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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 8-16) in the reply filed on 4/07/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the comma after “comprising” is misplaced and should be moved to after “claim 8” so as to read as --The method of claim 8, further comprising anodizing the part with at least one color. --
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 8, 10-12, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al (WO 2020/154004 A2).
Regarding claim 8, Li et al teaches a method for investment casting (paragraph [0030]-[0033], solidification processing, e.g., investment casting) comprising:
melting an aluminum alloy modified with at least one type of nanoparticle (paragraph [0032], a nano-treated Al alloy is heated to form a melt, paragraph [0024-0025], nano-treated Al alloy is a metal matrix nanocomposite of Al and reinforcing nanostructures);
filling an investment casting mold with the molten aluminum alloy with the at least one type of nanoparticle (paragraph [0032], melt is delivered to a mold defining a hollow space); and
cooling the mold to solidify the molten aluminum alloy to form a part (paragraph [0032], melt is cooled to solidify and form a metal part of the nano-treated Al alloy).
Regarding claim 10, Li et al teaches wherein the aluminum alloy is selected from the group consisting of: a 2xxx series aluminum alloy, a 6xxx series aluminum alloy, and a 7xxx series aluminum alloy (paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 11, Li et al teaches examples wherein the aluminum alloy is AA7075 (paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 12, Li et al teaches wherein the at least one type of nanoparticle comprises a material selected from the group consisting of: a metal oxide, a non-metal oxide, a metal carbide, a non-metal carbide, a metal silicide, a metal boride, a metal nitride, and any combinations thereof (paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 14, Li et al teaches wherein the at least one type of nanoparticle comprises less than or equal to 30 vol.% of the aluminum alloy (paragraph [0028], can include nanostructures at a volume fraction of up to about 5% or greater, such as up to about 4.5%, up to about 4%, up to about 3.5%, up to about 3%, up to about 2.5%, or up to about 2%, paragraph [0034], note example of about 1.0 vol% TiC nanocomposites).
Regarding claim 15, Li et al teaches wherein the at least one type of nanoparticle comprises 0.1 vol.% to 2 vol.% of the aluminum alloy (paragraph [0028], can include nanostructures at a volume fraction such as up to about 2%, and down to about 0.1%, paragraph [0034], note example of about 1.0 vol% TiC nanocomposites).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (WO 2020/154004 A2) in view of Runge (“Anodizing,” ASM Handbook, Aluminum Science and Technology, 2018, vol. 2A, pp.590-605, cited in IDS filed 4/07/26).
Regarding claim 9, Li et al is quiet to anodizing the part with at least one color.
Runge teaches anodizing can be applied to many different aluminum alloy products, including cast metal products (p.590 col 1), of all industries that employ high strength-to-weight ratio of aluminum, including automotive and electronics, as an important means to finish a variety of components to provide corrosion resistance, wear resistance, or a decorative appearance (p.590 col 1). Runge teaches that this allows for coloring of the metal (p.590, col 3, p.596 last col, Dyeing, p.602).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li et al to further include a step of anodizing the part with at least one color, as Runge teaches that anodizing can be applied to many different aluminum alloy products in various industries to provide a better corrosion or wear resistance or a decorative appearance (p.590 col 1).
All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (WO 2020/154004 A2) in view of Martin et al (US 2019/0161835, cited in IDS filed 5/02/24).
Regarding claim 13, Li et al is quiet to wherein the at least one type of nanoparticle has a core-shell structure.
Martin et al teaches aluminum alloy systems that utilize grain refiners to give a unique microstructure for the aluminum alloy (paragraph [0051]). Martin et al teaches certain high-strength aluminum alloys, such as AL 7075, normally suffer from hot cracking, but with the methods disclosed, can be processed with significantly reduced cracking tendency (paragraph [0052]). In various embodiments, the alloys can be processed in different ways, including casting (paragraph [0146]) such as centrifugal, pour, or gravity casting (paragraph [0146]), and further discloses investment casting (paragraph [0311]). Martin et al teaches micropowders are functionalized with assembled nanoparticles (paragraph [0058]), and that during melting, the functionalized particles aid in the nucleation of new grains, decreasing the critical amount of undercooling needed, and allowing for a fine equiaxed grain structure that prevents cracking (paragraph [0060-0061]). Martin teaches that the nanoparticles may include a coating of one or more layers of a different material (paragraph [0190], thus being construed as a core-shell). Martin teaches that the selection of the coating/powder composition will be dependent on the desired properties and should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and that someone skilled in the art will be able to select appropriate materials for the intended process (paragraph [0199]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li et al such that the nanoparticles are coated, thus forming a core-shell structure, as Martin similarly teaches modifying high-strength aluminum alloys to reduce a cracking tendency using nanoparticles, and teaches that the nanoparticles can be coated (paragraph [0190]), and that Martin recognizes that the selection of the coating and composition is dependent on desired properties and within the purview of a person skilled in the art (Martin, paragraph [0199]).
All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (WO 2020/154004 A2) in view of Ran (CN 104493090 A).
Regarding claim 16, Li et al teaches that the material can be cast into complex and high aspect ratio geometries such as turbocharger turbine wheels or cellphone middle frames, which are normally machined which causes high production costs (paragraph [0035]), but is quiet to wherein the part has at least one section with a thickness of greater than or equal to 0.2 mm.
Ran teaches an investment casting method of a thin-wall aluminum alloy casting (abstract). Ran teaches a wall thickness of less than 1.5 mm (paragraph [0002]) for making a disc-shaped impeller (paragraph [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li et al such that the cast part has at least one section with a thickness of greater than or equal to 0.2 mm, as Li et al teaches of casting complex and high aspect ratio geometries such as turbocharger turbine wheels (paragraph [0035]) and that sizes greater than or equal to 0.2 mm can be investment cast from aluminum to form an impeller (Ran, wall thickness less than 1.5 mm overlaps the claimed range).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Martin et al (US 2019/0161835, cited in IDS filed 5/02/24) is cited above for a showing of nanoparticles that are coated (corresponding to a core-shell structure as required in claim 13). Martin et al is also relevant to claims 8, 10-12, and 14-15, as Martin et al teaches casting (paragraph [0146]), the base aluminum alloy may be 2000, 6000, or 7000 series aluminum (paragraph [0124]), with examples including Al 7075 (paragraph [0128]), the nanoparticles may be metal oxides, nitrides, carbides, borides (paragraph [0108]), and in a range of 0.01 vol% to 10 vol% (paragraph [0118]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACKY YUEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5749. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00.
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.
/JACKY YUEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights