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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/8/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 6/8/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-3, 9-10, 25 and 31 is/are currently amended. Claim(s) 16, 18, 21-23, 29, 32-37 and 40-42 has/have been cancelled. Claim(s) 1-15, 17, 19-20, 24-28, 30-31 and 38-39 is/are pending and is/are under examination in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument, filed on 6/8/2026, with respect to 103 rejection has been fully considered but is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented below.
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, 3-15, 17, 19-20, 24-28, 30-31 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 20120000578 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3-14, 24-28, 30-31 and 38, Wang teaches an aluminum alloy having chemical composition overlapping the claimed ranges:
Element
Claim
Wang [abstract]
Mg
>1% to 5 % (claim 1); 1.8-5% (claim 2); >1.8% to 4% (claim 39)
about 0.1 to about 1.0 wt %
Si
1.2-4 % (claim 1); >1.8% to 3% (claim 24)
about 0.5 to about 14 wt %
Co
greater than 0.4 % to 5 % (claim 1); 0.5-1% (claim 25); >0.4% to 3% (claim 38); >0.4% to 3% (claim 39)
0 to about 0.5 wt %
Zn
greater than 0.1 % to 2 % (claim 1); at least 0.12% to 2% (claim 9); 0.2-2% (claim 10)
about 0.1 to about 2.0 wt %
Ni
up to 5 % (claim 5); 1-5 % (claim 6); >2% to 5% (claim 30)
about 0.1 to about 3.0 wt %
Ti
at least 0.05 % (claim 4); up to 0.5% (claim 7); at least 0.05-0.5% (claim 8)
0 to about 0.2 wt %
Zr
up to 0.5% (claim 11); at least 0.05% to 0.5% (claim 12); 0.05-0.5% (claim 26); 0.05-0.5% (claim 27); >0.1% to 0.5% (claim 31)
0 to about 0.2 wt %
Mn
up to 1% (claim 13); at least 0.2 to 1% (claim 14); up to 1% (claim 28);
0 to about 1.0 wt %
Al
balance
balance
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).
Regarding claim 15, since Wang is silent about the specific concentration of the impurities, one of ordinary skill would understand that the impurities in the aluminum alloys of Wang is minimal or near zero percent.
Regarding claim 17, Wang 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, Wang 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.
Claims 1-2, 9-10, 15, 17, 19-20, 24-28, 31, 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroshi et al (US 20190136351 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2, 9-10, 24-28, 31, 38-39, Hiroshi teaches an aluminum alloy having chemical composition overlapping the claimed ranges:
Element
Claim
Hiroshi [abstract]
Mg
1-5 % (claim 1); 1.8-5% (claim 2); >1.8% to 4% (claim 39)
0.2-1.8 %
Si
1.2-4 % (claim 1); >1.8% to 3% (claim 24)
0.2-2.0 %
Co
greater than 0.4 % to 5 % (claim 1); 0.5-1% (claim 25); >0.4% to 3% (claim 38); >0.4% to 3% (claim 39)
0.06 to 2%
Zn
greater than 0.1 % to 2 % (claim 1); at least 0.12% to 2% (claim 9); 0.2-2% (claim 10)
0.06 to 2%
Ni
up to 5 % (claim 5); 1-5 % (claim 6); >2% to 5% (claim 30)
0.06 to 2%
Ti
at least 0.05 % (claim 4); up to 0.5% (claim 7); at least 0.05-0.5% (claim 8)
0
Zr
up to 0.5% (claim 11); at least 0.05% to 0.5% (claim 12); 0.05-0.5% (claim 26); 0.05-0.5% (claim 27); >0.1% to 0.5% (claim 31)
0.06 to 2%
Mn
up to 1% (claim 13); at least 0.2 to 1% (claim 14); up to 1% (claim 28);
0.06 to 2%
Al
balance
balance
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).
Regarding claim 15, Hiroshi teaches total amount of impurities may be 0.15% or less [0041], overlapping the claimed up to 0.1%.
Regarding claim 17, Hiroshi 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, Hiroshi 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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights