DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 15, 2026 has been entered.
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 application, US App No. 16/708,117, is a continuation of PCT US2018/038838 filed June 21, 2018, which claims priority to US Provisional Applications 62/571,401 filed October 12, 2017 and 62/523,128 filed June 21, 2017.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks and Claims filed April 15, 2026. In the April 15, 2026 Claims, the status identifier for claim 10 recites “Currently Amended”, however there are no amendments in claim 10. After each claim number, the (correct) status identifier of the claim must be presented. MPEP 714(II)(C).
Claims Filing Date
April 15, 2026
New
27, 28
Cancelled
1-9
Under Examination
10-28
Response to Remarks filed April 15, 2026
Benedictus (US 2005/0189044)
Applicant's arguments filed April 15, 2026 with respect to Benedictus have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues Benedictus discloses nothing about EAC resistance nor the effect of Mn on corrosion resistance (para. spanning pp. 9-10) and Benedictus provides eight examples with only two, Examples 7 and 8, having a thickness within the range of 3.0 to 12 inches but not the claimed Mn (Alloy C), Mn and Zn (Alloy D) (p. 7 paras. 3-5), or Mn (Alloy F) (Table 14), such that it would not be expected to achieve a typical EAC resistance at 85% of TYS-ST of at least 80 days (p. 7 paras. 6-7) because applicant’s inventive alloys 1-7 realize an improved EAC resistance over conventional 7085 alloys (p. 9 para. 1) and Benedictus Alloy F is comparable to Alloy 7085-LS, which was unable to achieve the claimed EAC resistance (p. 9 paras. 2-3).
A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. MPEP 2123(I). Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. MPEP 2123(II).
Benedictus discloses a thickness of 0.7 to 11 inches and a Mn content of about 0 to 0.8 wt% ([0016], [0070]), which each overlap with the claimed 3.0 to 12 inches thickness and 0.25 to 0.40 wt% Mn such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
The claimed EAC resistance has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed composition. The prior art discloses a substantially similar product to that claimed, including composition, thickness, wrought, and aerospace structural product application (Benedictus [0016], [0049]-[0051], [0054], [0055], [0068]-[0070]), such that the claimed properties of the prior art are also substantially similar, including a typical EAC resistance at 85% of TYS-ST of at least 80 days. This is supported by the substantial similarity and obviousness of properties (Benedictus Tables 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15), including KIC (L-T) values of 27.8 to 65.0 MPa√m (25.3 to 59.2 ksi√in, where 1 ksi√in is equivalent to 1.09884 MPa√m) (Benedictus Tables 5, 6, 13).
In response to applicant's argument that Benedictus does not teach the claimed EAC resistance, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
The applicant argues new claim 27 recites 1.8 to 2.2 wt% Cu, which it outside the claimed range of Cu of Benedictus of about 1.2 to 1.75 % ([0016]) (p. 10 para. 3).
A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2123(I).
Benedictus discloses “about 1.2 to 1.75% Cu”, which overlaps with that claimed such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Alternatively, if it is determined that “about 1.2 to 1.75% Cu” does not overlap with 1.8 to 2.2 wt% Cu, then the range is so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have 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 close. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Furthermore, Benedictus discloses a preferred “about 1.0 to 1.9% copper (Cu)” ([0014]) and a more preferred “about 1.2 to 1.80% Cu” ([0015]), which both overlap with new claim 27 such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
For the above cited reasons the rejection over Benedictus is maintained.
Chakrabati (US 2002/0150498)
Applicant's arguments filed April 15, 2026 with respect to Chakrabati have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues applicant’s inventive alloys 1-7 realize an improved EAC resistance over conventional 7085 alloys, such as those described by Chakrabati, which do not include the optional Mn (p. 9 para. 1, p. 10 para. 4, para. spanning pp. 10-11), with Chakrabati Alloy 62 being comparable to applicant’s 7085-LS alloy that did not realize the claimed EAC resistance (p. 11 paras. 2-4).
A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. MPEP 2123(I).
According to the AA Teal Sheets, aluminum alloy 7085 has a maximum content of Mn of 0.04. However, the invention of Chakrabati includes up to about 1.0 wt% Mn (Chakrabati [0019]), where Mn is a dispersoid forming element aimed at providing an unrecrystallized or partially recrystallized grain structure that is required to achieve the highest combination of strength, fracture toughness, and stress corrosion resistance by forming Al20Cu2Mn3 dispersoid particles (Chakrabati [0020]). The 7XXX series aluminum alloys of Chakrabati are not limited to a 7085 aluminum alloy. Furthermore, up to about 1.0 wt% Mn (Chakrabati [0019]) overlaps with the claimed “from 0.25 to 0.40 wt. % Mn”, such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
The product (Chakrabati [0002], [0004], [0017], [0019]) and process (Chakrabati [0021], [0033], [0036], [0045]) of the prior art are substantially similar to the claim 10 product and the process which makes applicant’s claimed alloy (applicant’s specification [0061], Table 2), such that the properties of the prior art are substantially similar to those claimed, including a typical EAC resistance at 85% TYS-ST of at least 80 days.
For the above cited reasons the rejection over Chakrabati is maintained.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 13-26 line 2 “realizes” is defined by Merriam-Webster as “to achieve”. Therefore, the wrought 7xxx aluminum alloy product achieves the respectively claimed property.
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.
Claims 10-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedictus (US 2005/0189044).
Regarding claim 10, Benedictus discloses an AA7xxx-series aluminum alloy ([0013]) that is wrought ([0068]-[0070]) for use in different types of aircraft structural parts (Benedictus [0049], [0055]), such as a fuselage sheet (Benedictus [0050]) or lower wing skin (Benedictus [0051]) (i.e. aerospace structural product) with a composition and thickness that overlap with that claimed ([0016], [0070]). 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).
Element
Claims 10-12
Benedictus [0016], [0070]
Mn
0.25 to 0.40 wt%
0.25 to 0.35 wt%
About 0 to 0.8 wt%
Zn
6.0 to 7.0 wt%
About 6.5 to 7.9 wt%
Mg
1.35 to 2.05 wt%
About 1.4 to 1.95 wt%
Cu
1.5 to 2.2 wt%
About 1.2 to 1.75 wt%
At least one of Zr, Cr, Sc, Hf
Up to 1.0 wt%
Zr: about 0 to 0.5 wt%
Cr: about 0 to 0.4 wt%
Sc: about 0 to 0.7 wt%
Hf: about 0 to 0.3 wt%
Ti
Up to 0.15 wt%
About 0 to 0.4 wt%
Al
Balance
Balance
Thickness
3.0 to 12 inches
0.7 to 11 inches
Cu + Mg
3.2 to 4.0 wt%
About 2.6 to 3.70 wt%
Mg+0.429*Cu+0.067*Zn
2.362 to 2.912 wt%
About 2.3503 to 3.3373 wt%
Zn:Mg
3.0:1 to 4.75:1
About 3.33 to 5.64
Benedictus discloses a composition that overlaps with that claimed ([0016], [0070]) that is a thick plate with a high level of strength and fracture toughness ([0054]) for use as an aircraft structural part ([0049], [0050], [0051], [0055]). The product of the prior art (i.e. composition, thickness, wrought, and application; Benedictus [0016], [0050], [0051], [0054], [0055], [0068]-[0070]) is substantially similar to the product claimed. It appears the properties of the product of the prior art are substantially similar to the properties claimed, including a KIC(L-T) of at least 30 ksi√in and a typical EAC resistance at 85% of TYS-ST of at least 80 days. The substantial similarity and obviousness of KIC (L-T) and EAC resistance at 85% of TYS-ST is further supported by the examples in Benedictus having properties that fall within the claimed ranges (Benedictus Tables 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15), including KIC(L-T) values of 27.8 to 65.0 MPa√m (25.3 to 59.2 ksi√in, where 1 ksi√in is equivalent to 1.09884 MPa√m) (Tables 5, 6, 13).
Regarding claim 11, Benedictus discloses about 0 to 0.8 wt% Mn ([0016]) with an even more preferable amount of 0.12 to 0.30 wt% ([0026]). 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, Benedictus discloses about 6.5 to 7.9 wt% Zn and about 1.4 to 1.95 wt% Mg (i.e. about 3.33 to 5.64 Zn:Mg) ([0016]). 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 claims 13-17 and 21-24, Benedictus discloses a composition that overlaps with that claimed ([0016], [0070]) that is a thick plate with a high level of strength and fracture toughness ([0054]). The product of the prior art (i.e. composition, thickness, wrought, and application; Benedictus [0016], [0049]-[0051], [0054], [0055], [0068]-[0070]) is substantially similar to the product claimed. It appears the properties of the product of the prior art are substantially similar to the properties claimed, including a TYS(L) of at least 63 ksi (claim 13), TYS(ST) of at least 57 ksi (claim 14) or 60 ksi (claim 21), KIC(L-T) of at least 33 ksi√in (claim 15) or 34 ksi√in (claim 22), KIC(S-L) of at least 20 ksi√in (claim 16) or 22 ksi√in (claim 23), and elongation (L) of at least 8% (claim 17) or 9% (claim 24). This substantial similarity and obviousness of the claimed properties is supported by the examples in Benedictus having properties that fall within the claimed ranges (Benedictus Tables 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15).
The examples in Benedictus also have the following properties that fall within the respectively claimed ranges:
The tensile yield strength (TYS) (L) is 434 to 574 MPa (63 to 83 ksi; claim 13) (Tables 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15).
The tensile yield strength (TYS) (ST) is 493 to 520 MPa (71.5 to 75.4 ksi; claims 14, 21) (Table 15).
KIC(L-T) is 27.8 to 65.0 MPa√m (25.3 to 59.2 ksi√in, where 1 ksi√in is equivalent to 1.09884 MPa√m; claims 15, 22) (Tables 5, 6, 13).
KIC(S-L) of 26.2 to 29.1 MPa√m (23.8 to 26.5 ksi√in, where 1 ksi√in is equivalent to 1.09884 MPa√m; claims 16, 23) (Table 13).
Elongation (L) of 9.0 to 13% (claims 17, 24) (Tables 12, 15).
Regarding claims 18 and 25, Benedictus discloses an alloy product with a thickness of 2.5 inches or more has elongation (i.e. A50) in the ST direction of 5% or more ([0071]). 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 claims 19, 20, and 26, Benedictus discloses an AA7xxx-series aluminum alloy ([0013]) with a composition and thickness that overlap with that claimed ([0016], [0070]) that is a thick plate with a high level of strength and fracture toughness ([0054]). The product of the prior art (i.e. composition, thickness, wrought, and application; Benedictus [0016], [0049]-[0051], [0054], [0055], [0068]-[0070]) is substantially similar to the product claimed. It appears the properties of the product of the prior art are substantially similar to the properties claimed, including a Kmax-dev of at least 25 ksi√in (claim 19) and typical EAC resistance at 85% of TYS-ST of at least 100 days (claim 20) or 120 days (claim 26). This substantial similarity and obviousness of the claimed properties is supported by the examples in Benedictus having properties that fall within the ranges of claims 13-17 and 21-24 (Benedictus Tables 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15).
The examples in Benedictus also have the following properties that fall within the ranges of claims 13-17 and 21-24:
The tensile yield strength (TYS) (L) is 434 to 574 MPa (63 to 83 ksi; claim 13) (Tables 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15).
The tensile yield strength (TYS) (ST) is 493 to 520 MPa (71.5 to 75.4 ksi; claims 14, 21) (Table 15).
KIC(L-T) is 27.8 to 65.0 MPa√m (25.3 to 59.2 ksi√in, where 1 ksi√in is equivalent to 1.09884 MPa√m; claims 15, 22) (Tables 5, 6, 13).
KIC(S-L) of 26.2 to 29.1 MPa√m (23.8 to 26.5 ksi√in, where 1 ksi√in is equivalent to 1.09884 MPa√m; claims 16, 23) (Table 13).
Elongation (L) of 9.0 to 13% (claims 17, 24) (Tables 12, 15).
Regarding claim 27, Benedictus discloses from 1.8 to 2.2 wt. % Cu (about 1.2 to 1.75 wt% Cu) ([0016], [0070]). 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).
If it is determined that about 1.2 to 1.75 wt% Cu does not overlap with 1.8 to 2.2 wt% Cu, then, alternatively, the proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have 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 close. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Furthermore, Benedictus discloses a preferred composition with about 1.0 to 1.9% Cu ([0014]) and a more preferred composition with about 1.2 to 1.80% Cu ([0015]). 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, Benedictus discloses an AA7xxx-series aluminum alloy ([0013]) that is wrought ([0068]-[0070]) for use in different types of aircraft structural parts (Benedictus [0049], [0055]), such as a fuselage sheet (Benedictus [0050]) or lower wing skin (Benedictus [0051]) (i.e. aerospace structural product) with a composition and thickness that overlap with that claimed ([0016], [0070]). 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).
Element
Claim 28
Benedictus [0016], [0070]
Mn
0.25 to 0.40 wt%
About 0 to 0.8 wt%
Zn
6.0 to 7.0 wt%
About 6.5 to 7.9 wt%
Mg
1.35 to 2.05 wt%
About 1.4 to 1.95 wt%
Cu
1.5 to 2.2 wt%
About 1.2 to 1.75 wt%
At least one of Zr, Cr, Sc, Hf
Up to 1.0 wt%
Zr: about 0 to 0.5 wt%
Cr: about 0 to 0.4 wt%
Sc: about 0 to 0.7 wt%
Hf: about 0 to 0.3 wt%
Ti
Up to 0.15 wt%
About 0 to 0.4 wt%
Al
Balance
Balance
Thickness
3.0 to 12 inches
0.7 to 11 inches
Cu + Mg
3.2 to 4.0 wt%
About 2.6 to 3.70 wt%
Mg+0.429*Cu+0.067*Zn
2.362 to 2.912 wt%
About 2.3503 to 3.3373 wt%
Zn:Mg
3.0:1 to 4.75:1
About 3.33 to 5.64
Benedictus discloses a composition that overlaps with that claimed ([0016], [0070]) that is a thick plate with a high level of strength and fracture toughness ([0054]) for use as an aircraft structural part ([0049], [0050], [0051], [0055]). The product of the prior art (i.e. composition, thickness, wrought, and application; Benedictus [0016], [0050], [0051], [0054], [0055], [0068]-[0070]) is substantially similar to the product claimed. It appears the properties of the product of the prior art are substantially similar to the properties claimed, including a KIC(L-T) of at least 30 ksi√in and a typical EAC resistance at 85% of TYS-ST of at least 80 days. The substantial similarity and obviousness of KIC (L-T) and EAC resistance at 85% of TYS-ST is further supported by the examples in Benedictus having properties that fall within the claimed ranges (Benedictus Tables 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15), including KIC(L-T) values of 27.8 to 65.0 MPa√m (25.3 to 59.2 ksi√in, where 1 ksi√in is equivalent to 1.09884 MPa√m) (Tables 5, 6, 13).
The transitional phrase “consisting essentially of” limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials “and those that to not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)” of the claimed invention. For the purposes of searching for an applying are under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, “consisting essentially of” will be construed equivalent to “comprising”. MPEP 2111.03(III).
Claims 10-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakrabati (US 2002/0150498).
Regarding claims 10-12, Chakrabati discloses a 7XXX series aluminum alloy that is 2 to 10 inches thick for structural parts in aerospace applications ([0002], [0004], [0017]) with a composition that overlaps with that claimed ([0019]) and a combination of high fracture toughness and high strength ([0051], [0055], [0057], Figs. 3, 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).
Element
Claims 10-12
Chakrabati [0019]
Mn
0.25 to 0.40
0.275 to 0.35
Up to about 1.0 wt%
Zn
6.0 to 7.0
About 6.5 to 8.5 wt%
Mg
1.35 to 2.05
About 1.3 to 1.7 wt%
Cu
1.5 to 2.2
About 1.4 to 2.0 wt%
At least one of Zr, Cr, Sc, Hf
Up to 1.0
Zr: up to about 0.40 wt%
Cr: up to about 0.37 wt%
Sc: up to about 0.38 wt%
Hf: up to about 0.20 wt%
Ti
Up to 0.15
Up to about 0.15 wt% max
Al
Balance
Balance
Cu+Mg
3.2 to 4.0
About 2.7 to 3.7 wt%
Mg+0.429*Cu+0.067*Zn
2.362 to 2.912
About 2.3361 to 3.1275 wt%
Zn:Mg
3.1:1 to 4.75:1
3.5:1 to 4.5:1
About 3.82 to 6.54
Chakrabati also discloses a process of manufacturing the 7xxx series aluminum alloy that is substantially similar to that which makes applicant’s claimed aluminum alloy (Chakrabati [0021], [0033], [0036], [0045]).
Applicant’s Specification [0061], Table 2
Chakrabati [0021], [0033], [0036], [0045]
Cast ingots
Cast ingot
Homogenization
Homogenization
Hot rolling
Hot rolling
Solution heat treat and quench
Solution heat treat and quench
Stretching
Stretching
First step aging
6h
250F
First step aging
4h
250°F
Second step aging
4-17h
310-320F
Second step aging
4-36h
320°F
Third step aging
24h
250F
-
The product (i.e. aluminum alloy aerospace structural product composition and thickness, Chakrabati [0002], [0004], [0017], [0019]) and process (i.e. casting, homogenizing, hot rolling, solution heat treatment and quenching, stretching, and aging, Chakrabati [0021], [0033], [0036], [0045]) of the prior art are substantially similar to the claimed product (claim 10) and the process which makes applicant’s claimed alloy (applicant’s specification [0061], Table 2). It appears that the properties of the product of the prior art are substantially similar to those claimed, including having a KIC plane-strain fracture toughness (L-T) of at least 30 ksi-sqrt-inch and a typical EAC resistance at 85% of TYS-ST of at least 80 days. In support of the claimed properties being obvious over the prior art, Chakrabati discloses for a slow quench Kq(L-T) of more than 30 ksi-sqrt-inch for inventive examples 57, 62, and 75 ([0051], Fig. 3) and for a very slow quench Kq(L-T) of more than 30 ksi-sqrt-inch for inventive examples 57, 62, 67, and 74 ([0055], Fig. 4). This indicates that the claimed Kq(L-T) is within the scope of the teachings of Chakrabati.
Regarding claims 13-26, the product (i.e. aluminum alloy aerospace structural product composition and thickness, Chakrabati [0002], [0004], [0017], [0019]) and process (i.e. casting, homogenizing, hot rolling, solution heat treatment and quenching, stretching, and aging, Chakrabati [0021], [0033], [0036], [0045]) of the prior art are substantially similar to the claimed product (claim 10) and the process which makes applicant’s claimed alloy (applicant’s specification [0061], Table 2). It appears that the properties of the product of the prior art are substantially similar to those claimed, including a typical tensile yield strength (L) of at least 63 ksi (claim 13), a typical tensile yield strength (ST) of at least 57 ksi (claim 14) or 60 ksi (claim 21), a typical KIC plane-strain fracture toughness (L-T) of at least 33 ksi-sqrt-inch (claim 15) or 34 ksi-sqrt-inch (claim 22), a typical KIC plane-strain fracture toughness (S-L) of at least 20 ksi-sqrt-inch (claim 16) or 22 ksi-sqrt-inch (claim 23), a typical elongation (L) of at least 8% (claim 17) or 9% (claim 24), a typical elongation (ST) of at least 3% (claim 18) or 4% (claim 25), a typical L-S crack deviation resistance (Kmax-dev) of at least 25 ksi-sqrt-in (claim 19), and a typical EAC resistance at 85% of TYS-ST of at least 100 days (claim 20) or 120 days (claim 26).
In support of the claimed properties being obvious over the prior art, Chakrabati discloses for a slow quench Kq(L-T) of more than 30 ksi-sqrt-inch and TYS(L) of more than 68 ksi for examples 57, 62, and 74 ([0051], Fig. 3) and for a very slow quench Kq(L-T) of more than 30 ksi-sqrt-inch and TYS(L) of more than 66 ksi for examples 57, 62, and 67 ([0055], Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 27, Chakrabati discloses from 1.8 to 2.2 wt. % Cu (about 1.4 to 2.0 wt%) ([0019]). 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, Chakrabati discloses a 7XXX series aluminum alloy that is 2 to 10 inches thick for structural parts in aerospace applications ([0002], [0004], [0017]) with a composition that overlaps with that claimed ([0019]) and a combination of high fracture toughness and high strength ([0051], [0055], [0057], Figs. 3, 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).
Element
Claim 28
Chakrabati [0019]
Mn
0.25 to 0.40
Up to about 1.0 wt%
Zn
6.0 to 7.0
About 6.5 to 8.5 wt%
Mg
1.35 to 2.05
About 1.3 to 1.7 wt%
Cu
1.5 to 2.2
About 1.4 to 2.0 wt%
At least one of Zr, Cr, Sc, Hf
Up to 1.0
Zr: up to about 0.40 wt%
Cr: up to about 0.37 wt%
Sc: up to about 0.38 wt%
Hf: up to about 0.20 wt%
Ti
Up to 0.15
Up to about 0.15 wt% max
Al
Balance
Balance
Cu+Mg
3.2 to 4.0
About 2.7 to 3.7 wt%
Mg+0.429*Cu+0.067*Zn
2.362 to 2.912
About 2.3361 to 3.1275 wt%
Zn:Mg
3.1:1 to 4.75:1
About 3.82 to 6.54
Chakrabati also discloses a process of manufacturing the 7xxx series aluminum alloy that is substantially similar to that which makes applicant’s claimed aluminum alloy (Chakrabati [0021], [0033], [0036], [0045]).
Applicant’s Specification [0061], Table 2
Chakrabati [0021], [0033], [0036], [0045]
Cast ingots
Cast ingot
Homogenization
Homogenization
Hot rolling
Hot rolling
Solution heat treat and quench
Solution heat treat and quench
Stretching
Stretching
First step aging
6h
250F
First step aging
4h
250°F
Second step aging
4-17h
310-320F
Second step aging
4-36h
320°F
Third step aging
24h
250F
-
The product (i.e. aluminum alloy aerospace structural product composition and thickness, Chakrabati [0002], [0004], [0017], [0019]) and process (i.e. casting, homogenizing, hot rolling, solution heat treatment and quenching, stretching, and aging, Chakrabati [0021], [0033], [0036], [0045]) of the prior art are substantially similar to the claimed product (claim 10) and the process which makes applicant’s claimed alloy (applicant’s specification [0061], Table 2). It appears that the properties of the product of the prior art are substantially similar to those claimed, including having a KIC plane-strain fracture toughness (L-T) of at least 30 ksi-sqrt-inch and a typical EAC resistance at 85% of TYS-ST of at least 80 days. In support of the claimed properties being obvious over the prior art, Chakrabati discloses for a slow quench Kq(L-T) of more than 30 ksi-sqrt-inch for inventive examples 57, 62, and 75 ([0051], Fig. 3) and for a very slow quench Kq(L-T) of more than 30 ksi-sqrt-inch for inventive examples 57, 62, 67, and 74 ([0055], Fig. 4). This indicates that the claimed Kq(L-T) is within the scope of the teachings of Chakrabati.
The transitional phrase “consisting essentially of” limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials “and those that to not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)” of the claimed invention. For the purposes of searching for an applying are under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, “consisting essentially of” will be construed equivalent to “comprising”. MPEP 2111.03(III).
Related Art
Nakai (JP 2004-002983)
Nakai discloses a heat treated 7000 series aluminum alloy extruded material with a composition that overlaps with that claimed (abstract) processed by three-step aging at 115 to 145°C for 12 to 48 hours, then 170 to 190°C for 1 to 4 hours, then 115 to 145°C for 12 to 48 hours to form properties of tensile strength and elongation that overlap with those claimed (pg. 2 para. 1).
Hayashi (JP 2011-058047 machine translation)
Hayashi discloses an Al-Zn-Mg-Cu aluminum alloy thick plate with a thickness of 50 mm or more ([0001]) with high ductility (high toughness) and high strength ([0010], [0027]) manufactured by forming an ingot, homogenizing, cooling, hot rolling, solution treating, quenching, stretching, and artificial aging ([0011], [0028]-[0047]) with a composition that overlaps with that claimed ([0016]-[0023]).
Antipov (RU 2569275 machine translation)
Antipov discloses an aluminum alloy ([0001], [0009]-[0010]) that is more than 80 mm (3.15 in) thick ([0001], [0010], [0015]) with an overlapping composition ([0012]) and similar manufacturing method ([0011], [0014], [0017]-[0018]) with KIC reported for examples (Tables 3-4).
Zhang (CN 103233148 machine translation)
Zhang discloses Al-Zn-Mg-Cu series aluminum alloy materials ([0002]) with high strength ([0007], [0011], [0017]) and an overlapping composition with relationships between 1) Zn, Mg, and Cu, 2) Cr, Mn, and Zr, and 3) Cr and Mn ([0012]-[0016], [0018]-[0029]) and a thickness of 0.1 to 200 mm (0.004 to 8 inches) ([0030]).
Boselli (US 2017/0088920)
Boselli discloses a 3.0 to 12.0 inch thickness 7xxx aluminum alloy with an overlapping composition including up to 0.50% Mn ([0004]), where Cr in combination with Zr and Mn improves crack deviation resistance properties ([0005]). The examples of Boselli include fracture toughness values within the claim scope (Tables 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12).
Chakrabati ‘319 (US 2002/0121319)
Chakrabati ‘319 discloses a 7XXX aerospace alloy with a thicker gauge and a relatively higher Zn content coupled with lower Cu and Mg, with Cu+Mg of less than about 3.5% ([0016]) with thickness greater than about 2 inches from about 6 to about 9% Zn, from about 1.2 to about 1.9% Mg, from about 1.2 to 2.2% Cu ([0023]) with relatively small amounts of Ti, B, Ca, Sr, and/or Be as casting aids, below about 0.3% Mn ([0026]-[0028]), and limited amounts of Fe and Si ([0029]). Chakrabati ‘319 discloses optimum and/or balance fracture toughness and strength ([0070]) with values that fall within the claim scope (Tables 3).
Fridljander (RU 2165996 machine translation)
Fridljander discloses an AL-Zn-mg-Cu based alloy including 0.2 to 0.6^ Mn (Abstract, [0001], [0006]-[0009]) with improved crack resistance and high strength for aerospace ([0005]) and thickness up to 100 mm (3.9 inches) ([0017]).
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, Wednesday-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 on 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
Prosecution Insights