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 .
Claim Status
An amendment, filed 9/3/2026, is acknowledged. Claims 1-3 and 6 are amended; Claim 7 is newly added. Claims 1-7 are currently pending.
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 3 and 6 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 3 recites “the two adjacent rods among the plurality of rods” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Specifically, while there is antecedent basis for a plurality of rods, there is no antecedent basis for which two rods constitute “the two adjacent rods.” As a result, it is unclear which of the plurality of rods must meet the claim limitation. It is also noted that the limitation is interpreted as limited to two adjacent rods. If Applicant intends to claim where any two adjacent rods of the plurality of rods meets the claimed relationship, it should be amended to reflect that.
Furthermore, as detailed in the previous Office Action, Claim 3 is indefinite as it is unclear as to what arrangement, relative spacing, and “thickness” of the plurality of rods is required.
Claim 6 has been amended to recite “when a longest line segment among line segments connecting two points of an outline projected on a plane perpendicular to a pressurized direction is drawn, and a plurality of cutting planes that perpendicularly intersect the line segment and divide the line segment into six equal parts are used to cut the molded body.” Applicant appears to have included a portion of a measurement protocol but the limitation is indefinite as to what is required and how it modifies the remainder of the claim. In particular, it is unclear what “a pressurized direction” requires.
Additionally, Claim 6 recites the limitation "each obtained sample" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While the claim recites a step of cutting the molded body, it does not actually recite that the cut pieces are samples and therefore, it is unclear if the passage reciting the cutting step is drawn to method of making a sample part.
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) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 2010/0183869)(previously cited).
With respect to Claim 6, Lin teaches a metal molded body, the molded body formed by, for example, semi-solid casting, the molded body comprising a tailored mixture of an alpha-aluminum phase (primary crystals) and eutectic crystal phase. (para. 113, 149). Lin further teaches wherein the molded body is made by flowing a molten metal and therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect for “fiber flow” to continuously exist. See also MPEP 2112.01.
Additionally, Lin teaches wherein the molded body may be made such that semi-solid particles are uniformly mixed so that the body may be molded without defects, and wherein the content and uniformity of microstructure may be tailored to obtain desired microstructure and resulting appearance. (para. 253-254, 257). While Lin does not specifically teach measuring a “variation coefficient,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to maximize the uniformity of the eutectic phase distribution, in view of the teachings of Lin, and thus, to minimize a measured variation coefficient, in order to obtain the desired utility of Lin drawn to tailoring a uniform defect free appearance comprising eutectic phase crystals. See also MPEP 2144.
Additionally, as Lin teaches a molded body with the required structure of primary and eutectic crystals, and exhibiting high uniformity, it would necessarily be expected to result in a variation coefficient meeting the instant claim. "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Thus, the burden is shifted to the applicant to prove that the product of the prior art does not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics attributed to the claimed product. See In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not."); MPEP 2112.01. Therefore, the prima facie case can only be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to teach a production method for a semi-solidified slurry comprising a solid phase and liquid phase, as recited in Claim 1, a stirring step of stirring the molten metal by performing reciprocating movement of a rod placed in the molten metal in a length direction of the rod, the reciprocating movement including moving the rod until a distal end portion of the rod comes out of a liquid surface of the molten metal, and then moving the distal end portion of the rod toward a bottom of the container, wherein the stirring step is performed so that a solid phase ratio at any portion of the molten metal in the container reaches 80% or more. Closest prior art Yan teaches a method of stirring a molten metal slurry comprising vertical movement of a plurality of rods, but fails to teach reciprocating movement such that a distal end portion of the rod comes out of a liquid surface of the molten metal then moves towards the bottom of the container.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 9/3/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Yan in view of Abe have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Specifically, Yan and Abe fail to teach a stirring step of stirring the molten metal by performing reciprocating movement of a rod placed in the molten metal in a length direction of the rod, the reciprocating movement including moving the rod until a distal end portion of the rod comes out of a liquid surface of the molten metal, and then moving the distal end portion of the rod toward a bottom of the container. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/3/2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Lin have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Lin fails to the specific quantitative variation coefficient recited in the amended Claim 6. Applicant argues that the claimed variation coefficient “reduces variation of proof stress, which correlates with the eutectic area ratio.” (Remarks, p. 13). Applicant also points to paragraphs 65 and 67 of the instant specification to support their arguments with regards to the benefit of a low variation coefficient. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
As detailed in the rejection, although Lin does not specifically teach measuring a “variation coefficient,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to maximize the uniformity of the eutectic phase distribution, in view of the teachings of Lin, and thus, to minimize a measured variation coefficient, in order to obtain the desired utility of Lin drawn to tailoring a uniform defect free appearance comprising eutectic phase crystals. See also MPEP 2144.
Additionally, as Lin teaches a molded body with the required structure of primary and eutectic crystals, and exhibiting high uniformity, it would necessarily be expected to result in a variation coefficient meeting the instant claim. MPEP 2112.01. Therefore, the prima facie case can only be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product.
Applicant fails to provide sufficient evidence commensurate with the scope of the claims (which broadly includes all metal molded bodies having primary crystals and eutectic crystals of any composition) to demonstrate that the particular method of making disclosed in the specification (not claimed in claim 6) is critical to the recited structure of claim 6.
Additionally, as Lin is drawn to a highly uniform molded body, and the limitation in question is drawn to low variation (i.e. high uniformity), Applicant fails to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness established by Lin. The comparative example noted by Applicant does not sufficiently correspond to the structure nor method of making disclosed of Lin, and therefore, is not sufficient to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness.
Additionally, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., variation in proof stress) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 JOHN A HEVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0361. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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 Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/JOHN A HEVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
