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:
2-15
Withdrawn:
NONE
Rejected:
2-15
Amended:
2
New:
9-15
Independent:
2
Claim Interpretation
As stated previously, instant claim 2 refers to a Q1/Q2 relationship ≤6 x 10-2, wherein Q1=the integrated intensity of an x-ray diffraction peak of an AlFeMnSi phase, and Q2=the integrated intensity of an x-ray diffraction peak of a (200) plane of an Al phase (Q2). The integrated intensity of an x-ray diffraction peak of a given phase is proportional to the volume fraction of that phase in the alloy product. Q1/Q2 ≤0.06, would mean low amounts of AlFeMnSi phase relative to high amounts of Al phase.
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 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.
Claim 2-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakai et al (US 2009/0000705) in view of “Effect of heating rate on mechanical property, microstructure and texture evolution of Al-Mg-Si-Cu alloy during solution treatment” (hereinafter Wang et al.) or Aruga (US 2017/0233853A1) and further in view of “ASM Handbook Vol. 2A” pp. 438-461.
Nakai teaches an aluminum alloy consisting of (in wt%):
cl. 1
Nakai at ex. B
Nakai broad ranges
Si
0.6-1.45
1.00
0.4-1.4
Mg
0.6-1.3
0.90
0.5-1.25
Cu
0.15-1.0
0.40
0.01-0.7
Mn
0.03-1.0
0.45
0.001-1.0
Fe
0.2-0.4
0.25
0.05-0.4
Cr
0.03-0.4
0.20
0.01-0.35
Ti
0.012-0.035
0.05
(outside claimed range)
0.005-0.1
B
0.0001-0.03
-
(outside claimed range)
<300 ppm
(≤0.03)
Zn
-0.25
-
<0.3% total Zn, V, Hf
Zr
-0.05
0.03
<0.15
Table 1: Claim 2 vs prior art of Nakai
see Nakai at [0026], [0060-61], wherein the broad ranges taught by Nakai overlap the alloying ranges or maximums of Si, Mg, Cu, Mn, Fe, Cr, Ti, B, Zn, and Zr recited in instant claim 2. Further, ex. B at Table 1 of Nakai is a close example to the claimed alloying ranges (see Table 1 above for comparison). Nakai does not teach the mandatory addition/presence of any elements excluded by the “consisting of” transitional phrase.
Nakai teaches forming said alloy into a forged product by steps of:
Claim 2
Claim 3
Claim 4
Claim 5
Claim 6
Nakai
obtaining molten metal
Molten metal [0096]
casting
Casting [0096]
homogenizing
Homogenizing:
370-560°C 4-10 hrs
Homogen. 460-520°C [0099] time ≥2 hr
forging
Forging:
450-560°C
forging≥350°C [0105]
solution treatment (SHT)
SHT:
*raise from 20°C to 500°C at rising rate ≥5°C/min.
*Hold 530-560°C for 0.3-3 hrs
SHT
* heating rate ≥100°C/hr
*hold 530-570°C 20 min-8 hrs [0111]
quenching-
*bring surface of forging into contact w quenching water within 5-60 sec after SHT
*in a water bath for >5 to 40 minutes
quenching-
*bring surface of forging into contact w quenching water within 15-60 sec after SHT
*in a water bath for >5 to 40 min
quenching-
*bring surface of forging into contact w quenching water within 5-60 sec after SHT
*in a water bath for 7-15 min
quenching-
*bring surface of forging into contact w quenching water within 15-60 sec after SHT
*in a water bath for 7-15 min
Quench in water [0113]
aging
Aging: 180-220°C 0.5-1.5 hr
Aging (typically 190°C for 2+ hours, Table 2)
Table 2: Instant process steps vs prior art of Nakai
which overlaps the parameters of the instant claim with respect to obtaining a molten metal, casting, homogenizing, forging, homogenizing, solution treating, quenching, and aging steps (independent claim 2). Concerning the amendment to claim 2 of “solution treatment is performed by lowering a temperature of the forging obtained in the forging step, starting heating when the temperature of the forging has reached room temperature, and raising the temperature always at the temperature rising rate of 5.0°C/min or more in the entire temperature range of 20°C to 500°C”, Nakai teaches cooling at a rate as high as 100°C/hr or more after forging [0107], but does not specify cooling to room temperature prior to elevated heat treatment of solution heating. However, it would have been within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, given the disclosure of Nakai, to have cooled to a suitable temperature after forging and prior to elevated heat treatment of solution heating (such as room temperature), because Nakai teaches cooling after forging, and selecting a temperature to cool to is held to be prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.04).
Nakai does not specify a) the Q1/Q2 or b) quenching within 5-60 seconds in a water bath for 5-40 minutes (claim 2, see also further quench limitations in instant claims 4-6 as well as new claims 7-8).
Concerning a), Nakai does not specify the limitation of Q1/Q2 relationship ≤6 x 10-2, wherein Q1=the integrated intensity of a x-ray diffraction peak of an AlFeMnSi phase (which is related to the amount of AlFeMnSi phase), and Q2=the integrated intensity of an x-ray diffraction peak of an Al phase (which is related to the amount of Al phase). However, Nakai teaches an overlapping Al-Mg-Si alloy composition, processed by a substantially identical process to that disclosed in the present specification, namely: casting, homogenizing, hot forging, heating to a solution treatment temperature at a rate ≥ 100°C/hr (≥ 1.67°C/min, in order to achieve dispersed particles [0111]), quenching, and aging (see Table 2 above). Therefore, substantially the same microstructure (such as Q1/Q2 ratio, or relative amounts of AlFeMnSi phase and Al phase) is expected to be present in the products of Nakai, as in those of the instant invention. In particular, the instant specification emphasizes a heating rate of ≥5.0°C/min (also recited in instant claim 3) to the solution treatment temperature is important for formation of the claimed microstructure (instant specification at Tables 1 & 2, low temperature raising rates have higher Q1/Q2 ratios/higher AlFeMnSi phase outside the claimed range).
Nakai teaches heating rates (>100°C/hr or more, >1.67°C/min) are important toward achieving fine dispersed particles (and avoiding coarse precipitates) [0111]. Further, Wang et al teaches further motivation to optimize the heating rate to the solution treatment temperature of 6xxx alloys (for instance, high heating rate >>1°C/min) in order to improve isotropy and form fine uniform equiaxed grains (see Wang at p 17, Conclusions, p 9 Experimental, etc). Alternatively, Aruga teaches further motivation to optimize the heating rate to the solution treatment temperature of 6xxx alloys (i.e. ≥5°C/s), in order to achieve fine grained microstructure with improved properties [0068].Therefore, given the disclosure of Nakai, and the teachings of Wang or Aruga regarding heating rate, one of skill in the art would be motivated to heat to the solution treatment temperature at high rates (in other words to optimize the heating rate to the solution treatment temperature), in order to achieve fine uniform grains and dispersed particles (as discussed above).
Concerning b), Nakai does not specify the amount of time between solution treatment and quenching or quenchant/water holding time. Concerning the amount of time between solution treatment and quenching, the examples of Nakai teach quenching with a water quenching procedure directly follows solution heating (examples). Further, Nakai [0113] indicates that one wants to shorten the production process. “ASM Handbook Vol. 2A” p 444 teaches that the extent of unintended precipitation after solution treatment is influenced by quench delay (that is, the time from the opening of the solution heating furnace until the part is fully submerged in the quenchant). “ASM Handbook Vol. 2A” p 446 teaches there is a maximum allowable (preferable) quench delay (Table 6, p 447) in order to avoid solute loss of up to 15 seconds for a minimum thickness of 2.29 mm (Table 6, p 447). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a short interval between solution treatment and the quenching step, that is within the claimed range of 5-60 seconds (cl. 2, 5) or 15-60 seconds (cl. 3, 6) or 5-15 seconds (cl. 7, 8), as “ASM Handbook Vol. 2A” p 446 teaches minimizing the quench delay (for instance, a maximum of 15 seconds) avoids solute loss.
Concerning the holding time in quenchant/water, “ASM Handbook Vol. 2A” teaches rapid quenching (following solution treatment) is necessary to prevent or minimize uncontrolled precipitation of the strengthening phases (p 438). “ASM Handbook Vol. 2A” teaches quenching rates depend on specimen thickness (and therefore time aluminum alloy takes to go from solutionizing temperature to the temperature of the quenchant depends on specimen thickness- see p. 446 Table 5) and water quenchant temperature (see p 446 Table 5). “ASM Handbook Vol. 2A” implies quenching takes 56 seconds for an aluminum alloy with a thickness 75mm, SHT 520C to 70C (Δ450°C), and therefore implies a minimum time immersed in quenchant water is 56 seconds. Time in quenchant is held to be a result effective variable, wherein the predictable result is decrease in temperature at a rate based on quenchant and specimen thickness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, given the disclosure of “ASM Handbook Vol. 2A”, to have quenched in a water bath as taught by Nakai, together with minimizing the quench delay to <15 s (Table 6, “ASM Handbook Vol. 2A”) in order to minimize solute loss, and optimizing the time in quenchant media/water bath (such as >56 seconds, which meets the claimed 5-40 minutes, based on quenchant temperature and specimen thickness), in order to provide the predictable purpose of preserving solid solution.
Because Nakai teaches an overlapping Al-Mg-Si alloy, together with substantially identical processing steps and parameters (and wherein Wang or Aruga teach motivation to heat to the solution treatment temperature at high rates/optimize the heating rate to the solution treatment temperature), and “ASM Handbook Vol. 2A” teaches quenching parameters within the claimed ranges improve properties, it is held that the disclosures of Nakai together with Wang or Argua, and further in view of “ASM Handbook Vol. 2A”, have created a prima facie case of obviousness of the presently claimed invention.
Overlapping ranges have been held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the range, including the claimed range, from the broader range disclosed in the prior art, because the prior art finds that said composition in the entire disclosed range has a suitable utility. Additionally, "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages," In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d at 1379 (CAFC 2003).
Concerning claim 3, as set forth in Table 2 above, Nakai teaches homogenizing, forging, solution treating, and aging with time and temperature parameters that overlap or fall within the claimed ranges. Therefore Nakai meets the instant limitations.
Concerning claims 4-6, see above discussion of quenching delay and time quenchant is in contact with forged alloy.
Changes in temperature, concentrations, or other process conditions of an old process does not impart patentability unless the recited ranges are critical, i.e. they produce a new and unexpected result. However, said parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In the instant case, Bergsma teaches the time between quenching and starting aging is a result effective variable, wherein minimizing said time improves properties.
Concerning claims 7-8, see above discussion of quenching delay and time quenchant is in contact with forged alloy.
Concerning new claims 9-12, as set forth above, Nakai teaches heating rates (>100°C/hr or more, >1.67°C/min) are important toward achieving fine dispersed particles (and avoiding coarse precipitates) [0111]. Additionally, secondary reference of Wang et al teaches further motivation to optimize the heating rate to the solution treatment temperature of 6xxx alloys (for instance, high heating rate 60°C/s=3,600°C/min, p 9, Experimental 1st paragraph) in order to improve isotropy and form fine uniform equiaxed grains (see Wang at p 17, Conclusions, p 9 Experimental, etc.). Alternatively, secondary reference of Aruga teaches further motivation to optimize the heating rate to the solution treatment temperature of 6xxx alloys (i.e. ≥5°C/s, which is ≥60°C/min), in order to achieve fine grained microstructure with improved properties [0068].Therefore, given the disclosure of Nakai, and the teachings of Wang or Aruga regarding heating rate, one of skill in the art would be motivated to heat to the solution treatment temperature at high rates (in other words to optimize the heating rate to the solution treatment temperature), in order to achieve fine uniform grains and dispersed particles (as discussed above).
Concerning new claims 13-15, Nakai teaches tensile strength of typically 375MPa (page 16 Table 4, example 17) which meets the instant tensile strength minimum (cl. 13) and falls within the ranges of instant claims 14 and 15.
Response to Arguments
In the response filed on 1/8/26 applicant added new claims 9-15 and submitted various arguments traversing the rejections of record. No new matter has been added.
Applicant’s argument that the instant invention is allowable because the prior art does not teach a step of cooling to room temperature after forging and prior to elevated temperature heating to the solution heating temperature has not been found persuasive. As set forth above, Nakai teaches cooling at a rate as high as 100°C/hr or more after forging [0107], but does not specify cooling to room temperature prior to elevated heat treatment of solution heating. However, it would have been within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, given the disclosure of Nakai, to have cooled to a suitable temperature after forging and prior to elevated heat treatment of solution heating (such as room temperature), because Nakai teaches cooling after forging, and selecting a temperature to cool to is held to be prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.04).
Applicant’s argument that the instant specification shows unexpected results with respect to the prior art of record has not been found persuasive. Nakai teaches heating rates (>100°C/hr or more, >1.67°C/min) are important toward achieving fine dispersed particles (and avoiding coarse precipitates) [0111]. Secondary reference of Wang et al teaches further motivation to optimize the heating rate to the solution treatment temperature of 6xxx alloys (for instance, high heating rate 60°C/s=3,600°C/min, p 9, Experimental 1st paragraph) in order to improve isotropy and form fine uniform equiaxed grains (see Wang at p 17, Conclusions, p 9 Experimental, etc.). Alternatively, secondary reference of Aruga teaches further motivation to optimize the heating rate to the solution treatment temperature of 6xxx alloys (i.e. ≥5°C/s, which is ≥60°C/min), in order to achieve fine grained microstructure with improved properties [0068].Therefore, given the disclosure of Nakai, and the teachings of Wang or Aruga regarding heating rate, one of skill in the art would be motivated to heat to the solution treatment temperature at high rates (in other words to optimize the heating rate to the solution treatment temperature), in order to achieve fine uniform grains and dispersed particles (as discussed above). Applicant has not shown unexpected results with respect to the teachings of the prior art.
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 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 on 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
Prosecution Insights