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 Claims
Pending and under examination: claims 1-20
Objected to: claim 18
Rejected: claims 1-20
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 ends with a comma instead of a period.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 15 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.
Claim 15 recites “wherein element reaction and diffusion process…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 12-13, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (WO 2014015539 A1; Espacenet English machine translation cited and attached).
Regarding claim 1, with regard to the claimed “A method for recovering processed aluminum scraps of aeronautical aluminum alloy, the method comprising:
performing pre-treating, comprising fire-roasting or wet-washing, on the processed aluminum scraps of aeronautical aluminum alloy”, Zhang teaches a method of recycling waste easy-open aluminum cans (Abstract), comprising crushing, and firing in a furnace via two stages of combustion [0016], [0029], meeting the claimed “fire-roasting”. With regard to the claimed “aeronautical aluminum alloy”, the aluminum cans of Zhang meet the claimed limitation, absent a specific indication in the claims of what “aeronautical” means, because the alloy of aluminum cans is capable of being used for general aeronautical purposes.
With regard to the claimed “performing pressing formation on the processed aluminum scraps of aeronautical aluminum alloy to form block-shaped aluminum scraps”, Zhang teaches packaging and pressing the aluminum [0030], meeting the BRI of “block-shaped”.
With regard to the claimed “performing oxygen-controlled smelting on the block-shaped aluminum scraps in a smelting furnace to form aluminum alloy melt”, Zhang teaches putting the pretreated aluminum cans in a smelting furnace for smelting [0017], and using nitrogen gas to remove oxides in the molten aluminum [0031] during smelting and after the aluminum is packaged/pressed (see [0030]).
With regard to the claimed “and performing casting on the aluminum alloy melt to obtain an aluminum alloy product of meeting component requirements of aeronautical aluminum alloy”, Zhang teaches filtering the aluminum alloy then casting the aluminum [0032]. With regard to the “aeronautical” limitations, as discussed above, absent a specific indication in the claims of what “aeronautical” means, because the alloy of aluminum cans is capable of being used for general aeronautical purposes.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Zhang teaches adding grain refiners to the molten aluminum alloy [0032] which occurs after the nitrogen gas treatment [0031] as discussed above. The nitrogen gas is still present at this point in time, which meets the claimed ‘inert gas protection’, meeting claim 13.
Regarding claim 4, Zhang teaches a range of 130-450°C [0029].
Regarding claims 5-6, the limitations in claim 5 are limiting an optional limitation in claim 1, and is therefore not required; as such, Zhang meets the claim.
Regarding claim 9, absent a specific meaning of what ‘rapid melting’ means, Zhang meets the limitations.
Regarding claim 12, Zhang teaches smelting at 850°C [0030].
Regarding claim 17, Zhang does not explicitly teach a refining temperature, but teaches that smelting is performed at 850°C [0030], which means the molten aluminum has a temperature of 850°C, and immediately thereafter the refining is performed on the already-molten aluminum, which means the temperature is still at 850°C.
Regarding claim 20, with regard to the claimed “A method for recovering processed aluminum scraps of aeronautical aluminum alloy, the method comprising:
pre-treating the processed aluminum scraps of aeronautical aluminum alloy, the pre-treating comprising one or more of fire-roasting and wet-washing”, Zhang teaches a method of recycling waste easy-open aluminum cans (Abstract), comprising crushing, and firing in a furnace via two stages of combustion [0016], [0029], meeting the claimed “fire-roasting”. With regard to the claimed “aeronautical aluminum alloy”, the aluminum cans of Zhang meet the claimed limitation, absent a specific indication in the claims of what “aeronautical” means, because the alloy of aluminum cans is capable of being used for general aeronautical purposes.
With regard to the claimed “pressing the pre-treated processed aluminum scraps of aeronautical aluminum alloy to form block-shaped aluminum scraps;”, Zhang teaches packaging and pressing the aluminum [0030], meeting the BRI of “block-shaped”.
With regard to the claimed “oxygen-controlled smelting the block-shaped aluminum scraps in a smelting furnace to form aluminum alloy melt”, Zhang teaches putting the pretreated aluminum cans in a smelting furnace for smelting [0017], and using nitrogen gas to remove oxides in the molten aluminum [0031] during smelting and after the aluminum is packaged/pressed (see [0030]).
With regard to the claimed “casting the aluminum alloy melt to obtain an aluminum alloy product.”, Zhang teaches filtering the aluminum alloy then casting the aluminum [0032]. With regard to the “aeronautical” limitations, as discussed above, absent a specific indication in the claims of what “aeronautical” means, because the alloy of aluminum cans is capable of being used for general aeronautical purposes.
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.
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 7-8, 11, 13-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (WO 2014015539 A1; Espacenet English machine translation cited and attached), as applied to claims 1-2 above.
Regarding claim 7, Zhang does not explicitly teach the density, but as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches packaging the aluminum can pieces; however, aluminum inherently has a density of about 2.7 g/cm3 which is about 2.98 ton/m3. It is prima facie expected that the density of the ‘blocks’ formed by Zhang are within or close to the claimed range, because pressing material together will result in a density that is close to the theoretical density of a pure material/alloy. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05 I.).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang does not explicitly teach the oxygen partial pressure, but the Examiner takes Official Notice that minimizing the oxygen concentration (i.e., partial pressure) would be obvious to a POSITA, as doing so is not only a routine procedure in the art for mitigating oxidation which introduces impurities, but also because Zhang does indeed use inert gas protection (via nitrogen gas) which also aids in removing oxides [0031].
Regarding claim 11, Zhang is silent regarding the smelting time being 10-30 minutes; however, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed duration of 10-30 minutes, as a POSITA would reasonably find it obvious to perform smelting for long enough such that everything is uniformly melted, mixed, and at the same temperature, whilst also not prolonging the smelting time which would result in increased energy costs [0006],[0016], which are general considerations of Zhang during the production process.
Regarding claims 13-14 and 19, Zhang does not explicitly teach an inert gas protection, but teaches that during smelting, nitrogen (i.e., inert gas) is used [0030], and immediately thereafter the refining is performed on the already-molten aluminum [0031]; thus, it is prima facie expected that the inert gas remains, because there is no step of removing it between smelting and refining.
Additionally, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an inert gas and/or a vacuum to minimize the oxygen concentration to be as low as possible, such as within the claimed ranges, as doing so is a conventional and routine technique in the metallurgical arts to mitigate oxidation, which introduces impurities, and because Zhang does indeed use inert gas protection (via nitrogen gas) which also aids in removing oxides [0031], which meets claims 14 and 19.
Regarding claim 15, Zhang teaches that during smelting, nitrogen gas is used for impurity removal [0031]; it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang to try to continue this process of introducing nitrogen into refining, in order to remove even more impurities, and in order to further degas the melt [0031]. Doing so would have the side effect of “stirring” via the gas being blown, meeting the “gas blowing stirring” limitation.
Regarding claim 16, Zhang is silent regarding the smelting time being 10-30 minutes; however, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed duration of 10-30 minutes, as a POSITA would reasonably find it obvious to perform refining for long enough such that everything is uniformly melted, mixed, and at the same temperature, whilst also not prolonging the refining time which would result in increased energy costs [0006],[0016], which are general considerations of Zhang during the production process.
Claim 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (WO 2014015539 A1; Espacenet English machine translation cited and attached), as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, in view of Das et al. (US 20180274072 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang teaches the method of claim 1 above, but is silent regarding using aluminum scraps of 2- or 7- series aluminum alloys.
Das discloses methods for casting high-strength and highly formable metal products from recycled metal scrap without the addition of substantial or any amounts of primary aluminum (Abstract), and further teaches that 2xxx and/or 7xxx series alloys may be suitable for use in recycling [0100] in addition to aluminum beverage cans [0099].
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang to include 2xxx and/or 7xxx aluminum alloy scraps, as doing so may allow for reduced costs [0084] relative to using pure/primary aluminum [0084].
Regarding claim 18, Zhang teaches the method of claim 2 above, but is silent regarding the addition of the listed elements/alloys.
Das discloses methods for casting high-strength and highly formable metal products from recycled metal scrap without the addition of substantial or any amounts of primary aluminum (Abstract), and further teaches that 2xxx and/or 7xxx series alloys may be suitable for use in recycling [0100] in addition to aluminum beverage cans [0099]. Alloying elements such as magnesium (Abstract, [0085]) or copper [0086] may be added to achieve the desired composition.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang to include 2xxx and/or 7xxx aluminum alloy scraps, as doing so may allow for reduced costs [0084] relative to using pure/primary aluminum [0084].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (WO 2014015539 A1; Espacenet English machine translation cited and attached), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Hong et al. (US 20140202653 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang teaches the method of claim 1 above, but is silent regarding using electromagnetic stirring or gas blowing during smelting.
Hong teaches a method for preparing high-purity aluminum via smelting (Abstract), and further teaches using electromagnetic stirring when the aluminum liquid is heated [0013].
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang to use the electromagnetic stirring technique of Hong, as doing so would allow for ensuring that the aluminum is uniformly mixed and stable [0042].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adil Siddiqui whose telephone number is (571)272-8047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM CST.
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 Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/ADIL A. SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights