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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/17/2023, 01/31/2025, 10/31/2025, and 04/15/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1 and 20 utilize the phrase “online-detecting components” which renders the metes and bounds of the claim(s) indefinite. The specification does not provide a definition of what ‘online-detecting components’ are nor would the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention know what such components would be. The phrase ‘online-detecting components’ uses a hyphen to join two or more words serving as a single adjective before a noun (i.e. ‘online’ and ‘detecting’ serve to modify the noun ‘components’). However, if Applicant is trying to claim the step of some sort of detection/observation/recording/monitoring then language to that effect could be claimed. Also, if ‘on-line’ is intended, then that could also be claimed however there is no claim language currently presented that would indicate a line style manufacturing process. For example, any observation of the melt pool would seem to meet the intended step. In the interest of furthering prosecution, Examiner has interpreted ‘online-detecting components of the aluminum alloy melt liquid’ to be broad such that any observation, detection, recording, monitoring, etc. meets the claimed feature.
Claims 3, 5, and 6 do not appear to have correct punctuation; see the use of commas in place of periods as well as an extra period. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear due to this punctuation for at least the reason that it is not apparent if claim features are missing.
Claim 12 depends from claim 2 and recites the limitation "the pressing pressure intensity" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While language directed to ‘regulating pressure intensity’ in the refining furnace is present in claim 1, ‘the pressing pressure intensity’ is not described or inherent from the features already present in claims 1 or 2. It is unclear what steps or devices must produce a pressing pressure intensity such that it is controlled within a range of 10-100 MPa and a pressing time is controlled within a range of 1-100 min. However, Examiner notes that claim 12 might have been intended to depend from claim 11 which introduces a briquetting machine and selection of a pressing pressure intensity and a pressing time. In the interest of compact prosecution, claim 12 has been interpreted to depend from claim 11.
Claim 16 depends from claim 1 and recites the limitation "the vacuum induction furnace" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While language directed to a refining furnace is present in claim 1, a vacuum induction furnace is not described or inherent from the features already present in claim 1.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (WO 2020023689; Cited in IDS of 07/17/2023) in further view of Meredith et al. (U.S. 4,365,993).
Regarding claim 1, Sun et al. (hereinafter “Sun”) teaches at Example 2, a suitable amount of paint-stripped aeronautical aluminum alloy scrap (meeting clamed ‘uncoated aluminum alloy scrap’) is molten (Paragraph 0041; i.e., has been subject to a heating to obtain aluminum alloy melt liquid) and has been subject to ‘detection by ICP-OES’ (meeting claimed ‘online-detecting components of the aluminum alloy melt liquid; Paragraph 0041), and then adding a copper magnesium alloy (meeting claimed adding a metallic copper, a copper alloy, and/or a magnesium alloy to the aluminum alloy; Paragraph 0042) to meet the ‘composition requirement of a target alloy’ (meeting claimed ‘according to requirements of target alloy components’).
Then, the materials are charged into a high purity graphite crucible, an induction furnace is vacuumized to an internal pressure less than 25 Pa and the materials are heated and molten in the induction furnace (meeting claimed ‘performing pressure-controlled and oxygen-controlled melting through regulating pressure intensity and oxygen partial pressure in the refining furnace; please note that the BRI of ‘regulating pressure intensity and oxygen partial pressure’ is achieved for at least the reason that Sun teaches that the furnace is ‘vacuumized’) and the frequency of the induction furnace is controlled so as to stir the melt (meeting claimed ‘coupling an external-field stirring mode’)(Paragraph 0043). Zn and Mg are separated from the aluminum alloy melt in a steam form and volatilized to the condensate pan over the melt, and condensed (Paragraph 0043; meeting claimed ‘condensing and liquefying volatile elements volatilized in a pressure-controlled and oxygen-controlled melting process to separate from the refining aluminum alloy melt liquid). A ceramic foam filter is used to filtrate the aluminum alloy solution (Paragraph 0044; meeting claimed ‘filtering the refining aluminum alloy liquid melt to obtain an aluminum alloy melt having target alloy components’) and then the filtered aluminum alloy is subjected to semi-continuous casting to obtain an ingot (meeting claimed ‘casting the aluminum alloy melt’).
Sun is silent to the processing used to achieve the ‘paint stripped aeronautical aluminum alloy scrap’, i.e. is silent to the claimed ‘performing selective oxidation roasting and washing treatment on the aluminum alloy scrap’).
Meredith et al. (hereinafter “Meredith”) teaches the recovery of coated aluminium scrap (Title). Specifically, Meredith teaches that large quantities of coated scrap arise in the production of aluminum containers, from scrap aluminium and from the use of painted aluminium sheet in building products (Col. 1 lines 24-27) and that conventional practice includes burning off organic coatings from aluminium scrap, such as scrap beverage cans, by heated baled scrap in an enclosed chamber to which air is admitted in controlled quantity (Col. 1 lines 33-43). Further, Meredith teaches the application of a solution of fluxing salts prior to or in the course of the burning-off operation (Col. 2 lines 20-25). Thus, Meredith discloses a process of selective oxidation roasting (i.e. conventional burning off) and application of a solution of salts (i.e. washing) to remove coatings from the aluminum scrap. While not expressly identifying ‘paint’ and ‘oil’, the processing taught by Meredith would likely remove both paint and oil absent evidence to the contrary.
Therefore, it would be obvious to use the processing of Meredith to achieve paint-stripped aluminium scrap which is then used by Sun so as to have clean scrap and achieve more precise control of the aluminum alloy melt that is to be recycled as would be appreciated by persons of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Sun and Meredith teach the method as applied to claim 1 above and both Sun and Meredith describe the use of aluminium scrap which would include sweeps and/or cutting remainders and/or a mixture thereof. Nevertheless, the selection of aluminium alloy cutting remainders to be used as scrap would be obvious because of the desire of ordinary artisans to fully use the material/cutting remainders so as to prevent or limit waste of such material(s).
Regarding claim 3, Sun and Meredith teach the method as applied to claim 1 above and Meredith teaches that the scrap is baled which meets the BRI of ‘briquetting’ (Col. 1 lines 33-43). Also, Meredith teaches that the bales are placed in the enclosed chamber for heating; thus, the briquetting/baling occurs before melting the scrap.
Regarding claim 4, Sun and Meredith teach the method as applied to claim 1 above and Meredith teaches that a solution of fluxing salts is used and then acts as an in situ flux in subsequent melting (Col. 2 lines 22-25). Thus, the combination of Meredith and Sun would yield Meredith’s fluxing salts to become molten salt during the melting process.
Regarding claim 5, Sun and Meredith teach the method as applied to claim 1 above and both references teach source(s) of the aluminium alloy scrap that meet the claimed processing scrap or a waste product disassembled aluminum alloy scrap (see at least Sun’s aeronautical aluminum alloy scrap).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Sun and Meredith teach the method as applied to claim 1 above and Sun teaches that the scrap is obtained by mixing scrap from different parts (Paragraph 0007) and specifically identifies 2xxx and 7xxx series alloys (Paragraph 0007). While not expressly identifying the combination of 2xxx and 7xxx series alloys, the disclosure of both series alloys as well as an acknowledgement that the scrap is comprised of various aeronautical parts would be sufficient to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to envisage a combination of both materials as a source of scrap.
Regarding claim 8, Sun and Meredith teach the method as applied to claim 1 above and Meredith teaches that the air is admitted in controlled quantity (Col. 1 line 36) but is silent to the vol% of oxygen concentration. However, the person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to optimize the oxygen quantity so as to control the oxide inclusions of the melted aluminum. Such procedure and determination is routine and well known in the aluminum recycling arts and there is no demonstration that an oxygen vol% no less than 10 is critical or otherwise produces unexpected results. Additionally, ambient air typically contains approximately 21% oxygen which would satisfy the claimed range when assuming that Meredith’s air was referring to ambient air.
Regarding claim 9, Sun and Meredith teach the method as applied to claim 1 above and Meredith teaches that the heating (meeting claimed ‘roasting’) is below the melting point of the scrap, for example 500-600C’ (Col. 1 lines 36-40) which lies within the claimed range of approximately 200C to approximately 600C.
Regarding claim 10, Sun and Meredith teach the method as applied to claim 1 above and Meredith teaches that the heating (meeting claimed ‘roasting’) occurs for up to 1 hour (Col. 1 line 41) which lies within the claimed range of 10-180 min because 1 hour is 60 min.
Regarding claim 11, Sun and Meredith teach the method as applied to claim 1 above and Meredith teaches that the scrap is baled (meeting claimed ‘briquetting’) (Col. 1 line 35). Baling would necessarily require a device to bale the scrap and such a device would exert a pressing pressure for a duration to necessarily produce the bale (meeting claimed ‘pressing pressure intensity and a pressing time’).
Regarding claim 12, Sun and Meredith teach the method as applied to claim 11 above and both Sun and Meredith are silent to the pressing pressure intensity and a pressing time during briquetting. However, baling (as taught by Meredith) is a routine and well-known procedure such that it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the optimum pressure and time conditions for successful baling of the aluminum scrap. Further, the instant disclosure does not demonstrate that a pressing pressure intensity of 10-100 MPa and a pressing time of 1-100 min is critical or otherwise produces unexpected results.
Regarding claim 13, Sun and Meredith teach the method as applied to claim 1 above and Sun teaches in Example 2 that a vacuum induction furnace is used.
Regarding claim 14, Sun and Meredith teach the method as applied to claim 1 above and Sun teaches that the target alloy is a 2-series aluminum alloy and that a vacuum induction furnace is used (Example 2).
Regarding claim 15, Sun and Meredith teach the method as applied to claim 1 above and Sun acknowledges the use of a 7xxx reclaimed aluminum alloy (Paragraph 0007) but is silent to using a normal pressure intermediate frequency furnace. However, the selection of a furnace to achieve melting of an aluminum alloy is routine and conventional such that the selection of a normal pressure intermediate frequency furnace would not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. Specifically, it would be obvious to substitute a normal pressure intermediate frequency furnace for Sun’s vacuum induction furnace because both are well known and routine furnaces for the purposes of melting metals.
Regarding claim 16, Sun and Meredith teach the method as applied to claim 1 above and Sun teaches that the furnace is vacuumized to an internal pressure less than 25 Pa (Example 2) but is silent to the oxygen partial pressure being controlled to not more than 0.0001 Pa. However, the operation of a vacuum induction furnace is well known and conventional within the art such that the optimization of the oxygen partial pressure would be obvious to achieve absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 17, Sun and Meredith teach the method as applied to claim 1 above and Sun teaches that the melting occurs at a temperature of 900C (Example 2) which lies within the claimed range of 700-1250C.
Regarding claim 18, Sun and Meredith teach the method as applied to claim 1 above and Sun teaches that melting occurs for 120 min which lies within the claimed range of approximately 10 min to approximately 640 min (Paragraph 0044; Example 2).
Regarding claim 19, Sun and Meredith teach the method as applied to claim 1 above and Sun teaches that the external-field stirring mode can be electromagnetic stirring (Paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 20, Sun et al. (hereinafter “Sun”) teaches at Example 2, a suitable amount of paint-stripped aeronautical aluminum alloy scrap (meeting clamed ‘uncoated aluminum alloy scrap’) is molten (Paragraph 0041; i.e., has been subject to a heating to obtain aluminum alloy melt liquid) and has been subject to ‘detection by ICP-OES’ (meeting claimed ‘online-detecting components of the aluminum alloy melt liquid; Paragraph 0041), and then adding a copper magnesium alloy (meeting claimed adding a metallic copper, a copper alloy, and/or a magnesium alloy to the aluminum alloy; Paragraph 0042) to meet the ‘composition requirement of a target alloy’ (meeting claimed ‘according to requirements of target alloy components’).
Then, the materials are charged into a high purity graphite crucible, an induction furnace is vacuumized to an internal pressure less than 25 Pa and the materials are heated and molten in the induction furnace (meeting claimed ‘performing pressure-controlled and oxygen-controlled melting through regulating pressure intensity and oxygen partial pressure in the refining furnace; please note that the BRI of ‘regulating pressure intensity and oxygen partial pressure’ is achieved for at least the reason that Sun teaches that the furnace is ‘vacuumized’) and the frequency of the induction furnace is controlled so as to stir the melt (meeting claimed ‘coupling an external-field stirring mode’)(Paragraph 0043). Zn and Mg are separated from the aluminum alloy melt in a steam form and volatilized to the condensate pan over the melt, and condensed (Paragraph 0043; meeting claimed ‘condensing and liquefying volatile elements volatilized in a pressure-controlled and oxygen-controlled melting process to separate from the refining aluminum alloy melt liquid). A ceramic foam filter is used to filtrate the aluminum alloy solution (Paragraph 0044; meeting claimed ‘filtering the refining aluminum alloy liquid melt to obtain an aluminum alloy melt having target alloy components’) and then the filtered aluminum alloy is subjected to semi-continuous casting to obtain an ingot (meeting claimed ‘casting the aluminum alloy melt’).
Sun is silent to the processing used to achieve the ‘paint stripped aeronautical aluminum alloy scrap’, i.e. is silent to the claimed ‘performing selective oxidation roasting and washing treatment on the aluminum alloy scrap’).
Meredith et al. (hereinafter “Meredith”) teaches the recovery of coated aluminium scrap (Title). Specifically, Meredith teaches that large quantities of coated scrap arise in the production of aluminum containers, from scrap aluminium and from the use of painted aluminium sheet in building products (Col. 1 lines 24-27) and that conventional practice includes burning off organic coatings from aluminium scrap, such as scrap beverage cans, by heated baled scrap in an enclosed chamber to which air is admitted in controlled quantity (Col. 1 lines 33-43). Further, Meredith teaches the application of a solution of fluxing salts prior to or in the course of the burning-off operation (Col. 2 lines 20-25). Thus, Meredith discloses a process of selective oxidation roasting (i.e. conventional burning off) and application of a solution of salts (i.e. washing) to remove coatings from the aluminum scrap. While not expressly identifying ‘paint’ and ‘oil’, the processing taught by Meredith would likely remove both paint and oil absent evidence to the contrary.
Therefore, it would be obvious to use the processing of Meredith to achieve paint-stripped aluminium scrap which is then used by Sun so as to have clean scrap and achieve more precise control of the aluminum alloy melt that is to be recycled as would be appreciated by persons of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Zhang et al. (U.S. 2020/0131601) directed to On-line Aluminum Scrap Remelting Device and Process and Capuzzi et al. “Preparation and Melting of Scrap in Aluminum Recycling: A Review” providing an overview of Al recycling process from scrap upgrading to the melting process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA M MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-8502. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm, 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.
ALEXANDRA M MOORE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1738
/ALEXANDRA M MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights