DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 and 17-21 are pending. Of the pending claims, claims 1-7, 10-14, and 17-21 are presented for examination on the merits, and claims 8 and 9 are withdrawn from examination.
Claim 21 is new.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/03/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final Office action on 01/16/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 13, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 6393008 (B1) to Adachi et al. (“Adachi”) (abstract and computer-generated translation in file as of 01/16/2026).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 13, and 17-20, the claims remain rejected for the same reasons presented in the previous Office action dated 01/16/2026.
Regarding new claim 21, Adachi discloses that the aluminum alloy may contain Fe and Cr, with the addition of Zr, in some embodiments in amounts overlapping the claimed ranges. Para. [0031], [0036], [0046], [0052], [0070], [0076]. In other embodiments, the aluminum alloy may contain Fe and Cr, with Zr added therein, in amounts overlapping the claimed ranges. Para. [0044], [0052], [0069], [0076], [0083]. Since no other elements are required to be present in these embodiments, they satisfy the transitional phrase “consisting of.” See MPEP § 2111.03(II).
Claims 4, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi, as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of US 2019/0032175 (A1) to Martin et al. (“Martin”).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 14, the claims remain rejected for the same reasons presented in the previous Office action dated 01/16/2026.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2006/0065331 (A1) to Bes et al. (“Bes”).
Regarding claim 6, the claim remains rejected for the same reasons presented in the previous Office action dated 01/16/2026.
Acknowledgment of Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed on 04/14/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection as set forth in the last Office action for the following reasons:
The declaration is not commensurate in scope with the claims. See MPEP § 716.02(d). The declaration tests three alloys, each containing Zr. However, claim 1 does not require Zr and recites other options of Hf, Er, Sc, and/or Ti. Thus, there are no examples tested that contain each of these elements, or a combination thereof, to permit an evaluation of unexpected and advantageous results for the full scope of the claim.
Claim 21 recites that the aluminum alloy consists of Fe, Cr, and Zr, and the alloy examples in the declaration and specification (Tables 1 and 3) contain Fe, Cr, and Zr. However, the declaration remains incommensurate in scope with the claims because the declaration and specification do not demonstrate that the allegedly unexpected results occur over the entire claimed range. Data points both inside and outside the claimed range have not been provided to show unexpected results. See MPEP § 716.02(d)(II).
Claims 1 and 21 recite that Fe ranges from 1% to 3.1%, but the declaration and the specification do not show how the alloy behaves when Fe is 1%, slightly less than 1%, and slightly more than 3.1%. The Cr content ranges from 1% to 2.8%, but there is no information showing how the alloy behaves when Cr is 1% and slightly less than 1%. A similar analysis can be applied to Zr, which is tested at about 1.15% in the declaration and at 2.4% and 2% in the specification, but is recited in the claims at a broader quantity of 0.5% to 4%. Without viewing the cracking behavior of various alloy compositions, one cannot determine whether the claimed ranges, i.e., their endpoints, are actually critical to the alleged unexpected performance of the alloy.
It is noted that the specification as originally filed tests alloys that contain Fe and Cr in amounts that far exceed the claimed ranges (Fe with 7% and Cr with 6% or 3.4%) but that are labeled as inventive (Table 1 – Innov1, Innov2, and Innov3) and suggested to be suitable for avoiding hot cracking susceptibility. This raises questions regarding the criticality and contribution of the claimed ranges to lack of crack initiation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/14/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Adachi fails to teach an aluminum alloy containing 1% or less by mass Si. Applicant states that Adachi teaches that Si should be added to the second, third, and fifth to seventh aspects/embodiments in minimum amounts of 4% or 8%, which far exceed the claimed upper limit of 1%.
In response, Adachi teaches that the aluminum alloy may further contain one or more of Si, Mg, Cu, and Ni in the second, third, and fifth to seventh aspects of their invention (para. [0033], [0051]). For these aspects of the invention, a minimum of one element may be selected from the list of Si, Mg, Cu, and Ni. If Ni is selected, for example, then Si need not be selected because the selection of Ni (minimum one alloying element) would satisfy the criterion of that aspect of Adachi’s invention. If Si is not selected, then Si is not intentionally added and falls within the claimed range of at most 1%. Thus, these embodiments of Adachi meet the alloy limitations as claimed.
Applicant further argues that Adachi’s exemplary alloys contain Si in high amounts that do not fall within the claimed range.
In response, this is not persuasive because specific or disclosed embodiments cannot support a teaching-away-type argument when the reference discloses broader or different embodiments as part of the invention. See MPEP § 2123(II). In the present instance, although Si is present in most examples in Adachi’s tables, Adachi’s broadest embodiments do not require the presence of Si in the alloy. For instance, claim 8 recites that the aluminum alloy laminate formed body contains Fe (more than 0.3 wt% but not more than 2 wt.%) and one or more of Mn and Cr (more than 1.5 wt.% but not more than 10 wt.%). Claim 10 refers to Si. However, in this dependent claim, Si is recited as being one of several options for alloying elements to select and is not required to be the chosen element (one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Si, Mg, Cu, and Ni). Si appears to be required in claim 12, but note that claim 12 (specific embodiment) is dependent on claim 9 (broader embodiment), which itself does not require Si be present. While Adachi may have chosen to test alloys containing Si, Adachi’s broader disclosure suggest that Si is not a required element.
Applicant states that the claimed aluminum alloy produced unexpected and advantageous results in terms of the lack of cracking in the building/polishing of a specimen.
In response, the argument is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See MPEP § 716.02(d). The declaration tests three alloys, each containing Zr. However, claim 1 does not require Zr and recites other options of Hf, Er, Sc, and/or Ti. Thus, there are no examples tested that contain each of these elements, or a combination thereof, to permit an evaluation of unexpected and advantageous results.
Claim 21 recites that the aluminum alloy consists of Fe, Cr, and Zr, and the alloy examples in the declaration and specification (Tables 1 and 3) contain Fe, Cr, and Zr. However, the argument is still not commensurate in scope with the claim because the declaration and specification do not demonstrate that the allegedly unexpected results occur over the entire claimed range. Data points both inside and outside the claimed range should be tested to show unexpected results. See MPEP § 716.02(d)(II). Claim 1 recites that Fe ranges from 1% to 3.1%, but the declaration and the specification do not show how the alloy behaves when Fe is 1%, slightly less than 1%, and slightly more than 3.1%. The Cr content in claim 1 ranges from 1% to 2.8%, but there is no information showing how the alloy behaves when Cr is 1% and slightly less than 1%. A similar analysis can be applied to Zr, which is tested at about 1.15% in the declaration and at 2.4% and 2% in the specification, but is recited in the claims at a broader range of 0.5% to 4%. Without reviewing alloys of various compositions, one cannot determine whether the claimed ranges, i.e., their endpoints, are actually critical to the asserted unexpected performance of the alloy.
Furthermore, the specification as originally filed tests alloys that contain Fe and Cr in amounts that exceed the claimed ranges (Fe with 7% and Cr with 6% or 3.4%) but that are labeled as inventive (Table 1) and suggested to be suitable for avoiding hot cracking susceptibility, raising questions regarding the criticality and contribution of the claimed ranges to lack of crack initiation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 VANESSA T. LUK whose telephone number is (571)270-3587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM ET.
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 D. Hendricks, can be reached at 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.
/VANESSA T. LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
June 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights