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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 4-16 in the reply filed on 07/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-3 and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-17 are pending. Claims 1-3 and 17 are withdrawn. Claims 4-16 are presented for this examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 04/11/2024 and 11/05/2025 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.
Claim 11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the system" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 4-7, 9, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mariaux (US20200291503) in view of Liu (CN116160245A).
As for claims 4-7,9, 11, 13, Mariaux discloses a 6xxx series aluminum alloy which is made of recycled Al scrap of at least above 60% [0053] which overlaps claims 4 and 5 claimed 75-85% of recycled amount. The 6xxx series aluminum alloy can include AA6063 ([0080]). Hence, Mariaux suggests a preparation method for recycled 6063 Al alloy material as claimed. recycled Al scrap of at least above 60% suggests the remaining is primary aluminum.
Hence, Mariaux suggests instant claimed step (1).
The recycled Al scrap is first shredded and de-coated or de-lacquered prior to being melted for use as liquid metal stock (i.e. recycled aluminum melt) in casting the 6063 Al alloy. ([0053] last three lines) Hence, Mariaux suggests instant claimed step (2). The recycled Al scrap can often include foreign substance, such as rainwater, drink remainder, organic material like paints and laminated film. Shredded suggests rough separation as required by instant claim 7. De-coated suggests cleaning treatment to remove coating and greasy dirt as required by instant claim 7. De-lacquered suggests sorting treatment to remove the recited foreign substance which is non-metallic and non-ferrous foreign material as required by instant claim 7.
As foreign substance such as rainwater, drink remainder, organic material like paints and laminated film are impurities and undesirable, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to minimize the amount of foreign substance to be within amount as required by claim 9, in the process of Mariaux as reducing the impurities would necessarily increase the purity of recycled aluminum melt in casting 6063 aluminum alloy.
The 6xxx series aluminum alloy comprises broad ranges of Si, Mg, Mn, Cu, Zn, overlapping elemental composition as illustrated in Table 1 below. In addition, Mariaux explicitly discloses Si about 0.4% ([0087]), Fe about 0.12%([0088]), Mg about 0.55%([0085]), Cu about 0.02%([0086]), Zn about 0.01% ([0084]), Cr about 0.01% ([0090]), Ti at 0.02% [Table 1), which are all within presently claimed elemental ranges.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Hence, based on the teaching of Mariaux, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, to select the amount of each element within the ranges disclosed by Mariaux in order to arrive at recycled 6063 aluminum alloy of claimed invention.
Table 1
Element
Applicant
(weight %)
Mariaux et al.
(weight %)
Overlap
(weight %)
Si
0.4-0.44
0.2-0.5
0.4-0.44
Mg
0.53-0.57
0.5-1.6
0.53-0.57
Mn
0.015-0.025
<=0.5
0.015-0.025
Cu
<=0.02
<=0.5
<=0.02
Fe
<=0.12
<=1
<=0.12
Zn
<=0.02
<=0.5
<=0.02
Ti
0.015-0.025
<=0.3
0.015-0.025
Cr
<=0.01
<=0.3
<=0.01
V
<=0.02
0
0
Example in ([0110]) discloses 6xxx aluminum alloy with the alloying composition proportion as illustrated in Table 1 above is produced by direct chill casting to prepare an ingot and scalping the ingot, followed by homogenization (i.e claimed solution treatment as required by instant claim 13), and hot rolling and coil cooling, cold rolling. Hence, instant claim 4 required step (3) is met. The solution treatment is 400-590 degree C for up to 50 minutes which overlaps instant claim 13 required temperature and time.
Alloying composition in Table 1 above suggests instant claim 11 required Si, Mg, Mn, Cr are met.
Mariaux differs from instant claims 4 and 6 such that it does not expressly discloses new aluminum ingots mixed with the recycled aluminum scrap as raw material and the new aluminum ingots is pure Aluminum as required by instant claim 6.
Liu discloses a preparation method of making 6xxx aluminum alloy by mixing low carbon processing recycling aluminum material in proportion of 40-100% with pure aluminum ingot. The pure aluminum ingot reads on instant claims 1 required new aluminum ingot. The term “pure” suggest it is 100% Al which meets instant claim 6 wherein clause.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, at the time the invention is made to mix the pure aluminum ingot of Liu, with the recycled aluminum melt of Mariaux, in the process of Mariaus for the benefit of purifying the recycled aluminum scrap.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mariaux (US20200291503) in view of Liu (CN116160245A) as applied to claim 4, and further in view of Das (US20180274072A1).
As for claim 8, Mariaux does not disclose hydrogen content of the recycled aluminum melt.
Das discloses casting recycled aluminum scrap to make 6063 alloy ([0106]) Das explicitly discloses hydrogen content is 0.15 mL/100gAl or less such as 0.14 mL/100gAl [0113] as dissolved hydrogen would have detrimental effects on castability and mechanical properties of the final cast 6063 alloy product.([0113])
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, at the time the invention is made to control the hydrogen amount less than 0.15 mL/100gAl as disclosed by Das, in the process of Mariaux in view of Liu for the benefit of maintaining excellent castability and mechanical properties of the final cast 6063 alloy product.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mariaux (US20200291503) in view of Liu (CN116160245A) as applied to claim 4, and further in view of Gao (CN115141947A).
As for claim 10, Gao discloses applying high proportion recycled aluminum alloy for making aluminum alloy slab ingot using two-stage filtration on the alloy melt before casting. First stage filter plate is 40-50 mesh and second stage filter plate is 50-60 mesh.
Hence, Gao suggests a two-stage panel filtration of 60 mesh used on the melt to remove impurities in order to purity the melt is well known in the art.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, at the time the invention is made to apply well known two-stage panel filtration of 60 mesh as suggested by Gao , in the process of Mariaux in view of Liu for the benefit of purity the melt so as to obtain good quality of final cast aluminum alloy slab.
Claim(s) 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mariaux (US20200291503) in view of Liu (CN116160245A) as applied to claim 4, and further in view of Zhou (CN113502406).
As for claims 12-15, Zhou discloses preparation of low alloying easily extruded recycled 6063 alloy by homogenizing at 520 degree C for 2 hours, extruding and forming and double stage aging by primary aging at 80-100 degree C for 10 hours followed by secondary aging for170-180 degree C for 6 hours.
Hence, Zhou discloses instant claimed solution treatment, aging treatment and hot extrusion molding as required by instant claim 12, similar solution treatment temperature and time as required by instant claim 13, primary aging temperature and time as required by instant claim 14 and secondary aging temperature and time as required by instant claim 15.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, at the time the invention is made to apply solution treatment and primary aging and secondary aging and hot extrusion as suggested by Zhou, in the process of Mariaux in view of Liu for the purpose of an improved TS at more than 1.5 times and YS at more than 3 times as Zhou teaches a primary low temperature aging can improve the dispersed pre-precipitation phase density in the material, so as to form more fine dispersed beta phase in the secondary aging, so as to fully exert the mechanical property of the material.
Claim(s) 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mariaux (US20200291503) in view of Liu (CN116160245A) as applied to claim 4, and further in view of Aluminum_Guide (NPL document “Understanding extrudability of Aluminum alloy”).
As for claims 12 and 16, Aluminum_guide explicitly discloses in figure 3 the effect of flow stress on exit extrusion speed. Figure 6 illustrates for alloy such as AA6063, extrusion rate can be up to 80 m/min.
Al-Mg-Si has relative low flow stress of 19 N/MM2 (Table 1) and is considered easy to extrude alloys (Table 2), which suggests hot extrusion molding is well known for 6063 alloy and the easily extruded alloy can be economically extruded at speeds up to 100 m/min or faster, which overlaps claimed 60-80 m/s.
Hence, it would have been obvious to apply hot extrusion molding and further increase extrusion speed to claimed ranges as result effective variable as suggested by Aluminum_guide, in the process of Mariaux in view of Liu as higher extrusion speed reduces the internal stress and further increases strength of hot extruded aluminum alloy product.
Conclusion
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