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 .
Status of Claims
Pending:
1-18
Withdrawn:
14-16
Rejected:
1-13, 17, 18
Amended:
NONE
New:
NONE
Independent:
1
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.
Claims 1-12, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH11140610A (JP’610, previously cited) in view of Nakanishi et al (US 2017/0016102, previously cited).
JP’610 teaches a method of making a 7xxx series aluminum alloy plate (including plates with a thickness of 25-50 mm (translation at [0016]), which meets the final plate thickness in claim 1), said plate composition comprising: 5.0-8.0% Zn, 2.0-3.0% Cu, 1.2-2.8% Mg, 0.05-0.15% Zr, 0.01-0.25% Fe, ≤0.5% Si (see JP’610 at abstract), which overlaps the claimed alloying ranges (instant claims 1, 7-9). JP’610 teaches said method of making the 7xxx alloy plate comprises steps of casting an ingot, homogenizing, hot rolling the ingot into a plate in a number of passes, solution heating, quenching, and artificially aging [0016], which meets the instant steps of casting, homogenizing, hot rolling (cl. 1) followed by solution heating, cooling, and artificial aging (cl. 2). Concerning claim 1’s limitation of the % of reduction when at an
thickness (mm)
(at end of said step- see JP’610 at cl. 1)
ingot (T)
500
initial HR1 (0.95-0.9 T)
450
475
intermediate HR1 (0.5T-0.33T)
148.5
237.5
10-15 mm/pass
intermediate HR2 (2.0t-1.3t)
32.5
100
20-40 mm/pass
final rolling 1.0t
25
50
starting thickness (intermediate HR)
100
120
140
after 1 pass w 40mm reduction
60
80
100
% reduction=(i-f)/i
40%
33%
29%
Table 1: thickness and reduction parameters given by JP’610 for different HR stages
intermediate thickness of 80-225mm, JP’610 teaches an initial cast ingot (T=500 mm), initial HR1 to a final thickness (0.95-0.9T, approx. 450-475 mm), intermed. HR1 at a rate 10-15 mm/pass to a final thickness (0.5-0.33T, approx. 150-240 mm), HR2 at a rate 20-40 mm/pass to a final thickness (2.0-1.3t, approx. 33-100 mm), and final rolling to a final thickness 25-50 mm (see JP’610 at abstract, [0013], claim 1)- see Table 1 above for the relationship of said parameters taught by JP’610, converted to % reduction during intermediate hot rolling 2 stage, for starting and end thicknesses within the ranges of JP’610 hot rolling conditions. Though JP’610 does not appear to teach examples within the claimed hot rolling reduction amount, the broader disclosure of JP’610 teaches parameters for rolling that includes thickness ranges and rolling reductions that broadly overlap/meet the instant thickness and high rejection hot rolling pass limitations.
JP’610 does not specify the deformation rate during the high reduction hot rolling pass is <1 s-1 (claim 1) or ≤0.8 s-1 (claim 5). However, Nakanishi teaches that the strain rate for hot rolling passes should be ≥0.01 s-1 , in order to provide the predictable purpose of increasing strength [0045]. In particular, Nakanishi at example 1 teaches a strain rate of 0.3 s-1 [0071], which falls within the claimed deformation rate of instant claims 1 and 5. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used a deformation/strain rate of ≥0.01 s-1 (such as 0.3 s-1 , see Ex. 1 of Nakanishi), as Nakanishi teaches said deformation rate provides the predictable purpose of increasing strength [0045]/excellent strength/elongation balance (Table 2).
It is therefore held that the combined disclosures of JP’610 and Nakanishi would have created a prima facie case of obviousness of the presently claimed invention.
Concerning claim 2, as set forth above, JP’610 teaches solution heating, quenching, and artificially aging, which meets the instant limitations.
Concerning claim 3, JP’610 teaches hot rolling (i.e. no cold rolling occurs) to final gauge (see examples), which meets the instant limitation.
Concerning claim 4, as set forth above, the % reduction for a hot rolling pass taught by JP’610 meets the claimed minimum of a reduction of at least 30%.
Concerning claim 6, see discussion of intermediate thickness and hot rolling reduction.
Concerning claims 7-9, see discussion of alloying ranges taught by JP’610 above.
Concerning claims 10, 11, 18, the final thickness taught by JP’610 of 25-50 mm (translation at [0016]), meets the claimed limitations of “less than 45 mm” (cl. 10), “more than 10 mm” (cl. 11), and “greater than 10 mm and less than 45 mm” (cl. 18).
Concerning claims 12 and 17, JP’610 teaches a hot rolling starting temperature of 380-450C (JP’610 at claim 1), which overlaps and therefore meets the instant hot rolling starting temperature ranges in instant claims 12 and 17.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH11140610A (JP’610) and Nakanishi et al (US 2017/0016102) as applied to claims above, further in view of Heinz (US 5,772,800).
Neither JP’610 nor Nakanishi teach the application of a T7 temper. However, Heinz teaches that T7 tempers (which insert a step of stretching between the quenching and aging, see Heinz column 6 lines 30-31) contributes to improvement in fatigue life (examples). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied a T7 temper to the process of forming a 7000 alloy plate taught by JP’610 and Nakanishi, because the prior art teaches said temper contributes towards an improvement in fatigue life.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
In the response filed 7/16/26 applicant submitted various arguments traversing the rejections of record. No new matter has been added.
Applicant’s argument that JP’610 does not teach a reduction from 200 mm to 100 mm in a single step has been found persuasive. Evenso, the rolling parameters taught by JP’610 still broadly overlap the claimed rolling parameters, namely, JP’610 teaches an initial cast ingot (T=500 mm), initial HR1 to a final thickness (0.95-0.9T, approx. 450-475 mm), intermediate HR1 at a rate 10-15 mm/pass to a final thickness (0.5-0.33T, approx. 150-240 mm), intermediate HR2 at a rate 20-40 mm/pass to a final thickness (2.0-1.3t, approx. 33-100 mm), and final rolling to a final thickness 25-50 mm (see JP’610 at abstract, [0013], claim 1). As set forth in Table 1 above, for an intermediate HR2 stage of 20-40 mm/pass reduction, a starting thickness (within the stage of intermediate HR2) of 100mm (which is within the scope of JP’610) with a 1 pass reduction of 40 mm (i.e. end thickness 60 mm), exhibits a reduction of 40%; a starting thickness of 120mm with a 1 pass reduction of 40 mm (i.e. end thickness 80 mm), exhibits a reduction of 33%; a starting thickness of 140mm with a 1 pass reduction of 40 mm (i.e. end thickness 100 mm), exhibits a reduction of 29%. Therefore it is apparent (by the above conversions) that the hot rolling parameters and reduction ranges of JP’610 overlap the claimed ranges, and therefore meet the instant limitations.
Applicant’s argument that the examples of Nakanishi do not provide any reasonable understanding that adjusting the reduction-per-pass value would achieve the desired outcome has not been found persuasive. Similarly, applicant’s argument that the instant invention is allowable because the examples of Nakanishi do not present a clear trend showing certain parameters reliably produce the desire result has not been found persuasive. Primary reference of JP’610 is relied on the teach the claimed reduction (see discussion above). As for secondary reference of Nakanishi, Nakanishi teaches a hot rolling deformation rate of ≥0.01 s-1 , which significantly overlaps the claimed deformation rate. Nakanishi further teaches an example with a strain rate of 0.3 s-1 ([0071], Example 1), which meets the instant deformation rate maximum. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used a deformation/strain rate of ≥0.01 s-1 (such as 0.3 s-1 , see Ex. 1 of Nakanishi, which falls within the claimed deformation rate of <1 s-1 (cl. 1) and ≤0.8 s-1 (cl. 5)), as Nakanishi teaches adjusting the deformation rate provides the predictable purpose of increasing strength [0045], and wherein said strain rate provides an excellent strength/elongation balance (see properties of Example 1 in Table 2).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANELL COMBS MORILLO whose telephone number is (571)272-1240. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am-3pm.
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 Hendricks can be reached on 571-272-1401. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/J.C.M/Examiner, Art Unit 1733 9/26/26
