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 .
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant's amendment and arguments filed 1/7/26 have been fully considered. The amendment(s) overcomes 112 indefiniteness rejection from previous office action; however, they are not persuasive to overcome prior art rejection.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
288
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In response, examiner submits that rejection relies on Liu (CN document) having a publication date of Oct. 25, 2022, prior to the effective filing date of the present claims. Liu (US 2024/0043977 A1) is English-equivalent publication of the CN-115228936-A document (see attached bibliographic data). Therefore, US publication is equivalent prior art document of the CN-115228936-A translation.
Applicant also argues that Liu does not disclose solid solution and quenching treatment after roll-bonding and conducting underwater friction stir treatment.
In response, examiner contends that Applicant's above arguments against the Liu reference individually amounts to piecemeal analysis. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Liu is modified with teachings of Smeyers (solid solution and quenching treatment after roll bonding to improve strength) and Shanmugam (teaches the benefits of underwater friction stir welding- page 4, lines 15-25). Thus, resulting combination of Liu, Smeyers & Shanmugam discloses solid solution and quenching treatment to the laminated plates after roll-bonding and conducting underwater friction stir treatment on the laminated plates. Examiner points out that claim does not preclude conducting secondary rolling and solid solution treatment after friction stirring as done in Liu [0011].
Applicant further argues that Smeyers fails to disclose solid solution and quenching treatment before conducting underwater friction stir treatment.
In response, examiner respectfully disagrees. Smeyers was not relied upon concerning friction stir treatment since Liu already teaches performing friction stir treatment on the laminated plate; Shanmugam was cited with respect to underwater friction stir treatment. Smeyers teaches solid solution and water quenching treatment subsequent to roll bonding step [0087, 0091]. Therefore, arguments against Smeyers appear to be misleading and not convincing.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN-115228936A) (hereafter “Liu”) in view of Smeyers et al. (US 2015/0217813A1, hereafter “Smeyeres”) and Shanmugam et al. (WO 2023/119329A1, hereafter “Shanmugam”, of record). For the sake of convenience and translation, citations of Liu have been made with respect to US 2024/0043977A1, which is the English equivalent of CN-115228936-A- see attached Bibliographic data.
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a laminated armor aluminum alloy manufacturing method (title; and figures), comprising the following steps: step (1): combining and fixing a rear plate (1), a middle plate (2), and a front plate (3) to obtain a combined plate (paragraph [0008]); step (2): after preheating the combined plate, obtaining a laminated aluminum alloy by roll-bonding (paragraph [0009]); step (4): conducting friction stir treatment after setting a weld-start plate and lead-out plates on the laminated aluminum alloy [0010]; and step (5): carrying out aging treatment on the laminated aluminum alloy after friction stir treatment [0011]. Liu teaches wherein step (4) of friction stir treatment, a stirring needle is provided with a thread, a length of the stirring needle is h, hf + hm < h < hf + hm + hr, wherein hf, hm, hr, are a thickness of the front plate, a thickness of the middle plate and a thickness of the rear plate after roll-bonding in step (3), respectively; during underwater friction stir treatment, a stirring tool rotates into the laminated aluminum alloy from the front plate side, and a back tilt angle of the stirring tool is 1-3° [0012].
Liu does not disclose solid solution and quenching treatment (after roll bonding) and also does not mention whether the friction stir welding treatment is underwater.
However, Smeyers teaches a solid solution and water quenching treatment after roll bonding to improve strength by microstructural features combining to form strengthening particles (paragraphs 27, 87, and 91). It is further noted that solution heat treatment temperature of 465 °C taught by Smeyeres [0087] falls within 460-540 °C temperature disclosed in Applicant’s specification. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to conduct the solid solution & quenching treatment on the laminated plates after roll bonding in the process of Liu in order to obtain the desired strength, as suggested by Smeyers.
While Shanmugam teaches the benefits of underwater friction stir welding, specifically to improve the mechanical properties of the HAZ by controlling the temperature level (page 4, lines 15-25). At the time of filing the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the underwater friction stir welding treatment of Shanmugam in the collective process of Liu and Smeyers in order to improve hardness of the HAZ.
Thus, Liu as modified by Smeyers & Shanmugam above discloses performing solid solution and quenching treatment to the laminated plates after roll-bonding and conducting underwater friction stir treatment on the laminated plates. Examiner notes that claim does not preclude conducting secondary rolling and solid solution treatment after friction stirring as done in Liu [0011].
As to claim 2, Liu teaches wherein step (1), the front plate and the rear plate are both 7-series aluminum alloy or 2-series aluminum alloy, and the middle plate is pure aluminum (paragraph 13).
As to claims 3 and 8, Liu teaches wherein step (1), the surface treatment steps are: alkaline washing with 5-15 wt% NaOH solution for 3-10 min and then rinsing with 80-100°C water, then acid washing with 5-15 wt% HNO; solution for 3-10 min and then rinsing with 5-25°C water, and blowing dry, followed by interface sanding treatment (paragraph 14).
As to claims 4 and 9, Liu teaches wherein step (2), a preheating treatment temperature is 400-530°C, and a preheating treatment time is 1 to 3h (paragraph 15).
Claims 5-7 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, Smeyeres, and Shanmugam as applied to claims 1-4 and 8-9 above, and further in view of Dixon et al. (CN-101304822A) (hereafter Dixon, of record).
As to claims 5 and 10, Liu teaches a temperature of solid solution treatment is 450-490 °C (meets 460-540°C), and a time of heat treatment is 1 to 4 h (paragraph 18). Smeyers teaches solid solution temperature of 465°C (meets 460-540°C), and also teaches water quenching (paragraphs 19, 27, 87, and 91). Smeyers is silent with respect to quenching at room temperature.
However, Dixon teaches solution heat treatment of aluminum alloys followed by room temperature quenching (pg. 10). At the time of filing the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize room temperature quenching of Dixon in the collective process of Liu, Smeyers, and Shanmugam in order to obtain the desired cooling rate.
As to claims 6 and 11, Liu teaches wherein step (4) of friction stir treatment, a stirring tool rotates into the laminated aluminum alloy from the front plate side, and a back tilt angle of the stirring tool is 1-3°; a feed speed is 50-250 mm/min and a rotation speed is 400-2,500 r/min (paragraph 12).
With respect to claims 7 and 12, Liu teaches wherein step (5), a temperature of aging is 100-200°C, and a time of aging treatment is 6 to 30h (paragraph 19).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVANG R PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3636. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of Applicant. If Applicant wishes to communicate via email, a written authorization form must be filed by Applicant: Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The form may be filed via the Patent Center and can be found using the document description Internet Communications, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms. In limited circumstances, the Applicant may make an oral authorization for Internet communication. See MPEP § 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. For more information, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For questions, technical issues or troubleshooting, please contact the Patent Electronic Business Center at ebc@uspto.gov or 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DEVANG R PATEL/
Primary Examiner, AU 1735