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
Claims 1-6 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 2-3 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 2 recites the limitation "the immediately previous reciprocating movement" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claimed also recites “a position…of the reciprocating movement in the stirring step” which is interpreted as drawn to the stirring step of claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, and therefore, is the first instance of reciprocating movement recited in the claims. Thus, the claims provide no basis for a reciprocating movement immediately previous to the stirring step comprising reciprocating movement.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "a plurality of the rods exist " in line 4 and “the two adjacent rods” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear if the claim intends to limit “plurality” to “two” or, if not, which of the plurality of rods comprise the “two adjacent rods.” Furthermore, 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 recites “A molded body which includes primary crystal and eutectic crystals, in which a fiber flow continuously exists.” It is unclear if “fiber flow” is drawn to a separate element in the molded body (e.g. a continuous fiber in a metal composite material) or a description of the microstructure or texture of the molded body material.
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) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (CN 210615050)(machine translation provided) in view of Abe (US 2015/0343527).
With respect to Claim 1, the claim recites “a bottomed container.” Neither the claim nor the instant specification provide a specification definition for a “bottomed container,” and therefore, under a broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the term is interpreted to comprise any container having at least some surface comprising a bottom/lower portion of the container, including bottom portions having a hole or passage.
Yan teaches a method for production of a semi-solidified metal slurry including a solid phase and a liquid phase for casting, the method comprising supplying a molten metal into a container comprising a bottom (thus, comprising a bottomed container), and stirring the molten metal by performing vertical vibration of a plurality of rods placed in the molten metal (thus, comprising reciprocating movement in a length direction) and also rotational movement in a direction orthogonal to the length direction. (Figs. 1, 3; pgs. 1-4 of translation). Yan is silent as to a specific ratio of solid phase to liquid phase at which the stirring process is stopped.
Abe teaches a method of casting a semi-solid metal, the method comprising providing a molten metal into a container, forcibly stirring or agitating the molten metal to solidify the molten metal, the stirring or agitating carried out by electromagnetic, mechanical, ultrasonic, or other means, to obtain a semi-solid metal slurry having a solid-liquid mixed phase in which fine spherical crystallites are dispersed homogeneously in the liquid phase, wherein the semi-solid metal slurry comprises 30-90% of a solid phase, then injecting the semi-solid metal slurry into a mold for press-forming. (para. 5, 68-105).
Thus, Yan and Abe are both drawn to methods of semi-solid metal casting comprising steps of stirring a molten metal to obtain a semi-solid metal comprising solid and liquid phases for molding or casting. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Yan to continue stirring the semi-solid metal comprising a liquid phase and a solid phase until the solid phase comprises 30-90% of the metal in the container, as taught by Abe, in order to obtain a semi-solid metal slurry suitable for injection molding/casting. The selection of a suitable ratio of solid to liquid phase in a semi-solid metal casting method from a known range would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping ranges. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claimed composition overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to Claim 2, Yan teaches wherein the stirring comprises moving the stirring rods in both a reciprocating movement in a length/vertical direction as well as moving, such as rotating, the rods in a direction orthogonal to the length direction of the rods, and therefore, teaches “wherein a position, orthogonal to the length direction of the rod, of the reciprocating movement in the stirring step is different from that of the immediately previous reciprocating movement.” (see rejection of claim 1 above).
With respect to Claim 3, Yan teaches a plurality of stirring rods, spaced apparat from each other, wherein adjacent rods are located such that a circle may pass through two or more rods, as the plurality of rods are positioned such that they may rotate in a circular manner. (see Fig. 3). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the number, size, and spacing of the rods are obvious parameters to adjust based on the size of the stirring container and the amount of semi-solid metal slurry needed for casting/molding an article. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an optimum or workable distance between adjacent stirring rods, including that instantly claimed, in order to obtain sufficient mixing of the metal.
With respect to Claim 4, Yan is silent as to an electromagnetic stirring step. Abe teaches a method comprising, for example, mechanical or electromagnetic stirring. (para. 5, 68, 72, 111). Thus, Abe teaches the substitutability of mechanical and electromagnetic stirring techniques for stirring a molten metal to obtain a semi-solid metal slurry. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Yan in view of Abe, to combine the mechanical stirring of Yan with the electromagnetic stirring of Abe, in order to maximize the stirring motion of the metal. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform electromagnetic stirring, as taught by Abe, in the time period between providing the molten metal and the mechanical stirring of Yan, in order to obtain initial stirring motion before the mechanical stirring mechanism is able to begin.
With respect to Claim 5, Yan teaches providing the semi-solid metal slurry for casting purposes, but is silent as to whether it is under pressure. (see pgs. 1-2 of translation). Abe teaches molding under pressure of a semi-solidified slurry to obtain a molded body. (para. 68-105). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the semi-solid metal slurry of Yan in Abe in a known production method for forming a molded body comprising a molding step of pressurizing the semi-solidified slurry to deform the semi-solidified slurry to form a molded body. Alternatively, Abe teaches the advantages of conventional injection molding techniques for use with semi-solid metal slurries, such as rheocasting and thixocasting (see para. 4-8), and it would have been equally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, performing the method of Yan, to select a well-known method of casting/molding, including injecting a semi-solidified metal under pressure into a mold, in order to obtain a molded body with a predictable result of success.
With respect to Claim 6, Yan and Abe teach a molded body (see rejection of claim 5), but are silent as to the properties of the molded body as required by claim 6. However, as Yan in view of Abe teach a method comprising the same steps and same material, the combination would necessarily be expected to result in a molded body having the same structure and properties. MPEP 2112.01.
"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.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 2010/0183869).
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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights