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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group II (claims 9-21) in the reply filed on 7/29/26 is acknowledged. Claims 1-8, 22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 9-21 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.
Claim 9 is dependent on independent (withdrawn) claim 1, wherein claim 1 recites the limitation "other trace elements" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Concerning claim 17, it is unclear how “the metal” of claim 17 line 3 and “metal in liquid form” of claim 17 line 6 relate to the composition of the disc brake rotor listed in claim 1 lines 4-17 (wherein claim 17 depends on independent claim 1). Additionally, it is unclear how the disc brake rotor of claim 1 (upon which claim 17 depends) is formed by the particular steps listed in claim 17 (i.e. pouring the metal, keeping the elongated device in the mold, leading the elongated device into a vessel, producing a semi-solid metal slurry with the claimed particulars of the stirring device). For the purposes of this office action, the composition listed in claim 1 is held to be the composition of the disc brake rotor product- produced by combining “the metal” of claim 17 line 3 and “metal in liquid form” to form a semi-solid metal slurry, and casting said semi-solid metal slurry. Clarification is required.
The term “substantial” in claim 17 line 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantial” 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 the specific degree of axial extension/length implied by the relative phrase “substantial”.
Concerning claim 9, claim 9 line 5 recites the phrase “upon cooling thereof” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what is cooled, and if this is done concurrently and/or after stirring. For the purposes of this office action, the molten metal or alloy is interpreted to be what is cooled.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the cooling effect" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "other trace elements" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims dependent on the above rejected claims are likewise rejected under this statute. 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.
Claims 9-13, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wessen et al (US 7,870,885, cited in IDS received 1/12/24) in view of Lee et al (US 2003/0192627, cited in IDS received 6/17/24).
Wessen (at Fig. 1, claim 1, etc.) teaches a method of forming a liquid-solid composition by steps of: charging a vessel (2) with a liquid metal alloy, charging the vessel with a mechanical stirrer (5) with solid alloy (6) directly attached to the stirrer (which qualifies as “charging the vessel with a solid metal or alloy”), wherein the solid metal/alloy is chosen such that ≥1 wt% solid particles (7) will be formed in the melt (3) due to enthalpy exchange such between the liquid and solid metals, such that a liquid/solid metal composition is formed (8), which meets the instant process steps (claim 9). Wessen broadly teaches the use of hypereutectic Al-Si alloys (column 4 line 24). Wessen does not teach a) forming a disc brake rotor product by said process, b) forming said product out of the particular hypereutectic Al-Si alloy composition of instant claim 1.
Concerning a) & b), Lee et al (at claim 1, etc.) teaches a hypereutectic Al-Si alloy composition comprising (in wt%): 6-25% Si, 5-8% Cu, 0.05-0.9% Ni, 0.5-1.5% Mg, 0.05-1.2% Fe, 0.05-1.2% Mn, 0.05-0.9% Zn, 0.05-1.2% Ti, 0.05-1.2% Zr, 0.05-1.2% V, balance aluminum is used for casting (such as semi-solid casting, [0034]) articles (including brake rotors [0003]) into final products with improved mechanical properties at elevated temperatures (see Lee at claim 1, Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have used the Al-Si alloy of Lee et al in the process of semi solid casting taught by Wessen, and further formed said alloy into a structural product such as a brake rotor with a hat and friction ring, because Lee teaches said Al-Si alloy can be cast by semi solid casting, and exhibits superior mechanical properties, and because Wessen teaches hypereutectic Al-Si alloys are suitable for the instant semi-solid casting process. Therefore it is held that Wessen together with Lee have created a prima facie case of obviousness of the presently claimed invention.
Concerning claim 10, Wessen teaches after the preparation steps of the semi-solid slurry, pouring into a casting device (column 5 line 67, claim 1), which meets the instant limitation.
Concerning claim 11, Wessen teaches optionally externally cooling as a supplementary means (see Wessen at claim 8).
Concerning claim 12, Wessen teaches the charged solid metal or alloy has the same composition as the charged molten metal or alloy (see Wessen at claim 9).
Concerning claim 13, Wessen teaches the liquid-solid metal composition has a spherical or non-dendritic structure (see Wessen at claim 15), which meets the instant limitation.
Concerning claim 17, Wessen teaches pouring liquid metal into a mold, inserting into said mold an elongated device (Fig. 1, #5) with solid metal/alloy integral with said elongated device, stirring said elongated device until the solid metal/alloy is dissolved totally or partially (column 3 line 21), which meets the claimed method steps.
Further concerning claim 17, Wessen does not teach the method of forming said elongated device integral with a solid metal/alloy. However, it is held to be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, given the disclosure of Wessen, to have formed the solid metal on the end of the elongated (stirring) device of Wessen by molten metal casting (see Wessen at claims 9, 10). Wessen teaches said elongated device has a shaft extending along the rotational axis, and two wings radially outwards from the elongated shaft, with an axial extension of the wings ≥15% of the length of the shaft (see Wessen at Fig. 1 step 2), which meets the instant limitations of instant claim 17.
Claims 14-16, 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wessen et al and Lee et al as applied to claims above, further in view of “ASM Handbook Vol. 2A” p 175-192.
Wessen and Lee are discussed in paragraphs above. Concerning claims 14, 18, 21, after the preparation steps of the semi-solid slurry discussed above, Wessen teaches pouring into a casting device (column 5 line 67, claim 1). However, Wessen does not specify pouring into a die casting device, and casting a disc brake rotor product. However, Lee teaches that die casting is a suitable casting process for forming Al-Si structural castings [0009], including disc brake rotors [0003]. Further, “ASM Handbook Vol. 2A” gives details about a typical die casting device (see p177, Fig. 3, 4), wherein the “shot sleeve” forms a chamber filled with appropriate metal for each cycle (p 176, 1st column), which meets the instant “filling chamber” limitation. Concerning claim 21, Wessen teaches the claimed cooling step. Further concerning claim 21, though Wessen does not specify the presently claimed “trimming”, trimming post die casting is taught by “ASM Handbook Vol. 2A” p 186-187- namely, that trim presses are well known to remove the excess material post die casting (p 186). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have poured the semi-solid slurry of Wesson and Lee into a casting device, such as a high pressure die casting device of “ASM Handbook Vol. 2A”, performed a step of die casting, cooling, and then trimming, because Lee teaches die casting Al-Si alloys (into products including disc brake rotors [0003]), with die casting devices [0009], thereby achieving cast products with high mechanical properties at elevated temperatures [0011], and because “ASM Handbook Vol. 2A”, teaches trim presses are effective to remove excess material post casting (p 186).
Concerning claim 15-16, 19-20, Lee teaches further processing said Al-Si hypereutectic alloy cast by die casting by solution heat treatment, quenching, and aging, which meets the instant limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANELL COMBS MORILLO whose telephone number is (571)272-1240. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am-3pm.
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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/J.C.M/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
