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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/25/25 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Pending:
1-18
Withdrawn:
14-16
Rejected:
1-13, 17, 18
Amended:
1
New:
18
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, translation cited herein) 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 amended final plate thickness in amended 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 intermediate thickness of 80-225mm, JP’610 teaches hot rolling in multiple passes, from an original ingot of 500mm, including a reduction from 200 mm to 100 mm in a single pass -which includes the claimed intermediate plate thickness, and results in a reduction of 50%, which falls within the claimed reduction amount and therefore meets said 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 from 200 mm to 100 mm of 50% reduction 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, and new claim 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 7/25/25 applicant amended claim 1, added new claim 18, and submitted various arguments traversing the rejections of record. No new matter has been added.
The examiner agrees that Heinz does not teach or suggest hot rolling to a final thickness of less than 50 mm, as set forth in independent amended claim 1. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 10, and 12 over CN’699 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The closest prior art to the presently amended claims is held to be JP’610 in view of Nakanishi, as set forth above.
Applicant’s argument that the instant invention is allowable because the prior art does not teach or suggest the deformation rate during high reduction hot rolling pass is <1 s-1, has not been found persuasive. Similarly, applicant’s argument that one skilled in the art would not understand the criticality of the claimed deformation rate based on Nakanishi has not been found persuasive. 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 said 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).
Applicant’s argument that the instant invention is allowable because the instant specification shows unexpected results with respect to the broad overlap in deformation rate taught by the prior art of Nakanishi, has not been found persuasive. With respect to the evidence proffered that the claimed deformation rate is critical (and therefore exhibits unexpected results), applicant has not clearly shown a nexus between the merits of the claimed invention and the evidence of secondary considerations (see MPEP 716.01b, MPEP 716.01-02 in general). To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). Applicant refers to a deformation rate of 0.53s-1 as achieving high fatigue resistance with respect to examples of deformation rates of 1.61s-1 to 2.27s-1. However, Nakanishi teaches closer examples to the claimed deformation rate (see discussion above). Applicant has not clearly shown the criticality of the claimed deformation rate range of ≤1s-1, with respect to the prior art of Nakanishi.
Conclusion
11. 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 2/25/26