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 2-13 are amended in view of applicant’s preliminary amendment filed 2/28/2024. Therefore, claims 1-13 are currently under examination.
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 1-13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “other elements not specified below 0-0.05 wt%”. Since no punctuation has been provided in the limitation, it is unclear if the word “below” is intended to mean the amounts of other unspecified elements to be below 0-0.05 wt% or the amounts of other elements not specified in the lines of claim 1 thereafter to be 0-0.05 wt%. Additionally, if the word “below” is referring to the amounts of other unspecified elements being below 0-0.05wt%, then it would not make sense since an amount cannot be below zero. If the word “below” is referring to other elements not specified in the lines of claim 1 thereafter, then do the elements such as Cu, Zn, Ti and V recited before are considered “other elements not specified below” and be further limited by 0-0.05wt%? Furthermore, if the claimed 0-05wt% is for all of other unspecified elements or each of the other unspecified elements. For these reasons, instant claim 1 is vague and indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the Mg/Sieff ratio” in line 13, “the homogenizing temperature” and “the soft annealing temperature” in line 24. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the solutionizing temperature of step f" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the range 2-5µm” and “the range 2-4µm” in line 3. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad recitation “a yield stress (Rp0.2) of at least 300MPa”, and the claim also recites “preferably above 310MPa, more preferably above 320MPa” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Additionally, claims 2-10 and 13 are also rejected since they depend on vague and indefinite claim 1.
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) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tundal et al. US 2018/0282849 A1(Tundal).
Tundal teaches a method of making an aluminum alloy extruded billet, comprising the following steps[0012-0021]:
Homogenizing the cast billet at 550-580°C[0032];
Soft annealing the extrusion billet at 390-430°C[0031-0033];
Preheating the billet;
Extruding the billet to form a profile;
Cooling the profile down to room temperature;
Exposing the profile to a solutionizing and quenching operation;
Stretching the extruded profile; and
Artificially gaining the extruded profile;
wherein a cooling rate from a homogenizing temperature to a soft annealing temperature is 100-400°C/hr[0033].
Additionally, the aluminum alloy as taught by Tundal is a 6xxx aluminum alloy and has a chemical composition that applies to the claimed Al alloy as follows:
Chemical Composition
Instant Application (wt%)
Tundal (wt%) (claim 9)
Tundal (wt%) (Fig. 7b)
Mg
0.85-1.15
0.8-1.2
0.91
Si
0.60-0.75
0.40-0.8
0.68
Fe
0-0.5
0-0.7
0.27
Cu
0-0.30
0.15-0.40
0.20
Cr
0-0.10
0.04-0.15
0.05
Mn
0-0.20
0-0.15
0
Zn
0-0.5
0-0.25
-
Ti
0-0.15
-
-
V
0-0.15
0-0.20
-
Other elements
0-0.05
0-0.05
-
Balance Al
Balance Al
Balance Al
Balance Al
Regarding claims 1-4 and 7-10, the chemical composition of the 6xxx aluminum alloy as taught by Tundal significantly overlaps the claimed 6xxx aluminum alloy chemical composition. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP2144.05(I). The selection of claimed aluminum alloy chemical composition from the aluminum alloy chemical composition of Tundal would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since Tundal teach the same utilities in its disclosed aluminum alloy chemical composition. Additionally, the homogenizing temperature and the soft annealing temperature in the process of Tundal read on the claimed homogenizing temperature and the claimed soft annealing temperature. The cooling rate from homogenizing temperature to soft annealing temperature in the process of Tundal reads on the claimed cooling rate from the homogenizing temperature to soft annealing temperature. Furthermore, the calculated Mg/Sieff ratio using the alloy composition in Fig. 7b of Tundal is 1.6 which is extremely close to the claimed Mg/Sieff ratio of above 1.6. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The selection of claimed Mg/Sieff ratio from the Mg/Sieff ratio of Tundal would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since Tundal teaches the same utilities in its disclosed Mg/Sieff ratio, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 11, Tundal further teaches solutioning temperature is at 550°C [0079], which is very close to the claimed above 555°C. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The selection of claimed solutioning treatment temperature from the solutioning temperature of Tundal would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since Tundal teaches the same utilities in its disclosed solutioning temperature, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 12, Tundal further teaches that the diameter of the Mg2Si particles is more than 3µm[0080], which overlaps the claimed Mg2Si particle diameter. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The selection of claimed Mg2Si particle diameter from the Mg2Si particle diameter of Tundal would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since Tundal teaches the same utilities in its disclosed Mg2Si particle diameter. Therefore, the extruded billet as taught by Tundal reads on the claimed extruded billet.
Regarding claim 13, Tundal further teaches that the extruded billet product has a yield stress of 310-325MPa[0070], which reads on the claimed yield stress.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tundal et al. US 2018/0282849 A1(Tundal), and further in view of Bryant et al. US 4,861,389(Bryant).
The teachings of Tundal are discussed in section 6 above. However, Tundal does not explicitly teach the claimed preheating step temperature as recited in claims 5-6.
Bryant teaches a method of forming an Al-Mg-Si extrusion alloy comprising a preheating and extrusion cycle wherein a 6063 ingot(i.e. 6xxx aluminum alloy) was heated at a temperature of 350°C or more in a preheating furnace before extrusion(col. 8 lines 1-5). Bryant further teaches that preheating prior to extrusion should be carefully controlled to avoid the risk of precipitating coarse beta-phase Mg2Si(col.5 lines 56-59).
Regarding claims 5-6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the preheating temperature of 350°C or more prior to extrusion as taught by Bryant into the process of Tundal in order to achieve desired fine beta-phase Mg2Si precipitates as taught by Bryant.
Additionally, the preheating temperature as taught by Tundal in view of Bryant overlaps the claimed preheating temperature as recited in claims 5-6. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. The selection of claimed preheating temperature from the preheating temperature of Tundal in view of Bryant would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since Tundal in view of Bryant teach the same utilities in their disclosed preheating temperature prior to extrusion.
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
Prosecution Insights