DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 3/30/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-18 remain pending in the application.
The Amendment filed 3/30/2025 is not in compliance with 37 C.F.R. 1.121. See MPEP § 714 II C (B) Markings to Show the Changes: All claims being currently amended must be presented with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version. The changes in any amended claim must be shown by strike-through (for deleted matter) or underlining (for added matter) with 2 exceptions: (1) for deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters, double brackets may be used (e.g., [[eroor]]); (2) if strike-through cannot be easily perceived (e.g., deletion of number "4" or certain punctuation marks), double brackets must be used (e.g., [[4]]). As an alternative to using double brackets, however, extra portions of text may be included before and after text being deleted, all in strike-through, followed by including and underlining the extra text with the desired change (e.g., number 4 as number 14 as ). An accompanying clean version is not required and should not be presented. Only claims of the status "currently amended" or "withdrawn" will include markings.
Claim 16 is labeled currently amended, but no claim markings showing the changes are present.
As a courtesy, the Examiner has examined the incorrectly marked claim.
Micro Entity Status
A certification of micro entity status was filed in this application on 9/29/25. The Applicant is encouraged to consider the following rules relating to micro entity status.
1.29 (a)(3) To establish micro entity status under this paragraph, the applicant must certify that: Neither the applicant nor the inventor nor a joint inventor has been named as the inventor or a joint inventor on more than four previously filed patent applications, other than applications filed in another country, provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(b), or international applications for which the basic national fee under 35 U.S.C. 41(a) was not paid;
1.29 (j) Any attempt to fraudulently establish status as a micro entity, or pay fees as a micro entity, shall be considered as a fraud practiced or attempted on the Office. Improperly, and with intent to deceive, establishing status as a micro entity, or paying fees as a micro entity, shall be considered as a fraud practiced or attempted on the Office.
1.29 (k) If status as a micro entity is established in good faith in an application or patent, and fees as a micro entity are paid in good faith in the application or patent, and it is later discovered that such micro entity status either was established in error, or that the Office was not notified of a loss of entitlement to micro entity status as required by paragraph (i) of this section through error, the error will be excused upon compliance with the separate submission and itemization requirements of paragraph (k)(1) of this section and the deficiency payment requirement of paragraph (k)(2) of this section.
It appears that the applicant or the inventor has been named as the inventor or a joint inventor on more than four previously filed patent applications, other than applications filed in another country, provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(b), or international applications for which the basic national fee under 35 U.S.C. 41(a) was not paid: For example:
16926716
16992256
17016570
18094469
18744560
18959750
A certification of micro entity status has also been filed in:
19346850
These lists are not exhaustive. Applicant is encouraged to review all previously filed applications.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the elongated ultrasonic vibrator sonotrode”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the elongated sonotrode rotor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parenthesis. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren et al. (CN 107498010 A), as machine translated, in view of Kawakami (JP H01127624 A), as machine translated.
Regarding claim 1, Ren teaches that “the present invention provides a process for preparing a semi-solid light alloy, the process comprising placing a stirring device in a slurry container, stirring the liquid alloy, and introducing a processing gas into it, and obtaining the semi-solid light alloy slurry when the temperature of the alloy liquid drops to the solid-liquid temperature range” (which reads upon “a method of processing a liquid material for synthesis of particulate reinforced metal matrix composite, removal of dissolved gases in the liquid material, or preparation of a semi-solid slurry, the method comprising preparing a bath of liquid material”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0009]). Ren teaches that “the preparation apparatus includes a slurry container, a stirring device, and a gas control device, wherein the gas control device is connected to the stirring device; wherein the stirring device includes a stirring rod, and the stirring rod has a cavity inside, the gas control device is connected to the cavity, and the cavity is connected to the vent” (which reads upon “preparing a rotary [stirring rod] to stir the bath of liquid material, comprising: a rotation driver, an elongated rotor, comprising a first end and a second end and the second end comprising a tip; a purging gas delivery system, embedded in center of the elongated rotor, comprising a purging gas pathway and a purging gas outlet which is at the tip of the second end of the elongated rotor”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0021] and FIG. 1; rod reads on elongated). Ren teaches “placing a stirring device in a slurry container” (which reads upon “submerging the elongated rotor into the liquid material”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0009]). Ren teaches that “the introduced processing gas, through the design and control of the stirring rod and operating parameters, enters the alloy liquid in the form of fine bubbles, which plays a role in removing hydrogen, removing slag, cooling and stirring” (which reads upon “introducing the purging gas into the bath of liquid material through said purging gas outlet”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0031]). Ren teaches that “the aeration and stirring time is preferably controlled to be 8 to 50 seconds, and in some embodiments, it is preferably 15 to 40 seconds” (which reads upon “introducing the purging gas into the bath of liquid material through said purging gas outlet for a predetermined duration”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0039]).
Ren is silent regarding that the rotary device is an ultrasonic rotary device, an ultrasonic transducer, and that the first end is attached to the ultrasonic transducer.
Kawakami is similarly concerned with blowing gas into the molten metal (page 1) Kawakami teaches “a molten metal refining method characterized by applying ultrasonic waves to a nozzle or tuyere when refining the molten metal by blowing gas into the molten metal” (page 3). Kawakami teaches “an ultrasonic vibrator attached to one end of a metal rod, a gas passage formed in the metal rod, and a gas passage into the molten metal at the other end” (which reads upon “an ultrasonic transducer, and that the first end is attached to the ultrasonic transducer”, as recited in the instant claim; page 3). Kawakami teaches that “when ultrasonic waves are applied to a nozzle into which gas bubbles are blown, the bubbles become extremely fine” (page 3). Kawakami teaches that “when the bubbles are miniaturized in this way, the interface area between the molten steel and the bubbles increases, and in the deoxidation treatment of the first example, the deoxidation rate at which oxides are removed by adsorption to the bubbles increases” (page 3). Kawakami teaches that “an ultrasonic vibrator is attached to one end of the metal rod, and a nozzle or tuyere is formed at the other end, so that ultrasonic waves are directly transmitted to the nozzle or tuyere, allowing efficient refining” (page 4). Kawakami teaches that “the container is not limited to the ladle, but can also be implemented in a vacuum tank of a degassing device” (page 6). Kawakami teaches that “the present invention is not limited to deoxidizing treatment, but aims to promote the refining reaction by applying ultrasonic waves and blowing air bubbles, and that it is a source that can be effectively applied to promote refining reactions such as degassing” (page 6).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the ultrasonic transducer and sonotrode of Kawakami to the stirring device of Ren because ultrasonic waves would make the impurity removal process more efficient by increasing surface area through the creation of smaller bubbles, and because Kawakami suggests applying his ultrasonic treatment to a degassing process. The attachment of an ultrasonic transducer and sonotrode of Kawakami would transform the stirring device of Ren into a sonotrode rotor (elongated article is an elongated sonotrode rotor), thereby meeting the claim limitations.
Regarding claims 2-3, modified Ren teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Ren teaches that “the light alloy includes aluminum alloy” (paragraph [0017]). Ren teaches that “the temperature of the liquid alloy when the stirring equipment is placed in the mixture is 30°C above the liquidus temperature” (paragraph [0018]; 30°C above the liquidus temperature reads on above the melting temperature).
Regarding claim 4, modified Ren teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Ren teaches that “the processing gas includes one or more of nitrogen, helium, neon, argon, krypton and xenon” (paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Ren teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Ren teaches that “the argon gas flow rate is 10-20 L/min” (paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Ren teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Ren teaches that “the stirring speed is 1000-1500 revolutions per minute” (paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Ren teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Ren teaches that “the mixing equipment is made of graphite or mold steel” (paragraph [0029]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren et al. (CN 107498010 A), as machine translated, in view of Kawakami (JP H01127624 A), as machine translated, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Han et al. (US 2007/0235159 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ren teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above. Kawakami teaches that “the ultrasonic oscillator has a frequency of 25 kHz” (which reads upon “wherein the rotary ultrasonic vibrator operates at a frequency in a range between 15,000 Hz to 400,000 Hz”; page 4).
Ren and Kawakami are silent regarding the intensity of vibration high enough to generate cavitations in the liquid bath adjacent to the tip.
Han is similarly concerned with a method and apparatus in which high-intensity ultrasonic vibration is applied to a radiator that creates cavitation bubbles, breaks up purge gas (e.g., argon or nitrogen) which is intentionally introduced in a small amount into the melt (paragraph [0004]). Han teaches that “ultrasonic vibration is used to assist in the degassing of molten metals or metal alloys thereby reducing gas content in the molten metals or alloys” (paragraph [0012]). Han teaches that “high-intensity ultrasonic vibration is used to create tiny cavitation bubbles, breakup the large purging gas bubbles into much smaller bubbles, which collect the cavitation bubbles along their way to escape at the surface of the melt, and to disperse the bubbles uniformly in the melt” (paragraph [0012]). Han teaches that “to induce cavitation bubbles, the intensity of the ultrasonic vibration should be high enough to create an instantaneous pressure on the order of a few MPa in the melt near the radiator” (which reads upon “the intensity of vibration high enough to generate cavitations in the liquid bath adjacent to the tip”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0014]). Han teaches that “the ultrasonic frequency is operably applied to the radiator 30 by an ultrasonic transducer that generates ultrasonic waves having a frequency of about 1000 Hz to about 2,000,000 Hz; preferably, the frequency is in the range of 15 kHz to 25 kHz” (which reads upon “a frequency in a range between 15,000 Hz to 400,000 Hz”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0039]).
Accordingly, Han teaches that a frequency of 25KHz, as used by Kawakami is within the desired range to create cavitation bubbles. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have ensured that the vibrations of Ren, as modified by Kawakami, are sufficient to generate cavitation in the molten bath because cavitation would improve the semi-solid slurry preparation process by ensuring that more gases escape the melt and make it to the surface. It has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren et al. (CN 107498010 A), as machine translated, in view of Kawakami (JP H01127624 A), as machine translated, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eckert (US 5,968,223 A).
Regarding claims 9-10, modified Ren teaches the method of claim 1 as stated above.
Ren is silent regarding an elongated baffle plate.
Eckert is similarly concerned with an improved treatment process for dispersing media in molten metal (which reads upon “processing a liquid material”, as recited in the instant claim; column 2, lines 29-30). Eckert teaches that “common methods employed to suppress vortex formation include the insertion of baffles or rods into the melt” (column 2, lines 5-11). Eckert teaches that “using a baffle heater of the invention has the advantage that no additional space is needed for heaters because they are placed in the baffle” (column 5, lines 30-36). Eckert teaches “said baffle heater having a plate-shaped configuration” (which reads upon “preparing an elongated baffle plate”, as recited in the instant claim; claim 4). Eckert teaches “providing a baffle heater in the treatment bay to contact the molten metal” (which reads upon “wherein an elongated baffle plate is submerged into the liquid material”, as recited in the instant claim; column 2, lines 55-60).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a baffle, as taught by Eckert, in the process of modified Ren because less skim is generated and only minimal skim is ingested into the melt, keeping the melt cleaner and free from impurities. Kawakami teaches that “a refractory material 2 is constructed around a metal rod 1 serving as a horn for transmitting ultrasonic waves, and an Ar gas passage 3 is provided in the center of the metal rod; in this way, the ultrasonic vibrator 4 is installed at the tip of the metal rod l, and that this is immersed in the molten steel 6 in the ladle 5” (page 4; the elongated baffle plate is acoustically coupled to ultrasonic vibrations through the liquid).
Claims 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarry et al. (US 2017/0335427 A1), in view of Eckert (US 5,968,223 A).
Regarding claim 11, Jarry teaches “an improved device and method using at least one refractory ceramic sonotrode enabling optimized transmission of ultrasound for treatment purposes such as degassing (removal of dissolved hydrogen from the liquid metal)” (which reads upon “a method of processing a liquid material for synthesis of particulate reinforced metal matrix composite, removal of dissolved gases in the liquid material, or preparation of a semi-solid slurry, the method comprising”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0001]). Jarry teaches “submerging a tubular sonotrode 1 in a bath of a liquid aluminum alloy” (which reads upon “preparing a bath of liquid material; preparing an elongated ultrasonic vibrator comprising a first end and a second end; submerging the elongated ultrasonic vibrator, into the liquid material”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0046]). Jarry teaches that “the tubular sonotrode 1 used is made of SIALON, and measures 60 mm in diameter, and that it includes a first open end region 2 submerged in the aluminum alloy and a second closed end region 3 to which a power ultrasound emission transducer 4 is attached” (which reads upon “the first end attached to the ultrasonic transducer and the second end comprising a tip”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0047] and FIG. 2). Jarry teaches that “a tube 7 tightly sealed at the second end region 3, to the top of the tubular sonotrode 1, enables anhydrous argon to be injected inside the sonotrode 1” (which reads upon “a purging gas delivery system, embedded in center of the elongated ultrasonic vibrator, comprising a purging gas pathway”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0053]).
Jarry teaches “applying, at regular intervals, dry argon over-pressures in the tube 7 so as to flush the degassed liquid alloy into the volume of the crucible containing the liquid aluminum alloy and re-suction the mixed aluminum alloy during the subsequent reduction in pressure” (which reads upon “introducing purging gas into the bath of liquid material through said purging gas pathway”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0056]). Jarry fails to explicitly state introducing purging gas into the bath of liquid material through said purging gas pathway for a predetermined duration. Jarry teaches that “the initial hydrogen content of the bath was 0.27 ml/100 g; after 10 minutes of treatment the content decreased to 0.17 ml/100 g; after 10 additional minutes of treatment, the content reached a value close to the equilibrium content, which, inconsideration of the ambient humidity, was 0.14 ml/100 g” (paragraph [0049]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a predetermined treatment duration to the process of Jarry, such as 20 minutes, because after 20 minutes of treatment, the hydrogen content reached a value close to the equilibrium content and further treatment serves no purpose. It has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Jarry is silent regarding preparing an elongated rotor, and submerging the elongated rotor into the liquid material.
Eckert is similarly concerned with an improved treatment process for dispersing media in molten metal (which reads upon “processing a liquid material”, as recited in the instant claim; column 2, lines 29-30). Eckert teaches that “shaft 4 is carried by structure 10 and rotates on bearing 12” (which reads upon “preparing an elongated rotor”, as recited in the instant claim; column 3, lines 35-45). Eckert teaches that “shaft 4 is rotated by motor 14” (column 3, lines 35-45). Eckert teaches that “direction of rotation and revolution speed of motor 14 is controlled by control panel 18 and in accordance with the invention direction of rotation is periodically reverse for purposes of increasing shear forces minimizing vorticity as explained herein” (column 3, lines 40-50). Eckert teaches that “gas may be injected adjacent impeller or disperser 6 for dispersing throughout the melt” (column 3, lines 50-55). Eckert teaches that “hollow shaft 4 and impeller or disperser 6 located in body of molten metal” (which reads upon “submerging the elongated rotor into the liquid material”, as recited in the instant claim; column 3, lines 35-40).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the impeller (rotor) of Eckert to the process of Jarry, such as by positioning the impeller next to the sonotrode or appending impeller blades and rotation motor to the sonotrode, because the impeller would provide an additional means of stirring and mixing that would more evenly and uniformly distribute the nitrides formed in Jarry, leading to a more homogenized composite having uniform properties and structure.
Jarry teaches that “a tube 7 tightly sealed at the second end region 3, to the top of the tubular sonotrode 1, enables anhydrous argon to be injected inside the sonotrode 1” (which reads upon “a purging gas delivery system, embedded in center of the elongated ultrasonic vibrator, comprising a purging gas pathway”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0053]). Jarry is silent regarding a purging gas outlet which is at the tip of the second end of the elongated ultrasonic vibrator.
Eckert teaches that “gas is added through tube 20 and down hollow shaft 4 before being dispersed through tubes or conduits in impeller 6 into molten aluminum 8” (which reads upon “a purging gas outlet which is at the tip of the second end of the elongated [rotor]”, as recited in the instant claim; column 3, lines 45-50 and FIG. 1; purging gas outlet is under the surface of the melt). Eckert teaches that “it is important to keep a fine dispersion of fluxing gas or fluxing salt distributed throughout the melt in order to provide many sites for collection and removal of both dissolved and suspended impurities” (column 5, lines 45-65).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have increased the length of the tube in Jarry to extend down to the first open end region of the sonotrode because submerging reactive gas bubbles directly in the metal melt would increase the volume of liquid metal exposed to the gas, thereby promoting and facilitating the creation of nitrides within the melt volume as opposed to only forming nitrides at the surface of the melt.
Jarry is silent regarding preparing an elongated baffle plate and submerging the elongated baffle plate into the liquid material.
Eckert teaches that “common methods employed to suppress vortex formation include the insertion of baffles or rods into the melt” (column 2, lines 5-11). Eckert teaches that “using a baffle heater of the invention has the advantage that no additional space is needed for heaters because they are placed in the baffle” (column 5, lines 30-36). Eckert teaches “said baffle heater having a plate-shaped configuration” (which reads upon “preparing an elongated baffle plate”, as recited in the instant claim; claim 4). Eckert teaches “providing a baffle heater in the treatment bay to contact the molten metal” (which reads upon “submerging the elongated baffle plate into the liquid material”, as recited in the instant claim; column 2, lines 55-60).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a baffle, as taught by Eckert, in the process of Jarry because less skim is generated and only minimal skim is ingested into the melt, keeping the melt cleaner and free from impurities.
Regarding claims 12-13, modified Jarry teaches the method of claim 11 as stated above. Jarry teaches “liquid aluminum alloys” (paragraph [0001]). Jarry teaches that the aluminum alloy must be cooled to be solidified (paragraph [0001]; reads on above the liquidus temperature). Jarry teaches that “the power ultrasound makes it possible to achieve very high and very local temperature peaks” (paragraph [0055]). Jerry is silent regarding any solidified alloy in the liquid.
Regarding claim 14, modified Jarry teaches the method of claim 11 as stated above. Jarry teaches that “the gas used can in particular be dry argon or dry nitrogen or any other anhydrous gas, non-reactive to the liquid aluminum alloy under the conditions of application” (paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Jarry teaches the method of claim 11 as stated above. Eckert teaches that “the impeller was rotated at a speed of 425 RPM” (column 12, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 16, modified Jarry teaches the method of claim 11 as stated above. Jarry teaches that “ultrasound is applied with a frequency of around 22 kHz” (paragraph [0049]). Jarry teaches “extremely intense cavitation 10 inside the tubular sonotrode 1” (paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Jarry teaches the method of claim 11 as stated above. Jarry teaches “a sonotrode-titanium flat-bottom rod” (paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Jarry teaches the method of claim 11 as stated above. Jarry teaches “applying power ultrasound on the liquid aluminum alloy by means of the tubular sonotrode” (paragraph [0012]; the elongated baffle plate is acoustically coupled to ultrasonic vibrations through the liquid aluminum alloy).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Ren et al. teach a pathway with multiple exits: three holes at the end of the second end and six holes located on the circumference 5 mm away from the bottom surface (remarks, page 2). Applicant argues that these six exits are not located at the bottom surface of the stirring tube corresponding to the tip of the tube (remarks, page 2). Applicant further argues that the exit of the pathway is in the second end of the metal rod, not at the end surface of the ultrasonic vibrator (remarks, page 2). This is not found convincing because Ren is not relied upon to teach the ultrasonic vibrator and Kawakami is not relied upon to teach the location of the exits. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that the rotor has a tip greater in diameter than its shaft to strengthen the stirring of the molten metal (remarks, page 2). Applicant argues that Ren et al. teach the use of a conventional rotary straight tube (remarks, page 2). This is not found convincing because the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a tip greater in diameter than its shaft) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that it is nontrivial to combine the references (remarks, page 2). Applicant argues that Jarry et al. did not choose to combine the conventional rotary stirring method described by Ren et al., instead, they proposed using a second sonotrode to increase the flow of the molten metal near the end of the tubular sonotrode (remarks, page 3). Applicant further argues that Ren et al. have no mention of combining ultrasonic stirring with rotary stirring (remarks, page 3). This is not found convincing because Kawakami teaches that “the present invention is not limited to deoxidizing treatment, but aims to promote the refining reaction by applying ultrasonic waves and blowing air bubbles, and that it is a source that can be effectively applied to promote refining reactions such as degassing” (page 6). Thus Kawakami provides the motivation to combine ultrasonic stirring with degassing, such as taught by Ren.
Applicant argues that physically, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to combine the references (remarks, page 3). This is not found convincing because arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Examples of statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration include statements regarding unexpected results, commercial success, solution of a long-felt need, inoperability of the prior art, invention before the date of the reference, and allegations that the author(s) of the prior art derived the disclosed subject matter from the inventor or at least one joint inventor. See MPEP § 716.01(c) II.
Applicant argues that regarding claim 11, applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner that the references can be combined so it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the invention of claim 11 (remarks, page 3). This is not found convincing because arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Examples of statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration include statements regarding unexpected results, commercial success, solution of a long-felt need, inoperability of the prior art, invention before the date of the reference, and allegations that the author(s) of the prior art derived the disclosed subject matter from the inventor or at least one joint inventor. See MPEP § 716.01(c) II.
Applicant argues that Jarry relies on working on the molten metal within the tubular sonotrode (remarks, page 4). Applicant argues that Eckert's method is a conventional rotary degassing method which injects inert gas through a passage in a hollow shaft into the molten metal while using a rotating impeller to break large bubbles into smaller ones (remarks, page 4). Applicant argues that comparing Jarry's method with Eckert's, one finds that these two methods cannot be combined (remarks, page 4). Applicant argues that Jarry requires molten metal inside the tubular sonotrode; Eckert requires none inside the hollow shaft, Jarry requires degassing inside the sonotrode; Eckert requires degassing outside the shaft (remarks, page 4). Applicant argues that applicant's invention described in claim 11 is different from either Jarry's or Eckert's invention, and they cannot be combined (remarks, page 4). This is not found convincing because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the impeller (rotor) of Eckert to the process of Jarry, such as by positioning the impeller next to the sonotrode or appending impeller blades and rotation motor to the sonotrode, because the impeller would provide an additional means of stirring and mixing that would more evenly and uniformly distribute the nitrides formed in Jarry, leading to a more homogenized composite having uniform properties and structure. Both Jarry and Eckert are analogous prior art, and their teachings are applicable to each other.
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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q1: 1/5-1/9/26; Q2: 3/30-4/3/26; Q3: 6/22-6/26/26; Q4: 9/21-9/30/26.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571)272-1401. 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 Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights