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Claims 1-20 are pending wherein claims 1-18 are under examination and claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected impurity-rich intermetallic aluminum alloys. Applicant’s election of claims 1-18 was made without traverse in the Response filed on March 27, 2026.
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.
Claim 4 is 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 4 recites the limitation "holding the melt in step (b) is for a period of time of at least 15 minutes". However, there is no holding time recited in step (b) as set forth in claim 1. There is a holding time set forth in step (d). It can be said that this step lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
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.
In regard to claim 4, there is a reference to holding the melt in step (b) for a period of at least 15 minutes. However, there is no mention of holding the melt for any period of time in claim 1 and thus 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 1-4, 6-10 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minoura (WO 2020/149013).
In regard to claims 1, 6 and 8-9, Minoura (WO ‘013) discloses a process for recycling aluminum alloys wherein there would be a source alloy of Al-12%Si-3%Cu-1%Fe-0.3%Mn and adding an Fe-Mn containing material to the melt [0025-0028]. The heating temperature of the melt would be from 650 to 930°C [0039]. The melt temperature would then be lowered to 550 to 650°C and held for 3 to 60 minutes [0040-0041]. Finally, at least part of the iron-rich compound would be crystallized in the form of, for example, Al15(Fe,Mn)4Si2 (intermetallic) and removed from the melt ([0036] and [0042]. The Examiner notes that the processing temperatures and times disclosed by Minoura (WO ‘013) overlap the amounts of the instant invention, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to select the claimed processing temperatures and times from that disclosed by Minoura (WO ‘013) because Minoura (WO ‘013) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
In regard to claim 2, Minoura (WO ‘013) discloses adding 30 to 50 g of the Fe-Mn compound to an about 1.5 kg melt of die cast aluminum alloy ([0045]. The range of the addition would be 0.02 to 0.033 weight percent, which would overlap the range of the instant invention. MPEP 2144.05 I.
In regard to claim 3, Minoura (WO ‘013) discloses using cast or wrought material as the aluminum source [0039].
In regard to claim 4, Minoura (WO ‘013) discloses that the time for holding such a melt temperature may be 3 to 60 minutes, which overlap the range of the instant invention [0041]. MPEP 2144.05 I.
In regard to claim 7, Minoura (WO ‘013) discloses wherein the silicon in the melt would range from 1 to 12%, which would overlap the range of the instant invention [0031]. MPEP 2144.05 I.
In regard to claim 10, Minoura (WO ‘013) discloses wherein the Fe-Mn containing material may contain an element such as chromium [0037].
In regard to claim 13, Minoura (WO ‘013) discloses wherein the Fe-Mn containing material may contain an element such as vanadium [0037].
In regard to claim 14, Minoura (WO ‘013) discloses wherein the Fe-Mn containing material may contain elements such as magnesium and chromium [0037].
In regard to claim 15, Minoura (WO ‘013) discloses wherein the Fe-Mn containing material may contain an element such as silicon [0037]. Addition of an Fe-Mn containing material with silicon would be raising the silicon content of the melt.
In regard to claim 16, Minoura (WO ‘013) discloses sufficiently stirring the melt [0046]. While Minoura et al. (WO ‘013) does not specify mechanical stirring, automating a manual activity is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04 (III).
In regard to claim 17, Minoura (WO ‘013) discloses a process for recycling aluminum alloys wherein there would be a source alloy of Al-12%Si-3%Cu-1%Fe-0.3%Mn and adding an Fe-Mn containing material to the melt [0025-0028]. The heating temperature of the melt would be from 650 to 930°C [0039]. The melt temperature would then be lowered to 550 to 650°C and held for 3 to 60 minutes [0040-0041].
In regard to claim 18, Minoura (WO ‘013) discloses at least part of the iron-rich compound would be crystallized in the form of, for example, Al15(Fe,Mn)4Si2 (intermetallic) and removed from the melt ([0036] and [0042].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 11-12 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 5, Minoura (WO ‘013) fails to specify a cooling rate of about 5 to 15°C per minute from the melt state.
In regard to claim 11, Minoura (WO ‘013) fails to specify wherein the alloying element would comprise cerium.
In regard to claim 12, Minoura (WO ‘013) fails to specify wherein the alloying element would comprise yttrium.
Conclusion
All pertinent prior art to the knowledge of the Examiner has been cited by the Applicant or the Examiner at this point in prosecution.
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
Prosecution Insights