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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim to priority of US Provisional 62/437,489 filed December 21, 2016 is acknowledged. The pending application was filed November 28, 2017.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision issued August 19, 2025. The Board Decision was issued in response to Applicant’s claims filed August 30, 2022, in which claims 1-3, 6-9, and 21-31 are under examination.
As stated in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued August 19, 2025, appellant’s argument directed to why one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Kim and Unal 123 was found persuasive (Board Decision p. 6).
However, upon further search and consideration new grounds of rejection are made over Su. Therefore, prosecution is reopened and this is a Non-Final Rejection.
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 1-3, 6-9, 21-31 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 lines 2-3 “a thickness of from 0.006 inch to 0.400 inch” and line 14 “the specified depth is 3,000 micrometers” render the claim indefinite. 3,000 micrometers is 0.12 inches. In instances when the cast 7xxx aluminum alloy product has the claimed range of thickness from 0.006 inch to less than 0.12 inch, it is unclear how the aluminum product can be evaluated for a variation of zinc between the surface and the specified depth of 3,000 micrometers, since the thickness of the product is less than the recited depth of 3,000 micrometers.
Claims 2, 3, 6-9, and 21-24 are rejected as depending from claim 1.
Claim 25 line 2 “a thickness of from 0.006 inch to 0.400 inch” and line 13 “the specified depth is 3,000 micrometers” render the claim indefinite. 3,000 micrometers is 0.12 inches. In instances when the cast 7xxx aluminum alloy product has the claimed range of thickness from 0.006 inch to less than 0.12 inch, it is unclear how the aluminum product can be evaluated for a variation of zinc between the surface and the specified depth of 3,000 micrometers, since the thickness of the product is less than the recited depth of 3,000 micrometers.
Claims 26-31 are rejected as depending from claim 25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 7-9, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Su (Su et al. Abatement of segregation with the electro and static magnetic field during twin-roll casting of 7075 alloy sheet. Materials Science & Engineering A 599 (2014) 279-285.).
Regarding claim 1, Su discloses a (twin-roll) cast 7xxx aluminum product in the form of a 7xxx aluminum alloy strip (sheet) (2. Experimental methods paras. 1-2, Fig. 1), wherein the aluminum alloy strip has a thickness of from 0.006 inch to 0.400 inch (transverse section of 5 x 300 mm; 5 mm thickness is 0.197 inches) (2. Experimental methods para. 2);
wherein the 7xxx aluminum alloy strip comprises a globular (equiaxed) grain structure (3.1. Macro segregation observation para. 3, Fig. 3(c), (d));
wherein the 7xxx aluminum alloy strip consists essentially of aluminum, zinc, magnesium, and one or more of copper, manganese, chromium, zirconium, iron, silicon and titanium (Al-2.65 wt%Mg-5.30 wt%Zn-1.55 wt%Cu-0.42 wt%Zi-0.05 wt%Fe-0.25 wt%Cr-0.20 wt% Mn) (2. Experimental methods para. 1);
wherein the 7xxx aluminum alloy strip includes:
from 4 wt. % to 28 wt. % zinc (5.30 wt% Zn);
from 1 wt.% to 3 wt. % magnesium (2.65 wt% Mg); and
up to 3 wt. % copper (1.55 wt% Cu).
With respect to the specified depth of 3,000 micrometers, in Su, the sheet thickness is 5 mm (transverse section of 5 x 300 mm; 5 mm thickness is 0.197 inches) (2. Experimental methods para. 2), such that the “center” is 2.5 mm (2,500 micrometers). Therefore, the claimed depth is 500 micrometers past the center of Su, such that Su’s disclosure regarding the “center” reads on the claimed depth.
With respect to a variation of a weight percent of the zinc being 15% or less between a surface and a specified depth from the surface of the 7xxx aluminum alloy strip;
wherein the zinc variation is calculated as:
{(the maximum weight percent of zinc across the specified depth minus (-) the minimum weight percent of zinc across the specified depth) divided by (/) (the average mean weight percent of the zinc across the specified depth)}*100, the following disclosed by Su read on this claim limitation.
Su discloses that “oscillating fields block the growth of the segregation…and…that under appropriate TRC condition the central segregation can complete disappear”, where precipitates are replaced by equiaxed grains and the resulting microstructure has uniformity (3.1. Macro segregation observation para. 3). Su also discloses that application of the electro- and static magnetic fields contributes to the increase in the solute solid solubility and a steep decrease of the undercooling degree from the edges to the center of the melt (3.2. Micro segregation analysis para. 5). Further, Su discloses that introducing the alternating oscillating electromagnetic field contributes to “complete disappearance of segregation” (4. Conclusions para. 1).
In the third casting Su applies a half-wave current and static magnetic field (2. Experimental methods para. 3). With respect to the micro segregation analysis, Su discloses at the surface a maximum average Zn content of 14.5 wt% in the grain boundaries and at the center a maximum average Zn content of 13 wt% in the grain boundaries (3.2. Micro segregation analysis paras. 1-3). This has a variation of a weight percent of zinc of 10% ((14.5-13/14.5)*100), which is within the scope of the claimed 15% or less. Su also discloses at the surface a minimum average Zn content of 3.5 wt% in the grain boundaries and at the center a minimum average Zn content of 3.2 wt% in the grain boundaries (3.2. Micro segregation analysis paras. 1-3). This results in a variation of a weight percent of zinc of 8.6% ((3.5-3.2/3.5)*100), which is also within the scope of the claimed 15% or less.
In the fourth casting Su applies a combination of three-phase AC and static magnetic field (2. Experimental methods para. 3). Su Fig. 5 discloses a Zn segregation for AC magnetic field of 4.1 at both the surface and center of the sheet. Therefore, as discussed above, in light of Su’s disclosure of a uniform microstructure without segregation, since Zn has the same amount of segregation in both the surface and center, the Zn variation in the surface and center of the AC magnetic field sheet tends to 0%, which is within the scope of the claim 15% or less.
For the above cited reasons the disclosure of Su anticipates claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Su discloses the aluminum alloy strip comprises 6 wt. % to 28 wt. % zinc (5.30 wt%) (2. Experimental methods para. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Su discloses the aluminum alloy strip comprises 5 wt. % to 10 wt. % zinc (5.30 wt%) (2. Experimental methods para. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Su discloses the aluminum alloy strip comprises 4 wt. % to 8 wt. % zinc (5.30 wt%) (2. Experimental methods para. 1).
Regarding claim 9, with respect to the variation of the zinc weight percent being 12% or less between the surface and the specified depth from the surface of the aluminum alloy strip, the following disclosures of Su read on this claim limitation.
Su discloses that “oscillating fields block the growth of the segregation…and…that under appropriate TRC condition the central segregation can complete disappear”, where precipitates are replaced by equiaxed grains and the resulting microstructure has uniformity (3.1. Macro segregation observation para. 3). Su also discloses that application of the electro- and static magnetic fields contributes to the increase in the solute solid solubility and a steep decrease of the undercooling degree from the edges to the center of the melt (3.2. Micro segregation analysis para. 5). Further, Su discloses that introducing the alternating oscillating electromagnetic field contributes to “complete disappearance of segregation” (4. Conclusions para. 1).
In the third casting Su applies a half-wave current and static magnetic field (2. Experimental methods para. 3). With respect to the micro segregation analysis, Su discloses at the surface a maximum average Zn content of 14.5 wt% in the grain boundaries and at the center a maximum average Zn content of 13 wt% in the grain boundaries (3.2. Micro segregation analysis paras. 1-3). This has a variation of a weight percent of zinc of 10% ((14.5-13/14.5)*100), which is within the scope of the claimed 12% or less. Su also discloses at the surface a minimum average Zn content of 3.5 wt% in the grain boundaries and at the center a minimum average Zn content of 3.2 wt% in the grain boundaries (3.2. Micro segregation analysis paras. 1-3). This results in a variation of a weight percent of zinc of 8.6% ((3.5-3.2/3.5)*100), which is within the scope of the claimed 12% or less.
In the fourth casting Su applies a combination of three-phase AC and static magnetic field (2. Experimental methods para. 3). Su Fig. 5 discloses a Zn segregation for AC magnetic field of 4.1 at both the surface and center of the sheet. Therefore, as discussed above, in light of Su’s disclosure of a uniform microstructure without segregation, since Zn has the same amount of segregation in both the surface and center, the Zn variation in the surface and center of the AC magnetic field sheet tends to 0%, which is within the scope of the claim 12% or less.
Regarding claim 21, with respect to the variation of the zinc weight percent being 10% or less between the surface and the specified depth from the surface of the aluminum alloy strip, the following disclosures of Su read on this claim limitation.
Su discloses that “oscillating fields block the growth of the segregation…and…that under appropriate TRC condition the central segregation can complete disappear”, where precipitates are replaced by equiaxed grains and the resulting microstructure has uniformity (3.1. Macro segregation observation para. 3). Su also discloses that application of the electro- and static magnetic fields contributes to the increase in the solute solid solubility and a steep decrease of the undercooling degree from the edges to the center of the melt (3.2. Micro segregation analysis para. 5). Further, Su discloses that introducing the alternating oscillating electromagnetic field contributes to “complete disappearance of segregation” (4. Conclusions para. 1).
During the third casting Su applies a half-wave current and static magnetic field (2. Experimental methods para. 3). With respect to the micro segregation analysis, Su discloses at the surface a maximum average Zn content of 14.5 wt% in the grain boundaries and at the center a maximum average Zn content of 13 wt% in the grain boundaries (3.2. Micro segregation analysis paras. 1-3). This has a variation of a weight percent of zinc of 10% ((14.5-13/14.5)*100), which is within the scope of the claimed 10% or less. Su also discloses at the surface a minimum average Zn content of 3.5 wt% in the grain boundaries and at the center a minimum average Zn content of 3.2 wt% in the grain boundaries (3.2. Micro segregation analysis paras. 1-3). This results in a variation of a weight percent of zinc of 8.6% ((3.5-3.2/3.5)*100), which is within the scope of the claimed 10% or less.
Further, during the fourth casting Su applies a combination of three-phase AC and static magnetic field (2. Experimental methods para. 3). Su Fig. 5 discloses a Zn segregation for AC magnetic field of 4.1 at both the surface and center of the sheet. Therefore, as discussed above, in light of Su’s disclosure of a uniform microstructure without segregation, since Zn has the same amount of segregation in both the surface and center, the Zn variation in the surface and center of the AC magnetic field sheet tends to 0%, which is within the scope of the claimed 10% or less.
Regarding claim 22, with respect to the variation of the zinc weight percent being 8% or less between the surface and the specified depth from the surface of the aluminum alloy strip, the following disclosures of Su read on this claim limitation.
Su discloses that “oscillating fields block the growth of the segregation…and…that under appropriate TRC condition the central segregation can complete disappear”, where precipitates are replaced by equiaxed grains and the resulting microstructure has uniformity (3.1. Macro segregation observation para. 3). Su also discloses that application of the electro- and static magnetic fields contributes to the increase in the solute solid solubility and a steep decrease of the undercooling degree from the edges to the center of the melt (3.2. Micro segregation analysis para. 5). Further, Su discloses that introducing the alternating oscillating electromagnetic field contributes to “complete disappearance of segregation” (4. Conclusions para. 1).
During the fourth casting Su applies a combination of three-phase AC and static magnetic field (2. Experimental methods para. 3). Su Fig. 5 discloses a Zn segregation for AC magnetic field of 4.1 at both the surface and center of the sheet. Therefore, as discussed above, in light of Su’s disclosure of a uniform microstructure without segregation, since Zn has the same amount of segregation in both the surface and center, the Zn variation in the surface and center of the AC magnetic field sheet tends to 0%, which is within the scope of the claimed 8% or less.
Regarding claim 23, Su discloses the 7xxx aluminum alloy strip is substantially free of micro-segregation (element content tends towards equilibrium and stability and block segregation with complete disappearance of segregation) (3.1. Macro segregation observation para. 3; 3.2. Micro segregation analysis para. 5; 4. Conclusions para. 1).
Regarding claim 24, Su discloses the 7xxx aluminum alloy strip is substantially free of dendrites (dendrite arms act as seeds for equiaxed grains and can completely disappear) (3.1. Macro segregation observation para. 3) (dendrites give rise to equiaxed grains) (3.2. Micro segregation analysis para. 4).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su (Su et al. Abatement of segregation with the electro and static magnetic field during twin-roll casting of 7075 alloy sheet. Materials Science & Engineering A 599 (2014) 279-285.) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Teal Sheets (Teal Sheets. International Alloy Designations and Chemical Composition Limits for Wrought Aluminum and Wrought Aluminum Alloys. The Aluminum Association. Revised: January 2015.).
Regarding claim 6, the example aluminum alloy strip composition of Su is silent to comprising 6 wt. % to 12 wt. % zinc.
Su discloses a 7075 aluminum alloy (abstract, 2. Experimental methods para. 1).
Teal Sheets discloses a 7075 aluminum alloy has 5.1 to 6.1 wt% Zn (p. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the 7075 aluminum alloy strip of Su to include 5.1 to 6.1 wt% Zn because this is the standard amount of Zn in a 7075 aluminum alloy (Teal Sheets p. 12). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 25, 27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su (Su et al. Abatement of segregation with the electro and static magnetic field during twin-roll casting of 7075 alloy sheet. Materials Science & Engineering A 599 (2014) 279-285.) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Teal Sheets (Teal Sheets. International Alloy Designations and Chemical Composition Limits for Wrought Aluminum and Wrought Aluminum Alloys. The Aluminum Association. Revised: January 2015.).
Regarding claim 25, Su discloses a (twin-roll) cast (TRC) 7xxx aluminum alloy product in the form of a 7xxx aluminum alloy strip (sheet) (2. Experimental methods paras. 1-2, Fig. 1), wherein the 7xxx aluminum alloy strip has a thickness of from 0.006 inch to 0.400 inch (transverse section of 5 x 300 mm; 5 mm thickness is 0.197 inches) (2. Experimental methods para. 2);
wherein the 7xxx aluminum alloy strip comprises a globular (equiaxed) grain structure (3.1. Macro segregation observation para. 3, Fig. 3(c), (d)) and is substantially free of both micro-segregation and dendrites (block segregation with complete disappearance of segregation) (3.1. Macro segregation observation para. 3; 3.2. Micro segregation analysis para. 5; 4. Conclusions para. 1);
wherein the 7xxx aluminum alloy strip consists essentially of aluminum, zinc, magnesium, copper, and one or more of manganese, chromium, zirconium, iron, silicon and titanium (Al-2.65 wt%Mg-5.30 wt%Zn-1.55 wt%Cu-0.42 wt%Zi-0.05 wt%Fe-0.25 wt%cr-0.20 wt% Mn) (2. Experimental methods para. 1);
wherein the 7xxx aluminum alloy strip includes:
from 1 wt. % to 3 wt. % magnesium (2.65 wt% Mg);
from 1 wt. % to 3 wt. % copper (1.55 wt% Cu).
With respect to the specified depth of 3,000 micrometers, in Su, the sheet thickness is 5 mm (transverse section of 5 x 300 mm; 5 mm thickness is 0.197 inches) (2. Experimental methods para. 2), such that the “center” is 2.5 mm (2,500 micrometers). Therefore, the claimed depth is 500 micrometers past the center of Su, such that Su’s disclosure regarding the “center” reads on the claimed depth.
The example aluminum alloy strip composition of Su is silent to comprising 6 wt. % to 28 wt. % zinc.
Su discloses a 7075 aluminum alloy (abstract, 2. Experimental methods para. 1).
Teal Sheets discloses a 7075 aluminum alloy has 5.1 to 6.1 wt% Zn (p. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the 7075 aluminum alloy strip of Su to include 5.1 to 6.1 wt% Zn because this is the standard amount of Zn in a 7075 aluminum alloy (Teal Sheets p. 12). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
With respect to a variation of a weight percent of the zinc being 12% or less between a surface and a specified depth from the surface of the 7xxx aluminum alloy strip;
wherein the zinc variation is calculated as:
{(the maximum weight percent of zinc across the specified depth minus (-) the minimum weight percent of zinc across the specified depth) divided by (/) (the average mean weight percent of the zinc across the specified depth)}*100, the following disclosures of Su read on this claim limitation.
Su discloses that “oscillating fields block the growth of the segregation…and…that under appropriate TRC condition the central segregation can complete disappear”, where precipitates are replaced by equiaxed grains and the resulting microstructure has uniformity (3.1. Macro segregation observation para. 3). Su also discloses that application of the electro- and static magnetic fields contributes to the increase in the solute solid solubility and a steep decrease of the undercooling degree from the edges to the center of the melt (3.2. Micro segregation analysis para. 5). Further, Su discloses that introducing the alternating oscillating electromagnetic field contributes to “complete disappearance of segregation” (4. Conclusions para. 1).
During the third casting Su applies a half-wave current and static magnetic field (2. Experimental methods para. 3). With respect to the micro segregation analysis, Su discloses at the surface a maximum average Zn content of 14.5 wt% in the grain boundaries and at the center a maximum average Zn content of 13 wt% in the grain boundaries (3.2. Micro segregation analysis paras. 1-3). This has a variation of a weight percent of zinc of 10% ((14.5-13/14.5)*100), which is within the scope of the claimed 12% or less. Su also discloses at the surface a minimum average Zn content of 3.5 wt% in the grain boundaries and at the center a minimum average Zn content of 3.2 wt% in the grain boundaries (3.2. Micro segregation analysis paras. 1-3). This results in a variation of a weight percent of zinc of 8.6% ((3.5-3.2/3.5)*100), which is within the scope of the claimed 12% or less.
Further, during the fourth casting Su applies a combination of three-phase AC and static magnetic field (2. Experimental methods para. 3). Su Fig. 5 discloses a Zn segregation for AC magnetic field of 4.1 at both the surface and center of the sheet. Therefore, as discussed above, in light of Su’s disclosure of a uniform microstructure without segregation, since Zn has the same amount of segregation in both the surface and center, the Zn variation in the surface and center of the AC magnetic field sheet tends to 0%, which is within the scope of the claim 12% or less.
Regarding claim 26, Su in view of Teal Sheets discloses the 7xxx aluminum alloy strip comprises from 6 to 12 wt. % Zn (5.1 to 6.1 wt% Zn) (7075 aluminum alloy, Su abstract, 2. Experimental methods para. 1; Teal Sheets p. 12). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 29, with respect to the variation of the zinc weight percent being 10% or less between the surface and the specified depth from the surface of the aluminum alloy strip, the following disclosures of Su read on this claim limitation.
Su discloses that “oscillating fields block the growth of the segregation…and…that under appropriate TRC condition the central segregation can complete disappear”, where precipitates are replaced by equiaxed grains and the resulting microstructure has uniformity (3.1. Macro segregation observation para. 3). Su also discloses that application of the electro- and static magnetic fields contributes to the increase in the solute solid solubility and a steep decrease of the undercooling degree from the edges to the center of the melt (3.2. Micro segregation analysis para. 5). Further, Su discloses that introducing the alternating oscillating electromagnetic field contributes to “complete disappearance of segregation” (4. Conclusions para. 1).
During the third casting Su applies a half-wave current and static magnetic field (2. Experimental methods para. 3). With respect to the micro segregation analysis, Su discloses at the surface a maximum average Zn content of 14.5 wt% in the grain boundaries and at the center a maximum average Zn content of 13 wt% in the grain boundaries (3.2. Micro segregation analysis paras. 1-3). This has a variation of a weight percent of zinc of 10% ((14.5-13/14.5)*100), which is within the scope of the claimed 10% or less. Su also discloses at the surface a minimum average Zn content of 3.5 wt% in the grain boundaries and at the center a minimum average Zn content of 3.2 wt% in the grain boundaries (3.2. Micro segregation analysis paras. 1-3). This results in a variation of a weight percent of zinc of 8.6% ((3.5-3.2/3.5)*100), which is within the scope of the claimed 10% or less.
Further, during the fourth casting Su applies a combination of three-phase AC and static magnetic field (2. Experimental methods para. 3). Su Fig. 5 discloses a Zn segregation for AC magnetic field of 4.1 at both the surface and center of the sheet. Therefore, as discussed above, in light of Su’s disclosure of a uniform microstructure without segregation, since Zn has the same amount of segregation in both the surface and center, the Zn variation in the surface and center of the AC magnetic field sheet tends to 0%, which is within the scope of the claim 10% or less.
Related Art
Hosch (Hosch et al. The effect of planar solidification on mechanical properties of Al-Zn-Mg-Cu-Zr alloy plate. International Conference on Aluminum Alloys, 13th, Pittsburgh, PA, US. June 3-7, 2012 (2012), 1377-1382.)
Hosch discloses an AL-ZN-Mg-Cu-Zr aluminum alloy 7050 composition with a thickness of 25 mm (about 1 inch) (Materials) with little composition variation through-thickness in the ingot cast by planar solidification (Composition, Fig. 3), where the lack of macrosegregation reduces the property variable (Properties, Figs. 4-6), such that significant macrosegregation pattern is avoided (Conclusions).
Nadella (Nadella et al. Macrosegregation in direct-chill casting of aluminum alloys. Progress in Materials Science 53 (2008) 421-480.)
Nadella discloses a globular grains in a grain refine DC cast 7075 billet (2.4. Structure patterns in DC cast billets, Fig. 8(b)) and macrosegregation of Zn occurs during solidification and partitioning of solute elements between liquid and solid phases (3. Macrosegregation in direct-chill casting of aluminum alloys).
Nadella STN (Nadella et al. Effect of grain refining on defect formation in DC cast Al-Zn-Mg-Cu alloy billet. Light Metals. (Warrendale, PA, US) (2007) 727-732. STN Abstract.)
Nadella STN discloses casting of an Al-Zn-Mg-Cu alloy billet with an overlapping composition in which the concentration profile of Zn was studied, where casting speed raises the segregation levels.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 27, 28, 30, and 31 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As stated in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued August 19, 2025, appellant’s argument directed to why one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Kim and Unal 123 was found persuasive (Board Decision p. 6).
Further, Su, the prior art in the above pending rejection, discloses a 7075 aluminum alloy with 5.1 to 6.1 wt% Zn (Tael Sheets), such that a Zn content of 8 to 28 wt% (claims 3 and 27) and a Zn content of 10 to 28 wt% (claim 28) are not rendered obvious. Claims 30 and 31 depend from claims 27 and 28, respectively.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANI HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-12pm.
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.
/STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/ALEXA D NECKEL/Director, Art Unit 1700
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735