for reusing thin plate-like aluminum or aluminum alloy cutting chips as raw material to form a metal preform (Kaneko, [0001] and [0009]). Kaneko further teaches the preform is obtained by molding aluminum powder using a uniaxial compression molding machine by first washing the powder to remove adhering oil then compressing the powder to form the preform (Kaneko, [0009] and [0014]). Kaneko teaches in the compression molding the pressing pressure is 1.9 ton/cm2 or more so that the apparent density is 97% or more of the true density of the aluminum turning powder (Kaneko, [0017]). Kaneko teaches aluminum turning powder is generated by cutting, polishing, and other mechanical processing and is coated with cutting oil (Kaneko, [0002]).
While Kaneko teaches the preformed is formed from aluminum alloy chips from the cutting processing (Kaneko, [0001]), Kaneko does not explicitly disclose the alloy is an aluminum-lithium alloy.
With respect to the difference, Kruzynski teaches a method for cleaning and recovering machining scrap, such as aluminum-lithium alloy scrap including forming a puck by compressing the machining scrap (Kruzynski, [0002] and [0017-0018]). Kruzynski also teaches raw metal alloys are to be machined to produce finished parts and are coated with water-soluble lubricant to facilitate the machining process, where the lubricant contains one or more organic compounds containing carbon and the lubricant can be dissolved in water (Kruzynski, [0003]).
As Kruzynski expressly teaches the machining scrap has commercial value and is suitable for reuse (Kruzynski, [0003]).
Kaneko and Kruzynski are analogous art as they are both drawn to reusing aluminum alloy scrap by forming a compressed component (Kaneko, [0001]; Kruzynski, [0002] and [0017-0018]).
In light of the motivation to use the aluminum lithium alloy scrap as taught in Kruzynski above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the aluminum lithium alloy scrap as the aluminum alloy of Kaneko in order to use commercially valuable material (Kruzynski, [0002] and [0017-0018]), and thereby arrive at the present invention.
The method of Kaneko in view of Kruzynski corresponds to a method for processing aluminum-lithium chips of claim 1. The aluminum lithium alloy turning powder generated from mechanical processing of Kaneko in view of Kruzynski corresponds to obtaining machining chips produced during machining of an aluminum-lithium alloy of claim 1. Compression molding the powders to form a preform with a density of 97% or more of Kaneko corresponds to compressing a volume of the machining chips to provide a compact comprising a density of at least 70% of a full theoretical density of the aluminum-lithium alloy of claim 1.
Washing the powder prior to compression to remove the cutting oil of Kaneko corresponds to wherein a processing fluid is used during the machining of the aluminum-lithium alloy, and the method further comprises cleaning the machining chips to remove at least a portion of the processing fluid from the machining chips and provide cleaned machining chips prior to the compressing of claim 2. Given that the powder is washed an aqueous solution would be used as the washing solution in Kaneko and corresponds to wherein the cleaning comprises at least one of contacting the machining chips with an aqueous solution to dissolve processing fluid on the machining chips into the aqueous solution, and heating the machining chips in an inert atmosphere to pyrolyze processing fluid on the machining chips of claim 3 and wherein the cleaning comprises contacting the machining chips with an aqueous solution to dissolve processing fluid on the machining chips into the aqueous solution of claim 4.
The use of a carbon containing lubricant that is washed with water of Kruzynski corresponds to wherein the cleaning comprises reducing a carbon content on a surface of the machining chips of claim 5 and wherein the processing fluid comprises machining lubricant of claim 8.
The aluminum alloy turning powder of Kaneko corresponds to further comprising granulating the machining chips of claim 10.
The preform with a density of 97% or more of Kaneko falls within wherein the volume of the machining chips is compacted to provide a compact comprising a density of at least 90% of the full theoretical density of the aluminum-lithium alloy of claim 12 and wherein the volume of the machining chips is compacted to provide a compact comprising a density of at least 95% of the full theoretical density of the aluminum-lithium alloy of claim 13.
Given that the aluminum alloy turning powders have to be compressed at a specific pressure in order to obtain a density of 97% or more, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine that the density of the volume of machining chips prior to compressing the volume is no greater than 50% of the full theoretical density of the aluminum-lithium alloy as required in claim 15.
Claims 6-7, 16, 20-22 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko in view of Kruzynski as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN101864521A, hereinafter “Zhang”). The Examiner is providing a machine translation of CN101864521A.
Regarding claims 6, 7, and 16, while Kaneko in view of Kruzynski teach the use of a compression molding apparatus (Kaneko, [0009]), Kaneko does not explicitly disclose or teach against wherein the compacting comprises at least one of continuous rotary extrusion, conform extrusion, equal channel angular processing, equal channel angular extrusion, high pressure torsion, and shear assisted processing and extrusion.
With respect to the difference, Zhang teaches a method for collecting and remelting sawdust from aluminum and aluminum alloy flat ingots where both ends of the flat ingots need to be sawed with a saw, which generates a large amount of sawdust chips (Zhang, [0004]). Zhang further teaches sawdust briquetting involving using a screw feeder to transport the collected sawdust to an extrusion mold in a compaction device for extrusion molding and pushing the extruded sawdust blocks out of the extrusion mold by a propulsion cylinder (Zhang, [0007]).
As Zhang expressly teaches the collection and briquetting of the sawdust reduces the sawdust burn rate, which reduces the production cost of flat ingots and improves economic efficiency (Zhang, [0008]).
Kaneko, Kruzynski, and Zhang are analogous art as they are all drawn to reusing aluminum alloy scrap by forming a compressed component (Kaneko, [0001]; Kruzynski, [0002] and [0017-0018]; Zhang, [0004]).
In light of the motivation to use the continuous rotary extrusion apparatus as taught in Zhang above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the continuous rotary extrusion apparatus in Kaneko in view of Kruzynski in order to reduce the sawdust burn rate, which reduces the production cost of flat ingots and improves economic efficiency (Zhang, [0008]), and thereby arrive at the present invention.
The continuous rotary extrusion apparatus of Zhang corresponds to wherein the compacting comprises at least one of continuous rotary extrusion, conform extrusion, equal channel angular processing, equal channel angular extrusion, high pressure torsion, and shear assisted processing and extrusion of claims 6 and 16 and wherein the compacting comprises continuous rotary extrusion of claim 7. Most of claim 16 is the same language as the combination of claims 1 and 2. As noted above Kaneko in view of Kruzynski meet all the limitations of claims 1 and 2, therefore claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.
Regarding claims 20, 21, 22, and 31, while Kaneko in view of Kruzynski teach the formation of the compressed preform (Kaneko, [0001]), Kaneko and Kruzynski do not disclose or suggest introducing a compact into a molten bath of an aluminum-lithium alloy to form a molten alloy, solidifying at least a portion of the molten alloy to form an aluminum-lithium ingot or other solid form from the molten alloy, or machining the ingot or other solid form to form the part.
With respect to the difference, Zhang teaches waste aluminum remelting is carried out by transferring the fully cooled aluminum alloy block containing the sawdust blocks to the material box of the conventional composite feeding car and the operator uses the conventional feeding device to add the aluminum alloy block to the smelting furnace (Zhang, [0029]). Zhang further teaches a method for collecting and remelting sawdust from aluminum and aluminum alloy flat ingots where both ends of the flat ingots need to be sawed with a saw, which generates a large amount of sawdust chips (Zhang, [0004]).
As Zhang expressly teaches the collection and briquetting of the sawdust reduces the sawdust burn rate, which reduces the production cost of flat ingots and improves economic efficiency (Zhang, [0008]).
In light of the motivation to remelt the sawdust blocks in the smelting furnace as taught in Zhang above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the cyclic process of Zhang using the preforms of Kaneko in view of Kruzynski in order to reduce the sawdust burn rate, which reduces the production cost of flat ingots and improves economic efficiency (Zhang, [0008]), and thereby arrive at the present invention.
The remelting of the preforms in the smelting furnace of Kaneko in view of Kruzynski and Zhang corresponds to introducing a compact into a molten bath of an aluminum-lithium alloy to form a molten alloy of claims 20 and 31. The formation of the flat ingots of Zhang corresponds to solidifying at least a portion of the molten alloy to form an aluminum-lithium ingot or other solid form from the molten alloy of claims 21 and 31. Removing both ends of the flat ingots by sawing of Zhang corresponds to machining the ingot or other solid form to form the part of claim 22. Most of claim 31 is the same language as the combination of claims 1 and 2. As noted above Kaneko in view of Kruzynski meet all the limitations of claims 1 and 2, therefore claim 31 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko in view of Kruzynski and Zhang as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further as evidenced by Azom, “Aluminum 2090 Alloy (UNS A92090),” 20 May 2013 (hereinafter “Azom”).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Kaneko in view of Kruzynski and Zhang teaches the aluminum and lithium alloy can include AA2090 (Kruzynski, [0017]). While Kruzynski does not explicitly disclose the chemical composition of AA2090, it is known in the art that the aluminum 2090 alloy comprises 1.9-2.6 wt.% lithium, with the majority being aluminum as evidenced by Azom (Azom, Table on pg. 1-2). The composition of the AA2090 aluminum alloy of Kruzynski as evidenced by Azom falls within the claimed composition of claims 9 and 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE CARDA whose telephone number is (571)270-1240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-4:00 EST.
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.
/DANIELLE M. CARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738