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 1-9 and 11 are pending. Claims 1-9 are presented for this examination. Claims 10, 12-18 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3-4 are amended.
Status of Previous Rejection
102 art rejection of claims 1-9 over Li are withdrawn in view of amendment of claim 1.
However, 112 2nd and all 103 rejections over Li in view of Yu or Kristsalis are maintained.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 09/11/2023 and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 amendment “compared to particles of the metal oxide and the molten alloy diluent without the wetting-enhancing metal” is unclear as to whether particles of the metal oxide is the same particles of the metal oxide when the wetting enhancing metal is added.
Second, claim 1 recites “adding the master alloy powder to a molten diluent alloy to form an oxide-dispersion strengthened (ODS) alloy”. It is unclear whether the formed oxide-dispersion strengthened alloy in the adding step is the same oxide-dispersion strengthened alloy from producing step recited in the preamble of “producing an oxide-dispersion strengthened (ODS) alloy”.
As a result of rejected claim 1, all dependent claims are also rejected under the same statue.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Yu(NPL document “Effect of Nb on the Interfacial Wettability in Al2O3/Medium Mn steel”)
As for claim 1, it is noted instant claim is amended to require “the wetting-enhancing alloy metal reduces an interfacial energy and van der Waals attraction between the particles of the metal oxide and the molten alloy diluent compared to particles of the metal oxide and the molten alloy diluent without the wetting-enhancing metal; the wetting-enhancing metal comprises Nb, Cr, or a mixture thereof. Hence, scope of instant claimed invention is changed.
Li discloses a method of producing a metal matrix nanocomposite. Since the metal matrix nanocomposite is a nanocomposite in which nanoparticles are dispersed in a metal matrix (abstract) and they can remained dispersed as individual nanoparticles without significant setting or agglomeration [0015], and the nanoparticles are Al2O3 nanoparticles (claim 4) which induces strengthening of the metal matrix [0043], Li discloses claimed an oxide dispersion strengthened alloy.
The method comprising: (Claim 1)
Providing a master metal matrix nanocomposite (i.e claimed master alloy powder) which comprises a first matrix metal and plurality of nanoparticles (i.e. claimed particles of metal oxide) dispersed in the first matrix metal, the first matrix metal comprises an alloy comprising a primary metal element (i.e. claimed a metal or metal alloy) and a wettability enhancing metal element (i.e. claimed a wetting-enhancing metal or an alloying element)
Introducing the mater metal matrix nanocomposite into a molten metal (i.e. claimed molten diluent alloy comprising a molten metal or metal alloy) and allowing at least a portion of the master metal matrix nanocomposite to mix with the molten metal by melting.
Solidifying the molten metal to provide a second metal matrix nanocomposite.
As a wettability enhancing metal element is part of the master metal matrix nanocomposite, instant claimed “a wetting-enhancing metal is added to the molten diluent alloy during adding of the master alloy to the molten diluent alloy” is expected.
With respect to amendment, Li explicitly discloses wetting of nanoparticle Al2O3 (i.e. claimed particles of the metal oxide) and incorporation to the molten aluminum (i.e. claimed molten alloy diluent) was significantly enhanced due to the addition of wetting enhancing metal Ti. [0039] Since the poor nanoparticle incorporation to the molten aluminum is due to the high interfacial energy [0039], the enhanced nanoparticle incorporation suggested a reduced interfacial energy as claimed. Hence, instant claimed “the wetting-enhancing alloy metal reduces an interfacial energy between the particles of the metal oxide and the molten alloy diluent compared to particles of the metal oxide and the molten alloy diluent without the wetting-enhancing metal” is expected.
It is noted Li does not explicitly disclose (1) wettability enhancing metal element comprises Nb or Cr as required by instant claim 1 amendment and (2) reduction of van der Waals attraction.
Regarding (1),Yu studies the effect of Nb on the Interfacial Wettability in Al2O3/Medium Mn steel(MMS) matrix composite. (title) Yu discloses Nb enriches at the interface of Al2O3/MMS and serves as a surface active agent of MMS to reduce the interfacial energy and wetting angle. (Page 627 Col Conclusion section (4) lines 1-4 and Page 625 Introduction section last two lines)
Li desired to reduce interfacial energy and wetting angle.
An "obvious to try" rationale may support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious where one skilled in the art is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. " [A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, at the time the invention is made, try to use Nb as a wetting agent as suggested by Yu, in the process of Li with expected success because Yu discloses Nb reduces the interfacial wettability and Li desired to reduce interfacial energy and wetting angle. See MPEP 2145 XB Obvious To Try.
Regarding (2), reduction of Van der Waals attraction is an inherent characteristic due to the presence of wetting enhancing metal to a molten diluent alloy. Due to explicit teaching of wetting agent in Li and expected reduced interfacial energy, instant claimed reduction of Van der Waals attraction is expected.
As for claim 2, Li discloses the second metal matrix nanocomposite is formed by casting. ([0013]
As for claims 3 and 5, Li discloses the primary metal element is Al (claim 6) and the molten metal is Al (claim 2). Hence, instant claims 3, 5 wherein clause is met.
As for claims 4 and 5, Li discloses the primary metal element includes Mg ([0017]) and the molten metal is Mg. ([0026]) Hence, instant claims 3 and 5 wherein clause is met.
As for claim 6, Li discloses the primary metal element includes Fe ([0017]) and the molten metal is Fe. ([0026]) Hence, instant claim wherein clause is met.
As for claim 7, Li discloses the oxide nanoparticles is Al2O3 ([0018])
As for claims 8-9, Li’s oxide nanoparticles support claimed wherein clause.
Claim(s) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Kritsalis (NPL document “Effect of Cr on interfacial interaction and wetting mechanism in Ni alloy/Alumina systems” published in 1992)
As for claims 1 and 10, Li discloses instant claim 1 required process as indicated in 103 rejection of claim 1 over Li and Yu.
It is noted Li does not explicitly disclose (1) wettability enhancing metal element comprises Nb or Cr as required by instant claim 1 amendment and (2) reduction of van der Waals attraction.
Regarding (1), Kristsalis discloses wetting and thermodynamic adhesion to an oxide substrate such as Al2O3 can be greatly enhanced by adding to a liquid metallic matrix of Ni or Fe alloy in the amount of up to 20% Cr. (Page 1174 Conclusion section) Hence, up to 20% Cr reads on claimed wetting-enhancing metal.
Li desired to enhance wetting.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, at the time the invention is made, try to use Cr as a wetting agent as suggested by Yu, in the process of Li with expected success because Kristsalis discloses Cr enhances wettability and Li desired to enhance wetting. See MPEP 2145 XB Obvious To Try.
As for claims 2-9, they are rejected for the same reason set forth in rejection of claims 2-9 above over Li in view of Yu.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s response of 04/16/2026 is considered but is not persuasive for the following reasons:
First, applicant argues that Li does not inherently or necessarily disclose an oxide dispersion strengthened alloy. Argument is completely not persuasive as Li explicitly discloses nanoparticle induced strengthening of Al-10Mg alloy [0043] wherein the nanoparticle is Al2O3 (claim 4) with the addition of wetting metal Ti [0045]; and such nanoparticles is dispersed in a metal matrix nanocomposite (Abstract last line). Hence, Li discloses an oxide dispersion strengthened alloy as claimed. As a result, applicant’s further allegation that Li’s generic disclosure of MMNCs does not constitute a disclosure of the narrower claimed oxide dispersion strengthened alloy is in clear error.
Second, applicant argues that Yu does not disclose the following features recited in claim 1: (i) the master- alloy dilution process; (ii) adding a wetting-enhancing metal to a molten diluent alloy either prior to, during, or after adding a master alloy powder; and (iii) the reduction of van der Waals attraction. Argument is not commensurate in scope of current rejection which is based on combination of Li and Yu, not (emphasis added) Yu alone.
That is, applicant cannot argue each reference individually when rejection is based on combination of references. In the instant case, primary reference Li discloses or suggests (i) the master- alloy dilution process; (ii) adding a wetting-enhancing metal to a molten diluent alloy either prior to, during, or after adding a master alloy powder; and (iii) the reduction of van der Waals attraction as indicated in the rejection of claim 1 above over Li and Yu. It should further be noted applicant repeatedly cited Yu as prior art to study the effect of Nb as wetting agent.(see instant application PGPUB [0092][0104])
Third, applicant argues Kritsalis does not disclose the features recited in claim 1 for the same reason applied to Yu abvoe. Argument is not commensurate in scope of current rejection which is based on combination of Li and Kritsalis , not Kritsalis alone.
Applicant is invited to submit 132 Declaration demonstrating unexpected result of using Nb or Cr as wetting enhancing metal over Ti.
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 JENNY R WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5515. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM-5:00 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, 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNY R WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights