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 .
Priority
The pending application is a divisional of US App. No. 17/549,895 filed December 14, 2021, now abandoned. Receipt is acknowledged of a certified copy of TW 110142497 filed November 16, 2021 as required by 37 CFR 1.55 in the parent application, US App. No. 17/549,895.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Claims filed June 3, 2024. The pending claims are directed to an “aluminum alloy melt” (product, claim 1 line 1).
Claims Filing Date
June 3, 2024
Under Examination
1-12
Drawings Objection
The drawings are objected to because
Applicant’s specification, such as [0011] and [0024], state Fig. 1 is a schematic diagram of an aluminum alloy melt. Merriam-Webster defines “melt” as a “material in the molten state”. Fig. 1 appears to be a solid state object. Nothing in the image suggests a melt (molten state).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-12 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 lines 1-2 “by adopting an aluminum alloy powder through laser laminated manufacturing” renders the claim indefinite. What does it mean to adopt a powder through laser laminated manufacturing? Does it mean that the powder is made by laser laminated manufacturing or used in laser laminated manufacturing? How is a powder adopted through laser laminated manufacturing? For the purpose of examination claim 1 will be interpreted as a product-by-process limitation in which the aluminum alloy melt is manufactured by laser laminated manufacturing the claimed aluminum alloy powder.
Claim 2 lines 1-2 “yield strength of the aluminum alloy melt…” renders the claim indefinite. Merriam-Webster defines “melt” as a “material in the molten state”. How can a melt (molten state) have a yield strength? How is it determined? For the purpose of examination claim 2 is interpreted as reciting a property of the solidified melt.
Claim 3 lines 1-2 “yield strength of the aluminum alloy melt…” renders the claim indefinite. Merriam-Webster defines “melt” as a “material in the molten state”. How can a melt (molten state) have a yield strength? How is it determined? For the purpose of examination claim 3 is interpreted as reciting a property of the solidified melt.
Claim 4 lines 1-2 “tensile strength of the aluminum alloy melt…” renders the claim indefinite. Merriam-Webster defines “melt” as a “material in the molten state”. How can a melt (molten state) have a tensile strength? How is it determined? For the purpose of examination claim 4 is interpreted as reciting a property of the solidified melt.
Claim 5 lines 1-2 “tensile strength of the aluminum alloy melt…” renders the claim indefinite. Merriam-Webster defines “melt” as a “material in the molten state”. How can a melt (molten state) have a tensile strength? How is it determined? For the purpose of examination claim 5 is interpreted as reciting a property of the solidified melt.
Claim 6 lines 1-2 “a grain size of the aluminum alloy powder…” renders the claim indefinite. Does grain size refer to the particle size of the powder or does it refer to the size of the grains within the powder?
Claims 7-12 are rejected as depending from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ota (JP S63-100151 machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Ota discloses an aluminum alloy melt (casting) (p. 2 paras. 2-3, Table 1).
The aluminum alloy melt being manufactured by adopting an aluminum alloy powder through laser laminated manufacturing has been considered.
During examination, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose of intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. MPEP 2111.02(II). Further, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. MPEP 2113(I).
The alloy melt being manufactured by adopting an aluminum alloy powder through laser laminated manufacturing has been determined to recite the purpose or intended use of the melt that does not further limit the structure of the claimed melt. MPEP 2111.03(II).
The aluminum alloy powder composition that the melt is manufactured from has been considered and determined to further limit the composition of the aluminum alloy melt.
Ota discloses a composition that falls within the scope of that claimed (p. 2 paras. 2-3, Table 1). Therefore, the aluminum alloy melt (casting) of the prior art (Ota p. 2 paras. 2-3, Table 1) anticipates or, in the alternative, renders obvious the claimed aluminum alloy melt.
Element
Claim 1
Ota Table 1
Si
2.0 to 4.5
4.5
Mg
0.1 to 1.3
0.5
Fe
0.07 to 0.65
0.15
Cu
0.35 or less
0.3
Cr
0.02 to 0.32
0.3
Zn
0.23 or less
-
Ti
0.23 or less
0.15
Mn
0.13 or less
-
Al
Rest
Balance
Sr
-
0.03
Regarding claim 2, Ota discloses yield strength of the aluminum alloy melt is greater than 100 MPa (13.5 kgf/mm2, 132 MPa) (Table 2:15 m/m (57%)).
Regarding claim 3, Ota discloses yield strength of the aluminum alloy melt is greater than 125 MPa (13.5 kgf/mm2, 132 MPa) (Table 2:15 m/m (57%)).
Regarding claim 4, Ota discloses tensile strength of the aluminum alloy melt is 150 MPa to 300 MPa (16.5 kgf/mm2, 162 MPa) (Table 2: 15m/m (57%)).
Regarding claim 6, the limitation of a grain size of the aluminum alloy powder being 20 um to 65 um has been considered and determined to not further limit the structure of the claimed “aluminum alloy melt”. The prior art discloses the aluminum alloy melt (casting) of claim 1 (Ota p. 2 paras. 2-3, Table 1), such that claim 6 is met.
Regarding claim 8, Ota discloses a content of Mg in the aluminum alloy powder is 0.1 wt% to 1.0 wt% (0.5) (Table 1).
Regarding claim 9, Ota discloses a content of Mg in the aluminum alloy powder is 0.4 wt% to 0.7 wt% (0.5) (Table 1).
Regarding claim 11, Ota discloses a content of Ti in the aluminum alloy powder of more than 0 to 0.23 wt% (0.15%) (Table 1).
Regarding claim 12, the limitation of the aluminum alloy powder being manufactured by adding Si and Mg into melted 6061 aluminum alloy has been considered and determined to not further limit the structure of the claimed “aluminum alloy melt”. The prior art discloses the aluminum alloy melt (casting) of claim 1 (Ota p. 2 paras. 2-3, Table 1), such that claim 12 is met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota (JP S63-100151 machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, the example composition of Ota includes 4.5% Si.
Ota discloses the Al alloy includes 4.0-7.5% Si (Abstract, p. 2 para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the composition of Ota to adjust the Si to be 4.0 to 7.5% to prevent fluidity problems during casting without decreasing forging deformability (p. 2 para. 2). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota (JP S63-100151 machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Niikura (JP 2012-051028 machine translation).
Regarding claim 10, Ota is silent to a content of Zn in the aluminum alloy powder of more than 0 to 0.23 wt%.
Niikura disclose an aluminum alloy melt (brazing material that melts) ([0006], [0021]) with a content of Zn in the aluminum alloy powder of more than 0 to 0.23 wt% (0.1 to 0.8%) ([0025]-[0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the aluminum alloy melt of Mann to include 0.1 to 0.8% Zn to improve corrosion resistance (Niikura [0025]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mann (RU 2752489 machine translation) in view of Niikura (JP 2012-051028 machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Mann discloses an aluminum alloy melt ([0002], [0041], [0061]-[0066]).
The aluminum alloy melt being manufactured by adopting an aluminum alloy powder through laser laminated manufacturing has been considered.
During examination, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose of intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. MPEP 2111.02(II). Further, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. MPEP 2113(I).
The alloy melt being manufactured by adopting an aluminum alloy powder through laser laminated manufacturing has been determined to recite the purpose or intended use of the melt that does not further limit the structure of the claimed melt. MPEP 2111.03(II).
The aluminum alloy powder composition that the melt is manufactured from has been considered and determined to further limit the composition of the aluminum alloy melt.
Mann discloses an overlapping composition ([0036]-[0037]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Mann is silent to 0.02 to 0.32% Cr.
Niikura disclose an aluminum alloy melt (brazing material that melts) ([0006], [0021]) with 0.02 to 0.32% Cr (0.05 to 0.3%) ([0026], [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the aluminum alloy melt of Mann to include 0.05 to 0.3%% Cr to improve strength through solid solution strengthening without forming large intermetallic compounds that reduce plasticity (Niikura [0034]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Element
Claim 1
Mann [0036]-[0037]
Si
2.0 to 4.5
2.00 to 6.00
Mg
0.1 to 1.3
0.10 to 0.80
Fe
0.07 to 0.65
0.10 to 0.50
Cu
0.35 or less
0.02 or less
Cr
0.02 to 0.32
-
Zn
0.23 or less
-
Ti
0.23 or less
0.02 or less
Mn
0.13 or less
0.02 or less
Al
Rest
Rest
Regarding claim 2, Mann discloses yield strength of the aluminum alloy melt is greater than 100 MPa (more than 210 MPa) ([0039]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I)
Regarding claim 3, Mann discloses yield strength of the aluminum alloy melt is greater than 125 MPa (more than 210 MPa) ([0039]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I)
Regarding claim 4, Mann discloses tensile strength of the aluminum alloy melt is 150 MPa to 300 MPa (more than 290 MPa) ([0039]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 5, Mann discloses tensile strength of the aluminum alloy melt is 200 MPa to 300 MPa (more than 290 MPa) ([0039]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 6, Mann discloses a grain size of the aluminum alloy powder is 20 um to 65 um ([0040]-[0044], [0056], Fig. 1). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 7, Mann discloses a content of Si in the aluminum alloy powder is 3.0 wt% to 4.0 wt% (2.00 to 6.00%) ([0036]-[0037]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 8, Mann discloses a content of Mg in the aluminum alloy powder is 0.1 wt% to 1.0 wt% (0.10 to 0.80%) ([0036]-[0037]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 9, Mann discloses a content of Mg in the aluminum alloy powder is 0.4 wt% to 0.7 wt% (0.10 to 0.80%) ([0036]-[0037]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 10, Mann is silent to Zn.
Niikura disclose an aluminum alloy melt (brazing material that melts) ([0006], [0021]) with a content of Zn in the aluminum alloy powder of more than 0 to 0.23 wt% (0.1 to 0.8%) ([0025]-[0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the aluminum alloy melt of Mann to include 0.1 to 0.8% Zn to improve corrosion resistance (Niikura [0025]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 11, Mann discloses a content of Ti in the aluminum alloy powder is more than 0 to 0.23 wt% (no more than 0.02%) ([0036]-[0037]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 12, Mann discloses preparing an aluminum base melt ([0040]-[0044]). The limitation of the aluminum alloy powder being manufactured by adding Si and Mg into melted 6061 aluminum alloy has been considered and determined to not further limit the structure of the claimed “aluminum alloy melt”. The prior art discloses the aluminum alloy melt of claim 1 (Mann [0001]-[0002], [0036]-[0037], [0041]), such that claim 12 is met.
Related Art
Zhu (CN 109487126 machine translation)
Zhu discloses an aluminum alloy melt (selective laser melting, SLM) ([0035]-[0040]) manufactured by adopting an aluminum alloy powder through laser laminated (additive) manufacturing ([0002], [0035]), wherein the aluminum alloy powder comprises an overlapping composition ([0011]-[0012]).
Element
Claim 1
Zhu [0011]-[0012]
Si
2.0 to 4.5
0.01 to 3.00
Mg
0.1 to 1.3
1.00 to 10.00
Fe
0.07 to 0.65
0.02 to 0.1
Cu
0.35 or less
0.02 to 0.15
Cr
0.02 to 0.32
0.03 to 0.07
Zn
0.23 or less
0.01 to 0.50
Ti
0.23 or less
-
Mn
0.13 or less
0.1 to 0.5
Al
Rest
Remainder
Zhou (CN 106636778 machine translation)
Zhou discloses an Al-Zn-Mg-Cu series aluminum alloy ([0009] prepared as a melt with an overlapping composition ([0011]-[0019]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANI HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-12pm.
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.
/STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735