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 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 Declaration filed August 26, 2025. The August 26, 2025 claims were not amended.
Claims Filing Date
August 26, 2025
Cancelled
1-9
Under Examination
10-26
Response to Declaration Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 of Anderson Bowen
Applicant's declaration filed August 26, 2025 has been fully considered but it is not persuasive.
With respect to the following declaration, it is noted that 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
The applicant argues Benedictus does not expressly disclose “2.362 ≤ Mg + 0.429*Cu + 0.067*Zn ≤ 2.912” (Declaration paras. 24-25) and that Benedictus [0057] and [0085]-[0087] teach it is desirable to use higher Zn levels with lower Mg and Cu levels (Declaration para. 26), which is a different relationship than that claimed (Declaration para. 27), such that the claimed relationship is not inherent (Declaration para. 28).
In applicant’s cited paragraphs, Benedictus discloses “a higher Zn-level” “should not be below 6.5%” ([0085]), “Mg levels should not exceed 2.2%” ([0086]), and “the Cu-content should not be higher than 1.9%” ([0087]). The pending rejection is based on a “more preferred alloy composition” in Benedictus [0016] of about 6.5 to 7.9% Zn, about 1.4 to 1.95% Mg, and about 1.2 to 1.75% Cu. This more preferred alloy composition has a Mg+0.429*Cu+0.067*Zn of about 2.3503 to 3.3373 wt%. Benedictus’ disclosed Zn, Mg, and Cu values overlap with the claimed 6.0 to 7.0 wt% Zn, 1.35 to 2.05 wt% Mg, and 1.5 to 2.2 wt% Cu and with the Mg+0.429*Cu+0.067*Zn relationship of 2.362 to 2.912 wt%, such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I). Further, two of Benedictus’ inventive alloys, Alloy 2 and Alloy B (Declaration paras. 29-30), meet the claimed Mg, Cu, and Zn relationship, supporting the prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed Mg, Cu, and Zn relationship. MPEP 2144.05(I).
The applicant argues of the 28 alloys in Benedictus only two, Alloy 2 and Alloy B, meet the claimed Mg, Cu, and Zn relationship, but not the claimed thickness of 3.0 to 12.0 inches (Declaration paras. 29-30), such that the claimed formula is not necessarily and always met in Benedictus (Declaration paras. 31-32) and the claimed EAC is not reasonably realized (Declaration para. 33).
The product of Benedictus, the prior art, has both a composition ([0016]) and a thickness ([0070]) that overlap with that claimed and is also for use as an aircraft structural part ([0049]-[0051], [0055]). MPEP 2144.05(I). Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, the product of the prior art is substantially similar to that claimed and has substantially similar properties, including a substantially similar EAC resistance at 85% of TYS-ST.
The applicant argues the three thick alloys of Benedictus, Ex. 3 and Table 11 Alloys C and D (Declaration para. 34) do not include Mn and do not satisfy the claimed relationship between Zn, Mg, and Cu, such that they would not be expected to satisfy the claimed EAC resistance (Declaration paras. 35-36).
Benedictus discloses an overlapping thickness of 0.7 to 11 inches achieves excellent properties ([0070]). Benedictus also discloses about 0 to 0.8 wt% Mn, about 1.4 to about 1.95 wt% Mg, about 1.2 to about 1.75 wt% Cu, and about 6.5 to 7.9 wt% Zn ([0016]), such that Mg+0.429*Cu+0.067*Zn is about 2.3505 to 3.3373 wt%. 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). Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, the product of the prior art is substantially similar to that claimed and has substantially similar properties, including a substantially similar EAC resistance at 85% of TYS-ST.
For the above cited reasons, applicant’s declaration against Benedictus is not persuasive.
Chakrabati
The applicant argues that Invention Alloys 1-7 meet the claimed relationship and have improved EAC resistance over conventional 7085 alloys, where the alloy of Chakrabati is 7085 (Chakrabati [0062]) because commonly owned US 6,972,110 relates to the 7085 alloy (Declaration paras. 11-13).
As evidenced by the AA Teal Sheets, aluminum alloy 7085 has a maximum of 0.04% Mn. Similarly, US 6,972,110 discloses that “Manganese is also kept purposefully low, below about 0.2 or 0.3 total wt.% Mn, and preferably not over about 0.05 to 0.1 wt.% Mn.”. In contrast, the alloy of Chakrabati includes up to 1.0 wt% Mn ([0019]), such that the inventive alloy of Chakrabati encompasses compositions outside of the scope of aluminum alloy 7085. Therefore, contrary to applicant’s argument, the alloy of Chakrabati is not limited to an aluminum 7085 alloy.
The applicant argues Chakrabati’s 7085 alloys do not include Mn or include Mn as an unavoidable impurity (Declaration para. 14), such that it is unable to realize the claimed EAC resistance (Declaration para. 15).
Chakrabati discloses up to 1.0 wt% Mn ([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 ([0020]). Therefore, it is within the scope of the alloys of Chakrabati to include Mn within the claimed range of 0.25 to 0.40 wt% and, therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, it is also within the scope of Chakrabati to realize the claimed EAC resistance.
The applicant argues Chakrabati does not expressly disclose “2.362 ≤ Mg + 0.429*Cu + 0.067*Zn ≤ 2.912” and Cu+Mg of 3.2 to 4.0 wt% (Declaration paras. 16-19) and the alloys of Chakrabati do not necessarily and always satisfy the claimed relationships (Declaration para. 20), including Alloys 57, 62, 67, and 74 (Declaration para. 21), such that the claimed compositional relationships between Mg, Cu, and Zn and between Cu and Mg do not naturally flow from Chakrabati (Declaration para. 22).
Chakrabati discloses about 6.5 to 8.5 wt% Zn, about 1.3 to 1.7 wt% Mg, and about 1.4 to 2.0 wt% ([0019]), such that Mg+0.429*Cu+0.067*Zn is about 2.3361 to 3.1275 wt% and Cu+Mg is about 2.7 to 3.7 wt%. 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).
In response to applicant's argument that Chakrabati does not expressly disclose the claim 10 relationships between Mg, Cu, and Zn and between Cu and Mg, 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).
For the above cited reasons, applicant’s declaration against Chakrabati is not persuasive.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 26, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the following arguments, it is noted that 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
The applicant argues Benedictus does not expressly disclose the claimed empirical relationship between Zn, Mg, and Cu “2.362≤Mg+0.429*Cu+0.067*Zn≤2.912” (Remarks p. 7 para. 1), therefore the rejection must be based on inherency, but only two, Alloy 2 and Alloy B, of the 28 different alloys in Benedictus satisfy the relationship, such that it does not naturally result from Benedictus (Remarks para. spanning pp. 7-8).
Benedictus discloses about 1.4 to about 1.95 wt% Mg, about 1.2 to about 1.75 wt% Cu, and about 6.5 to 7.9 wt% Zn ([0016], [0070]), such that Mg+0.429*Cu+0.067*Zn is about 2.3505 to 3.3373 wt%. 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). Further, Alloy 2 and Alloy B of Benedictus satisfying the claimed Zn, Mg, and Cu relationship supports that it is within the scope of Benedictus to have this relationship.
In response to applicant's argument that Benedictus does not disclose the claimed relationship of 2.362 ≤ Mg+0.429*Cu+0.067*Zn ≤ 2.912, 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 impermissible hindsight with respect to the claimed empirical relationship between Zn, Mg, and Cu naturally flowing from Benedictus (Remarks p. 8 para. 2).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. MPEP 2145(X)(A).
Benedictus discloses about 1.4 to about 1.95 wt% Mg, about 1.2 to about 1.75 wt% Cu, and about 6.5 to 7.9 wt% Zn ([0016], [0070]), such that Mg+0.429*Cu+0.067*Zn is about 2.3505 to 3.3373 wt%. 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).
Benedictus is a single reference obviousness rejection. It is unclear how an obviousness rejection over the inventive disclosure of Benedictus can be based on hindsight.
The applicant argues against Benedictus realizing a typical EAC resistance at 85% of TYS-ST of at least 80 days (Remarks p. 8 para. 4), where EAC is important for corrosion resistance (Remarks p. 8 para. 5) and the property is not taught by Benedictus (Remarks para. spanning pp. 8-9).
The prior art composition, thickness, wrought, and application (Benedictus [0016], [0050], [0051], [0054], [0055], [0068]-[0070]) read on that claimed, such that the prior art product is substantially similar to that claimed, including the claimed properties, such as a typical EAC resistance at 85% or TYS-ST of at least 80 days. This substantial similarity is supported by the properties of the examples in Benedictus having properties that fall within the claimed ranges, including KIC(L-T) (Benedictus Tables 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15).
Further, in response to applicant's argument that Benedictus does not teach 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 Benedictus does not meet the claimed Zn, Mg, and Cu relationship and does not teach Mn from 0.25 to 0.40 wt%, such that it is not reasonable to contemplate Benedictus realizing the claimed typical EAC resistance (Remarks para. spanning pp. 8-9).
Benedictus discloses about 0 to 0.8 wt% Mn, about 1.4 to about 1.95 wt% Mg, about 1.2 to about 1.75 wt% Cu, and about 6.5 to 7.9 wt% Zn ([0016], [0070]), such that Mg+0.429*Cu+0.067*Zn is about 2.3505 to 3.3373 wt%. 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). Benedictus discloses overlapping amounts of Mn in combination with Zn, Cu, and Mg such that the property of typical EAC resistance at 85% of TYS-ST of at least 80 days naturally flows.
According to MPEP 716.02(b)(I), with respect to establishing results that are unexpected and significant, the evidence relied upon should establish “that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance.”
Applicant’s data indicates that comparative alloy 7085, which does not include Mn, and comparative alloy 7050, which does not include Mn and does not satisfy the claimed Zn, Cu, and Mg relationship (applicant’s Table 9), achieve a typical EAC resistance at 85% of TYS-ST of at least 80 days (applicant’s Table 19, Alloy 7085-4, 7050-1, 7050-2).
Further, applicant’s data also indicates that inventive alloys 12, 13, and 14, which include Mn and satisfy the claimed Zn, Cu, Mg relationship (applicant’s Table 14), do not necessarily achieve a typical EAC resistance at 85% of TYS-ST of at least 80 days (applicant’s Table 19, Alloy 12-1, 12-2, 13-1, 14-1. 14-2).
Therefore, alloys that do not satisfy certain amounts of Mn in combination with Zn, Cu, and Mg result in a typical EAC resistance of 85% of TYS-ST of at least 80 days and alloys that do satisfy certain amounts of Mn in combination with Zn, Cu, and Mg do not result in a typical EAC resistance of 85% of TYS-ST of at least 80 days.
The applicant argues Benedictus made three thick alloys, Ex. 3 and Table 11 Alloys C and D, which do not include Mn and do not satisfy the claimed Zn, Mg, and Cu relationship, such that they are not expected to achieve the claimed EAC resistance (Remarks p. 9 para. 2).
The alloy of claim 10 requires a thickness of from 3.0 to 12 inches. Benedictus discloses an overlapping thickness of 0.7 to 11 inches ([0070]). Benedictus also discloses about 0 to 0.8 wt% Mn, about 1.4 to about 1.95 wt% Mg, about 1.2 to about 1.75 wt% Cu, and about 6.5 to 7.9 wt% Zn ([0016]), such that Mg+0.429*Cu+0.067*Zn is about 2.3505 to 3.3373 wt%. 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).
According to MPEP 716.02(d), whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.”
Applicant’s Alloy 4 has a thickness of about 1.75 inches. Benedictus’ Ex. 3 and Table 11 Alloys C and D have thicknesses of 4 mm (0.16 inches), 152 mm (5.98 inches), and 152 mm (5.98 inches), respectively (Benedictus Table 2, [0115]). None of the thicknesses of the argued examples in Benedictus are substantially similar to the thickness of applicant’s Alloy 4. As evidenced by applicant’s Tables 15 and 19, alloy thickness influences typical EAC resistance of 85% of TYS-ST because Alloy 12-1 does not have this property but Alloy 12-5 does, and the only difference between these samples appears to be sample thickness.
Further, the alloy composition of applicant’s Alloy 4 is not substantially similar to Ex. 3 and Table 2 Alloys C and D in Benedictus. For example, the alloys of Benedictus include no (Ex. 3, Table 11 Alloy C) or 0.07 wt% (Table 11 Alloy D) Mn, whereas applicant’s Alloy 4 contains 0.34 wt%, which is 4 times as much as Table 11 Alloy D. Further, applicant’s Alloy 4 includes 1.34 wt% Mg, which is outside of the claimed range for Mg of 1.35 to 2.05 wt%. However, in Benedictus Ex. 3 and Table 11 Alloys C and D all have Mg amounts within the claimed range. Evidence regarding how these compositional differences impact the typical EAC resistance at 85% TYS-ST has not been presented.
For the above cited reasons, applicant’s arguments against Benedictus are not persuasive.
Chakrabati
The applicant argues Chakrabati discloses aluminum alloy 7085, which is not capable of the claimed typical EAC resistance at 85% TYS-ST of at least 80 days (Remarks p. 9 para. 6).
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]), such that the 7XXX series aluminum alloy of Chakrabati is not limited to a 7085 aluminum alloy.
Chakrabati discloses a 7XXX series aluminum alloy ([0002], [0004], [0017]) with an overlapping composition ([0019]). The product (Chakrabati [0002], [0004], [0017], [0019]), and, furthermore, the process (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), such that the properties of the prior art are substantially similar to those claimed, including the argued typical EAC resistance at 85% TYS-ST of at least 80 days.
The applicant argues Chakrabati is silent regarding 0.25 to 0.40 wt% Mn, because it was not included or is an unavoidable impurity and AA 7085 has an upper limit of 0.04% Mn (Remarks p. 10 para. 2).
Chakrabati [0019] recites “up to about 1.0 Mn”, such that it is within the scope of the 7XXX series aluminum alloy of Chakrabati to include the claimed amount of Mn of 0.25 to 0.40 wt%.
The applicant argues Chakrabati does not expressly disclose “2.362 ≤ Mg+0.429*Cu+0.067*Zn ≤ 2.912” and Cu+Mg from 3.2 to 4.0 wt% (Remarks p. 10 para. 4), such that the claimed Zn, Mg, and Cu relationship must be inherent, but it is not necessarily and always included (Remarks p. 11 para. 1).
Chakrabati discloses about 6.5 to 8.5 wt% Zn, about 1.3 to 1.7 wt% Mg, and about 1.4 to 2.0 wt% ([0019]), such that Mg+0.429*Cu+0.067*Zn is about 2.3361 to 3.1275 wt% and Cu+Mg is about 2.7 to 3.7 wt%. 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).
In response to applicant's argument that Chakrabati does not expressly disclosed the claim 10 relationships between Mg, Cu, and Zn and between Cu and Mg, 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 none of Alloys 57, 62, 67, and 74 meet both the Zn, Mg, and Cu relationship and the Cu+Mg relationship, such that the Zn, Mg, and Cu relationship is not necessarily and always met in Chakrabati (Remarks p. 11 para. 2) and none of the relevant alloys in Chakrabati meet the claimed relationship as recited in claim 10 (Remarks p. 11 para. 3).
Chakrabati discloses a composition that overlaps with that claimed ([0019]), including the Cu+Mn, Mg, Cu, and Zn, and Zn:Mg relationships. 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).
For the above cited reasons, applicant’s arguments against Chakrabati are not persuasive.
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 10-26 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).
Claims 10-26 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).
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]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 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
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735