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
Claims 2 and 5 are amended in view of applicant’s preliminary amendments filed 11/3/223. Therefore, claims 1-13 are currently under examination.
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 7-13 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.
The term “high” in “high-strength aluminum alloy” as recited in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear at what strength levels the claimed aluminum alloy is considered high strength, because the instant claim 7 does not recite and strength properties.
The term “high” in “high-strength aluminum alloy” as recited in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear at what strength levels the claimed aluminum alloy is considered high strength, because the instant claim 11 does not recite and strength properties.
Claims 8-10 and 12-13 are also rejected since they depend on vague and indefinite claims 7 and 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR101238944 B1(KR944).
KR944 teaches an aluminum alloy comprising 3.0-12.5 wt% of Mg, 1.5-5.0 wt% of Si, and 0.1-1.0 wt% of Zr, wherein the ratio of Mg/Si is 1.98-2.5[0007]. KR944 further teaches the presence of intermetallic compounds such as Mg2Si[0017] and Al3Zr[0018].
Regarding claims 1-2, the Zr as taught by KR944 reads on the claimed X. The Si as taught by KR944 reads on the claimed Y. The Al3Zr as taught by KR944 reads on the claimed Al-X intermetallic compound. The Mg2Si as taught by KR944 reads on the claimed Mg-Y intermetallic compound. Additionally, the term ”for 3D printing” merely states the intended use for the claimed Al alloy, and does not materially distinguish the claimed Al alloy from the Al alloy of KR944.
Therefore, the Al-Mg-Zr-Si alloy as taught by KR944 anticipates the claimed Al-Mg-X-Y aluminum alloy.
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.
Claim(s) 3-4, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR944.
The teachings of KR944 are discussed in section 6 above.
Regarding claims 3 and 7, the amounts of Mg and Si in the Al alloy of KR944 read on the claimed amounts of Mg and Si. The amount of Zr as taught by KR944 overlaps the claimed amount of Zr. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The selection of claimed amount of Zr from the amount of Zr as taught by KR944 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since KR944 discloses the same utilities in its Zr amount. Additionally, the Mg/Si ratio of 1.98-2.5 as taught by KR944 satisfies the claimed Relation 1(i.e. 1.5 ≤ [Mg]/[Si] ≤ 8.5).
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Table 1 of KR944 shows Al alloys having Mg amounts in the ranges of 6.89 - 7.76(examples 1-8).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR944, and further in view of Lee US 2022/0275484 A1(Lee).
The teachings of KR944 are discussed in sections 6 and 8 above. KR944 further teaches that the Al alloy are used in producing parts of automobiles and space frame structures[0002,0045].
However, KR944 does not explicit teach that the Al alloy comprises Ca as recited in claim 5. KR944 also does not explicitly teach that the Al alloy is provided in a powder or wire form as recited in claim 6.
Lee teaches an Al alloy for 3D printing, wherein the Al alloy comprises 7-25wt% Mg and additionally comprises 0.02-0.5wt% of Ca[0006-0009]. Lee further teaches that Ca inhibits oxidation and vaporization of Mg in the molten metal of Al alloy in a process to make Al alloy powder or wire for 3D printing[0019-0023]. Additionally, Lee further teaches that the Al alloy powders or wires can be 3D printed to make a product part for an aircraft, automobile, etc.[0065].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated 0.02-0.5wt% of Ca as taught by Lee into the Al alloy of KR944 in order to inhibit oxidation and vaporization of Mg in molten Al alloy when making Al alloy powders or wires which can then be 3D printed to make an aircraft or automobile part as taught by Lee.
Additionally, the amount of Ca in the Al alloy of KR944 in view of Lee overlaps the claimed Ca amount. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The selection of claimed Ca amount from the Ca amount in the Al alloy of KR944 in view of Lee would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since KR944 in view of Lee teach the same utility in the Ca amount of their Al alloy.
Regarding claim 6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the Al alloy in the forms of a powder or a wire as taught by Lee into the Al alloy of KR944 in order to provide the raw material for 3D printing during which the Al alloy can be made into parts of aircrafts and automobiles as taught by Lee.
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR944, and further in view of CN111872386(CN386).
The teachings of KR944 are discussed in sections 6 and 8 above.
However, KR944 does not explicitly teach the claimed yield strength and elongation as recited in claims 8 and 10 respectively.
CN386 teaches a method of manufacturing a Al-Mg-Zr-Si based high-strength Al alloy product through 3D printing using Al alloy powder to make parts for aerospace and automobile industry[0002], wherein the Al alloy powder comprises 1.00-8.00 wt% Mg, 0.02-2.00 wt% Si and 0.10-3.00wt% Zr[0013]. CN386 further teaches that the tensile strength of the Al alloy is more than 520MPa and the elongation is 17% or more (abstract).
Regarding claims 8 and 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the tensile strength and elongation values as taught by CN386 into the Al alloy of KR944 in order to achieve the high strength Al alloy suitable to be used in 3D printing process for making parts for aerospace and automobile applications as taught by CN386.
Additionally, tensile strength is the maximum stress a material can withstand before it breaks, while yield strength is the minimum stress at which a material begins to deform permanently. The claimed yield strength would have been lower than the its corresponding tensile strength in an Al alloy because the stress at which a material begins to deform permanently is lower than the stress right before the material breaks.
Since the Al alloy of KR944 in view of CN386 has a chemical composition that is significantly similar to the claimed chemical composition, a Mg/Si ratio that reads on the claimed Mg/Si ratio, an elongation that reads on the claimed elongation, and a tensile strength that is above 520MPa, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the Al alloy of KR944 in view of CN386 to have a yield strength (corresponding to the high tensile strength of above 520MPa) that is less than 520MPa, which would have overlapped on the claimed yield strength. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The selection of claimed yield strength from implicitly taught yield strength of KR944 in view of CN386 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since KR944 in view of CN386 teach the same utility in their implicitly taught yield strength.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN111872386(CN386) and further in view of KR944.
CN386 teaches a method of manufacturing a Al-Mg-Zr-Si based high-strength Al alloy product through 3D printing using Al alloy powder to make parts for aerospace and automobile industry[0002], wherein the Al alloy powder comprises 1.00-8.00 wt% Mg, 0.02-2.00 wt% Si and 0.10-3.00wt% Zr[0013]. CN386 further teaches that the tensile strength of the Al alloy is more than 520MPa and the elongation is 17% or more (abstract).
Regarding claims 11-12, the claimed step(a) of preparing an Al-Mg-Zr-Si based Al alloy powder and the claimed step(b) of manufacturing a printed product of the Al-Mg-Zr-Si based Al alloy powder through 3D printing are taught in CN386’s disclosure. However, CN386 does not explicitly teach a Mg/Si ratio that satisfy the claimed Relation 1.
The teachings of KR944 are discussed in sections 6 and 8 above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the Mg/Si ratio 1.98-2.5 as taught by KR944 into the Al alloy of CN386 in order to achieve quasi-binary alloy of Al-Mg2Si having excellent high temperature characteristics and avoid undesirably formation of quasi-ternary composition in which Si and Al3Mg2 are additionally produced as taught by KR944[0015-0016].
Additionally, the Mg, Si and Zr amounts in the Al alloy of CN386 in view of KR944 overlap the claimed amounts of Mg, Si and Zr. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The selection of the alloy composition as taught by CN386 in view of KR944 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since CN386 in view of KR944 teach the same utilities in their Al alloy composition.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN386 in view of KR944, and further in view of Lee US 2022/0275484 A1(Lee).
The teachings of CN386 in view of KR944 are discussed in section 11 above. However, CN386 in view of KR944 do not explicitly teach the claimed presence of Ca in the Al alloy.
The teachings of Lee are discussed in section 10 above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated 0.02-0.5wt% of Ca as taught by Lee into the Al alloy of CN386 in view of KR944 in order to inhibit oxidation and vaporization of Mg in molten Al alloy when making Al alloy powders or wires which can then be 3D printed to make an aircraft or automobile part as taught by Lee.
Additionally, the amount of Ca in the Al alloy of CN386 in view of KR944 and Lee overlaps the claimed Ca amount. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The selection of claimed Ca amount from the Ca amount in the Al alloy of CN386 in view of KR944 and Lee would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since CN386 in view of KR944 and Lee teach the same utility in the Ca amount of their Al alloy.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kitaoka et al. US 2002/0088512(Kitaoka) teaches an aluminum alloy comprising 2.5-4.5 mass% of Mg[0027-0028], 1.0-3.5 mass% of Si[0025-0026], and 0.05-0.30 mass% of Zr[0035-0036](i.e. lower than claimed), wherein the ratio of Mg/Si is 1.8 or higher and equal to or less than 2.0 [0037-0040].
WO 2005/045081(WO081) teaches an Al alloy comprising 1.0-8.0 wt% Mg, 0.3-4.5 wt% Si, 0.001-1.0 wt% Zr(abstract), wherein Mg-Si and Al-Zr intermetallic compounds are present in the Al alloy(page 7 line 23 – page 8 line 30). WO081 further teaches a Mg/Si ratio of >1.73(page 8 lines 4-5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOIS L ZHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-1248. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45.
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.
LOIS ZHENG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/LOIS L ZHENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733