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 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 1-6 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 1 recites “cooling the liquid melt at a cooling temperature below the liquidus temperature and at or above a solidus temperature of the aluminum alloy” in line 6-8. It’s unclear whether the recited cooling temperature is a cooling stop temperature. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “sludge” in line 9, 13, 15 and 17. It’s unclear what materials is considered a sludge. Appropriate correction is required. For this examination, all materials containing impurities are considered as sludge.
Claim 3 recites “the cooling temperature” in line 2. It’s unclear whether the recited cooling temperature is a cooling stop temperature. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan (US 2018/0135150).
Regarding claim 1, Fan teaches a method for producing a refined aluminum alloy, comprising: heating an aluminum alloy to form a melt ([0019]; [0034]; [0049]), cooling the melt to a temperature below the liquidus temperature and at or above a solidus temperature of the aluminum alloy to form aluminum alloy particles, inclusions, intermetallics and sludge to obtain a semi-solidified melt ([0022]; [0023]; [0035]; [0037]; [0038]; [0052]), which meets the first heating step and the cooling step recited in claim 1.
Fan discloses that when the initial impurity in the aluminum alloy is high, after the aluminum alloy is melted into a liquid, composition modification is performed by adding additive elements into the melt, and it might take multiple stages of composition adjustment and cooling to make an alloy containing low impurities ([0034] to [0036]; [0040]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to heat the alloy obtained after the first stage of impurity removal process to a liquid state followed by cooling the melt to form inclusion, intermetallics and sludge in order to further lower the impurity level as disclosed by Fan. Fan discloses that the process is to separate inclusion, intermetallics and sludge formed from impurities from the aluminum alloy melt, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that during the second stage of impurity removal process, the heating temperature is kept below a dissolution temperature of the inclusion, intermetallics and sludge as recited in claim 1.
Fan further discloses a recovery step of separating the inclusion, intermetallics and sludge from the refined liquid melt in the sludge-containing liquid melt and recovering the refined liquid melt ([0024] to [0044]), which meets the recovery step recited in claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Fan discloses that the cooling stop temperature is below the liquidus temperature but above the solidus temperature of the aluminum alloy ([0022]; [0037]), which overlaps the recited temperature range in claim 3. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 I. Thus, claim 3 is obvious over Fan.
Fan does not explicitly disclose the content of the aluminum alloy particles in the melt after the cooling step. However, the content of the aluminum alloy particles in the melt after the cooling step is determined by the cooling stop temperature. In view of the fact that Fan teaches a cooling stop temperature overlapping the recited temperature in claim 3, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the content of the aluminum alloy particles in the melt after the cooling step disclosed by Fan overlap the recited content in claim 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. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 I. Thus, claim 2 is obvious over Fan.
Regarding claim 5, Fan discloses that the intermetallics formed by impurity elements collects at the bottom of the vessel ([0023] to [0028]), which meets the limitation recited in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Fan discloses that the starting material of the aluminum alloy is a scrapped aluminum alloy product ([0002]), which meets the limitation recited in claim 6.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan (US 2018/0135150), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Minoura (US 2022/0106666).
Regarding claim 4, Fan is silent on the heating temperature for heating the aluminum alloy to a liquid state. Minoura teaches a method for recycling the aluminum alloy that is analogous to the method of Fan ([0035] to [0060]). Minoura discloses that the melting temperature of the aluminum alloy is 700 ºC and the aluminum alloy is heated to 680-880 ºC, the process is effective in reducing Fe concentration in the aluminum alloy (Abstract; [0038]; [0050]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to heat the aluminum alloy to a temperature of 680-880 ºC as taught by Minoura in the process of Fan in order to effectively reduce the Fe impurity as disclosed by Minoura. The difference between the heating temperature and the melting point disclosed by Minoura is -20ºC to 180 ºC, which overlaps the recited temperature range in claim 4. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 I. Thus, claim 4 is obvious over Fan in view of Minoura.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xiaowei Su whose telephone number is (571)272-3239. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00.
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 5712721401. 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.
/XIAOWEI SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights