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
Pending and under examination: claims 1-16
Objected to: claim 1
Rejected: claim 11
Allowed: claims 1-10 and 12-16
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Step S1 of claim 1 recites “step S1, preparing an original aluminum alloy cast ingot from raw materials by adopting a semi-continuous casting process, wherein the semi-continuous casting process comprises subjecting the raw materials to heating melting, alloying, refining, slagging-off, standing, degassing, filtering and semi-continuous water-cooling casting;”. The “heating melting” should be “heating and melting”, and “filtering” should have a comma immediately after it.
Step S2 of claim 1 recites “head and tail cutting and skin turning”; “heat and tail cutting” should have a comma immediately after it.
Appropriate correction is required.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
Chen et al. (CN112695236A; Espacenet English machine translation cited and attached) discloses in the Abstract: The invention relates to an ultra-high strength aluminum alloy extrusion bar and a preparation method thereof and belongs to the technical field of aluminum alloy material preparation. By taking an Al-Zn-Mg-Cu-Zr-Er alloy as a matrix, the method comprises the following steps: (1) smelting ingredients according to alloy components, and then pouring the ingredients to a given die; (2) preparing an Al-Zn-Mg-Cu-Zr-Er alloy ingot into an ultra-fine grain alloy strip by a single roller melt-spinning method; (3) cold pressing the ultra-fine grain alloy strip to a cylinder by a high speed universal crusher; and (4) performing thermal extrusion processing on the cold-pressed alloy cylinder to obtain the extrusion bar. The method is easy to prepare the ultra-fine grain ultrafine grain bar massively, and has good practical value. The prepared ultra-high strength aluminum alloy extrusion bar is high in tensile strength and ductility, and meanwhile, a good foundation is laid for high-strength and high-toughness aluminum alloys in thermal treatment states.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN113234973A; Espacenet English machine translation cited and attached).
Regarding claim 11, with regard to the claimed “An optical aluminum alloy, wherein the optical aluminum alloy is prepared by the preparation method of claim 1”, it is noted that the claim is directed to a product and even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113).
Zhang teaches a preparation method of a high-quality mirror surface aluminum alloy material comprising the following steps: melting and casting, solid solution treatment, low temperature cold deformation of -200 to -150 degrees centigrade, vibration aging treatment in sub-resonance frequency interval (Abstract). The invention optimizes the alloy component and preparation technique, effectively controls the adverse second phase, recrystallization and residual crystal phase number, distribution, shape, improving matrix tissue surface activity, light absorption; optical reflectivity and machining adaptability, effectively improving the mirror surface precision machining the aluminum alloy material, and the adaptability of the surface coating process; finally obtaining the high quality mirror surface aluminum alloy material (Abstract).
Thus, absent a clear and specific indication of what structure is imparted by the claimed “preparation method of claim 1” that is not present in Zhang, it is prima facie expected that Zhang’s alloy meets all of the structural limitations of claim 11, and therefore Zhang meets the claim. Once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning to show inherency, the burden of production shifts to the applicant. "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same." The burden of proof is similar to that required with respect to product-by-process claims. (MPEP 2112 V).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with regard to independent claim 1, the prior art does not anticipate or reasonably render obvious the cumulative limitations of the claim, with particular attention to the features of steps S2, S4, and S6, and in particular, the closest prior art reference Chen et al. does not disclose a semi-continuous casting method as required by step S1 (e.g., DC casting), Chen is silent regarding step S2, is silent regarding the step of “sheathing” (e.g. or “sleeving”), and is also silent regarding solution treatment and aging treatment. A POSITA would not reasonably be motivated to modify Chen to perform these steps, either alone with Chen or in combination with other references. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claims 2-10 and 12-16 are allowable as being dependent from claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adil Siddiqui whose telephone number is (571)272-8047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM CST.
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.
/ADIL A. SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
