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 the Claims
Claims 1-2, 4-9 and 11-20 are pending wherein claims 1-2, 4-9, 11, 16-19 are amended, claims 3 and 10 are canceled and claims 11-15 are withdrawn from consideration.
Status of Previous Rejections
The previous rejection of claims 1-2, 4-5 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mann et al. (US 2018/0291489) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment to claim 1. The previous rejection of claims 1-2, 4-9, 16-17 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Che et al. (US 2012/0152414) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 4 requires the presence of aluminum, copper and cerium. The phrase “about 0.0 wt% to about 2.0 wt% manganese, and from about 0.0 wt% to about 0.8 wt% zirconium” would not require either manganese or zirconium since “about 0.0” would include 0. Claim 1, upon which, claim 4 depends requires the presence of manganese and/or zirconium. Therefore, claim 4 fails to further limit claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugihara (Structural and Magnetic Properties of Copper-Substituted Manganese-Aluminum Alloy) in view of Czerwinski (Cerium in aluminum alloys).
In regard to claim 1, Sugihara discloses Mn-Al alloys wherein the aluminum content would be from 40 to 50 atomic percent wherein amounts of copper would be present from 0 to 12.5 atomic percent (pages 373-374). However, Sugihara does not specify wherein cerium would be added to the Mn-Al alloys.
Czerwinski teaches adding 0.1 to 2 weight percent cerium when alloying with aluminum in order improve tensile strengths and elongations (page 43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to modify the Mn-Al alloys, as disclosed by Sugihara, by adding 0.1 to 2 weight percent cerium, as disclosed by Czerwinski, in order to improve tensile strengths and elongations, as disclosed by Czerwinski (page 43).
With respect to the recitation “comprising a copper:cerium ratio of about 2.0:1” in claim 1, an alloy having 45 atomic percent aluminum, 51.884 atomic percent manganese, 2.5 atomic percent copper and 0.616 atomic percent cerium would be within the scope of Sugihara in view of Czerwinshi. Correspondingly, the weight percentages would be 66.1 weight percent manganese, 28.2 weight percent aluminum, 3.7 weight percent copper, and 2.0 weight percent cerium. The ratio of weight percentages of copper to cerium would be 1.84, which would be about 2:1 as claimed.
In regard to claim 5, an alloy having 45 atomic percent aluminum, 51.884 atomic percent manganese, 2.5 atomic percent copper and 0.616 atomic percent cerium would be within the scope of Sugihara in view of Czerwinshi. Correspondingly, the weight percentages would be 66.1 weight percent manganese, 28.2 weight percent aluminum, 3.7 weight percent copper, and 2.0 weight percent cerium. The ratio of weight percentages of copper to cerium would be 1.84, which would be about 2:1 as claimed. These weight percentages would read on about 4.0 weight percent copper and about 2.0 weight percent cerium as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regard to claim 16, the prior art fails to disclose or adequately suggest an aluminum article consisting of aluminum, copper, cerium, scandium and one or more of manganese and zirconium wherein the total impurity content is less than or equal to 0.1 weight percent and the article exhibits a heterogeneous microstructure. The closest prior art to Che et al. (‘414) teaches alloys containing aluminum, copper, manganese, cerium, zirconium and rare earths such as scandium [0027-0030]. However, Che et al. (‘414) requires the presence of elements such as cadmium, titanium and boron or carbon and the transitional phrase “consisting of” as set forth in claim 16 would not allow for the presence of such elements and therefore claim 16 distinguishes from Che et al. (‘414).
Claims 2 and 6-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regard to claim 2, the closest prior to Sugihara (Structural and Magnetic Properties of Copper-Substituted Manganese-Aluminum Alloy) in view of Czerwinski (Cerium in aluminum alloys) suggests alloys having aluminum, manganese, cerium and copper. However, there is no disclosure in these references that suggest the presence of zirconium.
In regard to claim 6, the levels of manganese suggested are much higher (around 50 atomic percent or higher or about 50 weight percent or more) in Sugihara and are not as low as about 2 weight percent and there is no zirconium present in either reference. Therefore, claim 6 distinguishes from Sugihara (Structural and Magnetic Properties of Copper-Substituted Manganese-Aluminum Alloy) in view of Czerwinski (Cerium in aluminum alloys).
In regard to claims 7-8, the levels of manganese suggested are much higher (around 50 atomic percent or higher or about 50 weight percent or more) in Sugihara and are not as low as about 1.5 weight percent and there is no zirconium present in either reference. Therefore, claim 7 distinguishes from Sugihara (Structural and Magnetic Properties of Copper-Substituted Manganese-Aluminum Alloy) in view of Czerwinski (Cerium in aluminum alloys).
In regard to claim 9, the levels of manganese suggested are much higher (around 50 atomic percent or higher or about 50 weight percent or more) in Sugihara. Thus, the aluminum content is not as high as about 85 weight percent. Therefore, claim 9 distinguishes from Sugihara (Structural and Magnetic Properties of Copper-Substituted Manganese-Aluminum Alloy) in view of Czerwinski (Cerium in aluminum alloys).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 4-5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessee Roe whose telephone number is (571)272-5938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7:30 am to 4 pm.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759