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
The amendment filed on 10/14/2025 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-2, 21-22, 24 and 35 is/are currently amended. Claim(s) 16 and 18 has/have been cancelled. Claims 36-42 are newly added. Claim(s) 1-15, 17, and 19-42 is/are pending and is/are under examination in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/14/2025, with respect to 103 rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that Blumenau's disclosed range of cobalt fails to overlap or lie inside Applicant's claimed range of cobalt.
In response, the office action clear states that “Blumenau teaches aluminum alloy having chemical composition overlapping or merely close to the claimed ranges” (emphasis underlined); and “[A] prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05.I)”. The examiner asserted that the prior art’s cobalt amount of 0.4% is merely close to the claimed lower limit of “greater than 0.4%”, so that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range, that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range (MPEP2144.05.III). Applicant failed to do so.
Applicant argued that a claimed narrower species encompassed by a disclosed broad genus does not by itself render that compound obvious, and cited “if the reference's disclosed range is so broad as to encompass a very large number of possible distinct compositions, this might present a situation analogous to the obviousness of a species when the prior art broadly discloses a genus. Id. See also In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 29 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992)".
In response, A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" (MPEP 2144.05.I). In the current case, the claimed range of Mg (>1 to 5%) makes up 59% of Blumenau’s Mg range (0.2-7%), meaning that more than 1 in 2 values within Blumenau’s range read on the claims. The claimed range of Si (1.2 to 4%) makes up over 19% of Blumenau’s Si range (0.1-15%), meaning that more than 1 in 6 values within Blumenau’s range read on the claims.
However, a genus encompassing 20 species is sufficient to anticipate a single claimed species. See In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 133 USPQ 275 (CCPA 1962); MPEP 2131.02(III). If 1 out of 20 is sufficient to establish anticipation, it seems reasonable to conclude that 1 out of 2 and 1 out of 6 are sufficient to support a prima facie finding of obviousness.
Applicant argued that In re Petering recites/says nothing about a situation where no overlap in ranges exists or of overlapping of ranges of values of one or more elements and thus Blumenau and Blumenau's genus do not disclose the species of Applicant's claim 1. Thus, In re Petering is not considered relevant to Applicant's claim 1 in view of the reference of Blumenau and cannot establish a prima facie case of obviousness of Applicant's claim 1.
In response, MPEP2131.02 states “In In re Petering, the prior art disclosed a generic chemical formula "wherein X, Y, Z, P, and R'- represent either hydrogen or alkyl radicals, R a side chain containing an OH group." The court held that this formula, without more, could not anticipate a claim to 7-methyl-9-[d, l'-ribityl]-isoalloxazine because the generic formula encompassed a vast number and perhaps even an infinite number of compounds. However, the reference also disclosed preferred substituents for X, Y, Z, P, R, and R' as follows: where X, P, and R' are hydrogen, where Y and Z may be hydrogen or methyl, and where R is one of eight specific isoalloxazines. The court determined that this more limited generic class consisted of about 20 compounds. The limited number of compounds covered by the preferred formula in combination with the fact that the number of substituents was low at each site, the ring positions were limited, and there was a large unchanging structural nucleus, resulted in a finding that the reference sufficiently described "each of the various permutations here involved as fully as if he had drawn each structural formula or had written each name." The claimed compound was 1 of these 20 compounds. Therefore, the reference "described" the claimed compound and the reference anticipated the claims.” Clearly In re Petering is relevant to overlapping ranges situations.
As for a situation where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close, the office action stated that Blumenau teaches a maximum value of 0.4% of Co, which is sufficiently close to the claimed greater than 0.4% of Co that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect to obtain the same properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05.I). Take In re Aller as a comparison: a temperature of 40-80°C and acid concentration of 25-70% was rejected over a reference teaching a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10% (see MPEP 2144.05.I). The acid concentration differed from the claimed lower limit by 60%. In the current case, Blumenau discloses 0.4 % of Co. This value differs from the claimed “greater than 0.4%” by nearly 0%, which is significantly lower than the In re Aller case. Therefore, the examiner reasonably considers the prior art 0.4% of Co sufficiently close to the claimed greater than 0.4% that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect to obtain the same properties, absent concrete evidence to the contrary.
Applicant argued that Blumenau does not disclose experimenting at the lower end of silicon's range and Blumenau is silent on what (lower end) value(s) or range(s) within the disclosed broad range of Si has/have an associated property within the coating and thus the Office Action has not established a prima facie case of obviousness of Applicant's claim 1. See MPEP 2112.IV., which states "In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1534, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1957 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (reversed rejection because inherency was based on what would result due to optimization of conditions, not what was necessarily present in the prior art)").
In response, Blumenau teaches that including higher amounts of Si can lead to precipitation of crystalline silicon, which adversely affects anticorrosion properties [0020]. One of ordinary skill in the art would likely seek to minimize this effect by beginning experimentation at the lower end of Blumenau’s range and increasing until the desired degree of anticorrosion properties is achieved (in other words, optimize Si content to achieve desired level of anticorrosion). Blumenau’s teaching could motivate one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to experiment at the lower end of Blumenau’s range.
Applicant argued that The Office Action's reliance upon In re Aller and MPEP 2144.05.1 for Blumenau's cobalt non-overlapping range of Applicant's claimed cobalt range providing a prima facie case of obviousness is considered to be in error because the issue of teaching away. Blumenau discloses in paragraphs [0018] and [0024] and claim 20 (also originally filed claim 2) "Co max. 0.4 wt %"; "Up to 0.4 wt% of cobalt is added optionally" and "at most 0.4% by weight of Co". Thus, Blumenau does discloses the amount of cobalt provided in the disclosed coating be at a maximum of 0.4%. Therefore, because Blumenau recite "Co max. 0.4 wt %"; "Up to 0.4 wt% of cobalt is added optionally" and "at most 0.4% by weight of Co", which are contrary to Applicant's claimed feature of cobalt greater than 0.4 wt %, when considering Blumenau as a whole, Blumenau teaches one of ordinary skill in the art not to have cobalt more than 0.4% within the coating and thus, Blumenau teaches away from Applicant's claimed feature cobalt (Co) greater than 0.4% by weight of the composition to 5% by weight of the composition.
In response, Blumenau teaches that “Cobalt (Co) as an alloying element of the anticorrosion coating leads to an increase in the hot strength of the coating. Cobalt inhibits grain growth at higher temperatures. In particular, cobalt improves the hardness and ductility of the anticorrosion coating of the invention. Up to 0.4 wt % of cobalt is added optionally to the aluminum alloy of the coating bath and/or the anticorrosion coating” [0024]. Thus, Blumenau does not teach any adverse effect of adding more than 0.4% of cobalt, but only teaches the benefit of adding Co. This is not a teaching away from higher than 0.4% of Co. On the contrary, a person of ordinary skill in the art who seeks improved hardness and ductility is likely to experiment higher than 0.4% of Co and select amounts within the claimed range.
Applicant cites the same arguments above for claims 21 and 22. The examiner’s response remains the same.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-15, 17, and 19-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either Blumenau et al (US20170198152 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Blumenau teaches aluminum alloy having chemical composition overlapping or merely close to the claimed ranges:
Element
Claim 1
Blumenau [0008-0018]
Mg
>1 to 5
0.2-7
Si
1.2-4
0.1-15
Co
>0.4 to 5
max. 0.4
Al
balance
balance
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). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Regarding claim 2, Blumenau teaches aluminum alloy having chemical composition overlapping the claimed ranges:
Element
Claim 2
Blumenau [0008-0018]
Mg
1.8-5
0.2-7
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 3, Blumenau [0008-0018] teaches the composition comprises Ni, Ti, Zn, Zr, and Mn.
Regarding claim 4, Blumenau teaches aluminum alloy having chemical composition overlapping the claimed ranges:
Element
Claim 4
Blumenau [0008-0018]
Ti
at least 0.05
0.05-0.4
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 5, Blumenau teaches aluminum alloy having chemical composition overlapping the claimed ranges:
Element
Claim 5
Blumenau [0008-0018]
Ni
up to 5
0.05-2
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 6, Blumenau teaches aluminum alloy having chemical composition overlapping the claimed ranges:
Element
Claim 6
Blumenau [0008-0018]
Ni
1 to 5
0.05-2
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 7, Blumenau teaches aluminum alloy having chemical composition overlapping the claimed ranges:
Element
Claim 7
Blumenau [0008-0018]
Ti
up to 0.5
0.05-2
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 8, Blumenau teach aluminum alloy having chemical composition overlapping the claimed ranges:
Element
Claim 8
Blumenau [0008-0018]
Ti
0.05 to 0.5
0.05-2
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 9, Blumenau teaches aluminum alloy having chemical composition overlapping the claimed ranges:
Element
Claim 9
Blumenau [0008-0018]
Zn
up to 2
max. 0.1
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 10, Blumenau teach aluminum alloy having chemical composition overlapping the claimed ranges:
Element
Claim 10
Blumenau [0008-0018]
Zn
0.1 to 2
max. 0.1
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 11, Blumenau teaches aluminum alloy having chemical composition overlapping the claimed ranges:
Element
Claim 11
Blumenau [0008-0018]
Zr
up to 0.5
0.05-0.4
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 12, Blumenau teaches aluminum alloy having chemical composition overlapping the claimed ranges:
Element
Claim 12
Blumenau [0008-0018]
Zr
0.05 to 0.5
0.05-0.4
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 13, Blumenau teach aluminum alloy having chemical composition overlapping the claimed ranges:
Element
Claim 13
Blumenau [0008-0018]
Mn
up to 1
0.2-2
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 14, Blumenau teach aluminum alloy having chemical composition overlapping the claimed ranges:
Element
Claim 14
Blumenau [0008-0018]
Mn
0.2 to 1
0.2-2
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 15, since Blumenau is silent about the specific concentration of the impurities, one of ordinary skill would understand that the impurities in the aluminum alloys of Blumenau is minimal or near zero percent, overlapping the claimed up to 0.1%. 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 17, Blumenau does not teach the claimed as built yield strength of 360 megapascals (MPa), respectively. However, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01. The prior art teaches substantially identical composition. The specification does not disclose if the claimed feature of as printed yield strength is affected by the manufacturing process. Therefore, the claimed as built yield strength of about 340 and 360 megapascals are expected to be present, absent concrete evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claims 19-20, Blumenau does not teach the claimed elongation of about 6%, and about 8%, respectively. However, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01. The prior art teaches substantially identical composition. The specification does not disclose if the claimed feature of as printed yield strength is affected by the manufacturing process. Therefore, the claimed elongation of about 3%, about 6%, and about 8% are expected to be present, absent concrete evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 21, Blumenau teaches aluminum alloy having chemical composition overlapping or merely close to the claimed ranges:
Element
Claim 21
Blumenau [0008-0018]
Mg
>1 to 5
0.2-7
Si
1.2-4
0.1-15
Co
>0.4 to 5
max. 0.4
Ti
0.05-0.3
0.05-2
Zr
0.1-0.5
0.05-0.4
Mn
0.3-0.8
0.2-2
Al
balance
balance
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). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Regarding claim 22, Blumenau teaches aluminum alloy having chemical composition overlapping or merely close to the claimed ranges:
Element
Claim 22
Blumenau [0008-0018]
Mg
>1 to 5
0.2-7
Si
1.2-4
0.1-15
Co
0.2-5
max. 0.4
Ni
>2 to 5
0.05-2
Ti
0.05-0.3
0.05-2
Zr
0.1-0.5
0.05-0.4
Mn
0.3-0.8
0.2-2
Al
balance
balance
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). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Regarding claim 23, since Blumenau is silent about the specific concentration of the impurities, one of ordinary skill would understand that the impurities in the aluminum alloys of Blumenau is minimal or near zero percent, overlapping the claimed up to 0.1%. 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 24, Blumenau teaches aluminum alloy having chemical composition overlapping the claimed ranges:
Element
Claim 24
Blumenau [0008-0018]
Si
>1.8 to 3
0.1-15
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 25, Blumenau teaches aluminum alloy having chemical composition overlapping or merely close to the claimed ranges:
Element
Claim 25
Blumenau [0008-0018]
Co
0.5-1
max. 0.4
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). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Regarding claim 26, Blumenau teaches aluminum alloy having chemical composition overlapping the claimed ranges:
Element
Claim 26
Blumenau [0008-0018]
Zr
At least 0.05
0.05-0.4
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 27, Blumenau teaches aluminum alloy having chemical composition overlapping the claimed ranges:
Element
Claim 27
Blumenau [0008-0018]
Zr
up to 0.5
0.05-0.4
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 28, Blumenau teaches aluminum alloy having chemical composition overlapping the claimed ranges:
Element
Claim 28
Blumenau [0008-0018]
Mn
up to 1
0.2-2
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, Blumenau’s sum of Co, Ti, Zr and Mn is in the range of (0+0.05+0.05+0.2)=0.3% to (0.4+0.4+0.4+2)=3.2%, overlapping the claimed greater than 2%. 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 30, Blumenau teaches 0.05-2% of Ni as stated above, which is sufficiently close to the claimed lower limit of greater than 2% of Ni that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect to obtain the same properties. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select amounts within the claimed range based on the close proximity to the prior art range and the reasonable expectation of obtaining a product having the same properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Regarding claim 31, Blumenau teaches 0.1% of Zn as stated above, which is sufficiently close to the claimed lower limit of greater than 0.1% of Zn that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect to obtain the same properties. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select amounts within the claimed range based on the close proximity to the prior art range and the reasonable expectation of obtaining a product having the same properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Regarding claim 32, Blumenau teaches 0.05-2% of Ni as stated above, which is sufficiently close to the claimed lower limit of greater than 2% of Ni that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect to obtain the same properties. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select amounts within the claimed range based on the close proximity to the prior art range and the reasonable expectation of obtaining a product having the same properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Regarding claim 33, Blumenau teaches 0.1% of Zn as stated above, which is sufficiently close to the claimed lower limit of greater than 0.1% of Zn that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect to obtain the same properties. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select amounts within the claimed range based on the close proximity to the prior art range and the reasonable expectation of obtaining a product having the same properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Regarding claim 34, Blumenau teaches 0.1% of Zn as stated above, which is sufficiently close to the claimed lower limit of greater than 0.1% of Zn that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect to obtain the same properties. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select amounts within the claimed range based on the close proximity to the prior art range and the reasonable expectation of obtaining a product having the same properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Regarding claim 35, Blumenau teaches 0.4% of Co as stated above, which is sufficiently close to the claimed lower limit of greater than 0.4% of Co that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect to obtain the same properties. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select amounts within the claimed range based on the close proximity to the prior art range and the reasonable expectation of obtaining a product having the same properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Regarding claim 36, Blumenau teaches aluminum alloy having chemical composition overlapping or merely close to the claimed ranges:
Element
Claim 36
Blumenau [0008-0018]
Mg
>1.8 to 5
0.2-7
Si
1.2-4
0.1-15
Co
0.2-5
max. 0.4
Ni
>2 to 5
0.05-2
Ti
0.05-0.3
0.05-2
Zr
0.1-0.5
0.05-0.4
Mn
0.3-0.8
0.2-2
Al
balance
balance
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). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Regarding claim 37, Blumenau teaches aluminum alloy having chemical composition overlapping or merely close to the claimed ranges:
Element
Claim 37
Blumenau [0008-0018]
Mg
>1.8 to 5
0.2-7
Si
>1.8 to 4
0.1-15
Co
>0.4 to 3
max. 0.4
Ni
>2 to 5
0.05-2
Ti
0.05-0.3
0.05-2
Zr
0.1-0.5
0.05-0.4
Mn
0.3-0.8
0.2-2
Al
balance
balance
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). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Regarding claim 38, Blumenau teaches aluminum alloy having chemical composition overlapping or merely close to the claimed ranges:
Element
Claim 38
Blumenau [0008-0018]
Mg
>1 to 5
0.2-7
Si
1.2-4
0.1-15
Co
>0.4 to 3
max. 0.4
Al
balance
balance
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). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Regarding claim 39, Blumenau teaches aluminum alloy having chemical composition overlapping or merely close to the claimed ranges:
Element
Claim 39
Blumenau [0008-0018]
Mg
>1.8 to 5
0.2-7
Si
>1.8 to 4
0.1-15
Co
>0.4 to 3
max. 0.4
Al
balance
balance
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). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Regarding claim 40, Blumenau teaches aluminum alloy having chemical composition overlapping or merely close to the claimed ranges:
Element
Claim 40
Blumenau [0008-0018]
Mg
>1 to 5
0.2-7
Si
1.2-4
0.1-15
Co
>0.4 to 3
max. 0.4
Ti
0.05-0.3
0.05-2
Zr
0.1-0.5
0.05-0.4
Mn
0.3-0.8
0.2-2
Al
balance
balance
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). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Regarding claim 41, Blumenau teaches aluminum alloy having chemical composition overlapping or merely close to the claimed ranges:
Element
Claim 41
Blumenau [0008-0018]
Mg
>1.8 to 5
0.2-7
Si
1.2-4
0.1-15
Co
>0.4 to 5
max. 0.4
Ti
0.05-0.3
0.05-2
Zr
0.1-0.5
0.05-0.4
Mn
0.3-0.8
0.2-2
Al
balance
balance
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). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Regarding claim 42, Blumenau teaches aluminum alloy having chemical composition overlapping or merely close to the claimed ranges:
Element
Claim 42
Blumenau [0008-0018]
Mg
>1.8 to 5
0.2-7
Si
>1.8 to 4
0.1-15
Co
>0.4 to 3
max. 0.4
Ti
0.05-0.3
0.05-2
Zr
0.1-0.5
0.05-0.4
Mn
0.3-0.8
0.2-2
Al
balance
balance
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). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANGTIAN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-1621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Robert Jones can be reached on (571) 270-7733. 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.
/JIANGTIAN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762