DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 1-12-2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202410051976.5 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-10 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.
Claims 1,4,7 and 8 contain the trademark/trade name ZA27. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a class of zinc-aluminum alloys and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Regarding claims 1,4 and 7, in the material description term "(AINp/ZA27) composite billet", the "p" is not defined in the claim therefore rendering the claim indefinite.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. A power transmission and wire scope are not claimed in the claims 1 and 7 so the recitation of a power transmission wire does not further limit the claim 1 composite pipe extruding method. The Examiner suggests cancelation of claim 10. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3,5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan et al. (CN109433841) in view of Huang et al. (CN 113926873A). Guan discloses a composite billet comprising a magnesium alloy billet which includes AZ31 material which is a magnesium, aluminum and zinc composition which is subjected to reciprocating extrusion processing [0011] and extruded in a heated extrusion press (Fig. 3). The extrusion press includes a plunger (3), a container (2), heating coils (1) and a die (5) having an extrusion passage for extruding a tube (7) with preheating to 300-420°C ([0011], line 2) and extrusion of the tube [0013] through the die. Regarding claim 5, Guan discloses an extrusion speed of 0.1-0.3 mm/s. Guan does not disclose that the composite billet is gradient heated in an ascending gradient distribution. Huang teaches ([0025], lines 10-12) that an aluminum alloy billet (400; Fig. 11) is subjected to gradient heating along its length with heating coils (310) in an extrusion container (3021) to control a billet temperature with an ascending temperature gradient from a tail end of a billet to a head end of the billet to be extruded through a die (306). Regarding claim 6, Huang teaches a temperature gradient of 5-10°C. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to control a temperature gradient of the composite billet in an ascending temperature gradient distribution in Guan’s preheating range of 300-420°C as taught by Huang so as to equalize a temperature of the billet as it is extruded through the die to compensate for a temperature rise in the billet during extrusion. Guan discloses heating coils (1) to heat the billet within the container and Huang teaches control of heating coils (310) to create a temperature gradient, it is an obvious design consideration to control the heating coils of Guan to control temperature along a length of the billet as taught by Huang.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan et al. (CN109433841) in view of Huang et al. (CN 113926873A) and further in view of Ma et al. (CN 110117743). Guan does not disclose that the composite billet is held at the heating temperature for 0.5-1.5 hours. Ma teaches ([0049], lines 6-7) that a billet is held at 250-350°C or 1-2 hours prior to extrusion. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to hold the billet at the heating temperature for a period time as taught by Ma prior to extruding the billet of Guan in order to reduce a deformation resistance and increase plasticity of the billet for extrusion.
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan et al. (CN109433841) in view of Huang et al. (CN 113926873A) and further in view of Ma et al. (CN 117327958A). Guan does not disclose the claim 8 ZnAl composite material composition. Regarding claims 7-9, Ma teaches a ZnAl composite material [0007] consisting of Zn (70.52-71.08%), Al (25.58-27.65%), Cu (1.27-3.45%) and Mg < 0.50% with AlN particle size of 0.5-1.2 µm [0008]. The composite material is subjected to reciprocating extrusion. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to substitute the Zinc and Aluminum composite billet composition as taught by Ma for the Magnesium, Zinc and Aluminum billet of Guan in order to extrude a tube with a greater Zinc and Aluminum percentage. Ma teaches that the extrusion occurs at a similar extrusion rate (0.15-0.56 mm/s; [0011]) to Guan (0.1-0.3 mm/s) and in a similar reciprocating extrusion press as Guan so there is not an unexpected result (tube production) when substituting the composite billet of Ma for the composite billet of Guan when performing the extrusion process.
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan et al. (CN109433841) in view of Huang et al. (CN 113926873A) and further in view of Purnell (4,731,129). Guan does not disclose the claim 7 ZnAl composite material composition. Regarding claims 7-9, Purnell teaches a ZnAl composite material (col. 2, lines 63-67) consisting of Zn (balance), Al (20-28%) and Cu (0.5-2.5%). The Examiner’s reading is that in the claimed range of Purnell, when Al is 27% and Cu is 2%, Zn is 71% which is within the claimed range of claim 8. Purnell teaches that the ZnAl composite material is heated and extruded (col. 3, lines 17-20). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to substitute the Zinc and Aluminum composite billet composition as taught by Purnell for the Magnesium, Zinc and Aluminum billet of Guan in order to extrude a tube with a greater Zinc and Aluminum percentage
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bayer et al. (9,486,337) teaches a composite billet (col. 4, lines 62-65 and col. 9, lines 66-67) which is extruded in an extrusion press (Fig. 4) including a plunger (41) and die (42; col. 10, lines 1-14) having an extrusion passage for extruding a tube (20) with heating during extruding at 300-500°C. Bayer teaches that the composite billet contains aluminum and zinc or an alloy (col. 5, lines 25-27; col. 6, lines 52-57) and discloses a rich in zinc composition, ZnAl14 (col. 9, lines 30-33) with a composition ZnAl14 of 95.3-96.48% Zn and 3.5-4.5% Al. Bayer teaches tempering after forming at 300-500°C (col. 8, lines 18-19 and col. 10, lines 47-50) for 1-60 minutes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD THOMAS TOLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Chris Templeton can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
/EDWARD T TOLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights