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
Claims 1-3 are currently under examination.
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR91-0001108(KR108).
KR108 teaches an Al alloy comprising Si, Mg, Fe and Mn(abstract). Additionally, the claimed unavoidable impurities would have been inherently present in the Al alloy of KR108. Since KR108 contains the same elements as claimed Al-Si-Mg-Fe-Mn alloy, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that the Al alloy as taught by KR108 to inherently have the Al-Si-Mg-Fe-Mn based compounds as claimed.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR108.
The teachings of KR108 are discussed in section 5 above.
Regarding claim 3, KR108 teaches a process for producing the Al alloy, wherein main components of the Al alloy such as Si, Mg, Fe, Mn and Al are melted in a furnace to produce a molten state, which reads on the claimed raw material preparation step(i) and molten alloy preparation step (ii). KR108 additionally teaches that the molten alloy is poured into a cast iron mold for casting(pg. 2 Example), which reads on the claimed pouring step (iii). KR108 further teaches that the molten alloy is cooled and solidified at 500-535°C (abstract) which reads on the claimed cooling step (iv). Although the cooling and solidifying time duration as taught by KR108(i.e. 1-6 hours) is higher than claimed 20-40minutes. It would have been well within the skills of an ordinary artisan to have arrived at the claimed time with routine optimization since the claimed cooling/solidifying time can be adjusted based on the size of the Al alloy product(i.e. larger product would require longer cooling/solidifying time, and vice versa).
Regarding claim 2, the claimed EPMA mapping(i.e. electron probe microanalysis, aka. X-ray microanalysis) is directed to an observation method used to measure the distribution amounts of alloying elements Mg, Fe and Mn, based on the intensity of the X-ray K-α. The claimed EPMA mapping measuring method does not add any limitations to the claimed Al alloy that distinguish the Al alloy of KR108 from the claimed Al alloy. Since the Al alloy of KR108 has the same composition as claimed Al alloy and is produced by a process that is significantly similar to the claimed process, as discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 3 above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected that the Al alloy of KR108 to have significantly similar distribution of Mg, Mn and Fe, presented in terms of intensity of K-α, as claimed when being observed by EPMA mapping method as recited in claim 2, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOIS L ZHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-1248. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45.
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.
LOIS ZHENG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/LOIS L ZHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733