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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/14/25 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Pending:
1-16, 18-20
Withdrawn:
NONE
Rejected:
1-16, 18-20
Amended:
1, 18, 20
New:
NONE
Independent:
1, 20
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 20 recite the limitation “wherein the at least one grain structure control material is selected from the group consisting of Zr, Cr, V, Hf, other rare earth elements, and combinations thereof”. The limitation “other rare earth elements” is interpreted as rare earth elements other than Scandium (Sc), listed previous in said claims.
Independent claims 1 and 20 mention the standard “HHSCC-G49 testing”. G49 test standard is attached to this office action. The instant specification at [0048] describes how to achieve the claimed “HHSCC-G49 testing”, namely a hot and humid SCC testing as described in [0048], etc. using ASTM G49.
Claim 19 mentions “HHSCC-G168 testing”. G168 test standard is attached to this office action. The instant specification at [0050] describes how to achieve the claimed “HHSCC-G168 testing”, namely a hot and humid SCC testing as described in [0050], etc. using ASTM G49.
If this interpretation is not consistent with applicant’s intended interpretation, please clarify (including where said interpretation is found in the original specification) in response to this action.
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 1-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker et al (US 2021/0164076, cited herein) in view of “Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys” p 63-64 (cited herein)
Becker teaches an 7xxx aluminum alloy formed by a wrought process (forging, extrusion, or rolling [0039]) comprising (in wt%):
cl. 1
cl. 20
Becker
Becker
Product:
Planar plate product 12.7-305 mm
Planar plate product 140-305 mm
Example E4
broad
Zn
5.5-9.0
6.0-8.5 (cl. 2)
5.5-9.0
7.5
7.05-9.2
Cu
1.2-2.6
1.5-2.0 (cl. 3)
1.2-2.6
1.55
0.8-1.8
Mg
1.3-2.2
1.4-2.0 (cl. 4)
1.3-2.2
1.75
0.5-2.3
Ag
0.05-1.0
≥0.10 (cl. 6)
0.05-1.0
0.45
0.15-0.6
≤0.7 (cl. 7)
Mn
-0.60
0.10-0.50 (cl. 8)
-0.60
-
-0.35
≤0.01 (cl. 9)
Fe
-0.30
-0.30
-0.1
Si
-0.30
-0.30
0.07
0.04-0.1
Ti
-0.15
0.010-0.10 (cl. 12)
-0.15
0.03
0.02-0.08
Sc
-0.08
-0.08
-
Li
-0.05
-0.05
-
Grain structure control element: Zr Cr V Hf RE
-1.0 at least one
0.05-0.24 Cr (cl. 10)
≤0.01 Cr (cl. 11)
0.05-0.20 Zr (cl. 13)
-1.0 at least one
0.11 Zr
0.01 Cr
0.08-0.14 Zr, Cr, V, Hf
Incidental elements
-1.0 total
-1.0 total
none
none
impurities
-0.15% total
-0.05% each
-0.15% total
-0.05% each
unavoidable impurities
Cu+Mg
≥3.0 (cl. 5)
3.3
Table 1: instant claims vs prior art of Becker
wherein said example E4 of Becker falls within the instantly claimed alloying ranges (instant claims 1-7, 9, 11-13, 20). Becker teaches applying a T7452 temper ([0052] of Becker), which qualifies as a T7 temper and therefore meets the instant “in a T temper” limitation.
Becker teaches said wrought alloy product is formed into a bar (examples, [0037-0039]). Concerning the thickness limitations of instant independent claims 1 and 20, Becker teaches said product has a thickness 150 mm [0024], which falls within the claimed thickness range, and therefore the instant thickness limitations (independent claims 1 and 20).
Becker does not teach a) forming said alloy into a “planar plate product” (independent claims 1, 20), or b) the product passes HHSCC-G49 testing under the claimed conditions (independent claims 1, 20).
Concerning a), Becker teaches said wrought alloy product is formed into a bar (examples, [0037-0039]). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the Al-Zn-Cu-Mg alloy of Becker into a “planar plate product”, because Becker teaches said alloy can be cast and further worked (see Becker at examples), and because “Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys” p 63-64 teaches 7xxx series aluminum alloys are commonly formed into a variety of flat-rolled products including plate (see “Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys” p 63).
Changes in size, shape, or sequence of adding ingredients is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.04). For the instant case, the change in shape from a bar to a plate is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results.
Concerning b), though Becker does not specify the HHSCC-G49 testing under the claimed conditions, because Becker teaches an example within the claimed alloying ranges, together with processing by substantially the same process of working and heat treating to a T7 temper, then the same properties (such as passing HHSCC-G49 testing under the claimed conditions) are expected to be inherently present for the alloy product taught by Becker and “Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys” as for the instant invention.
Therefore it is held that Becker and “Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys” have created a prima facie case of obviousness of the presently claimed invention.
Concerning claims 8 and 10, the broad ranges of Becker (see Table 1 above) overlap the claimed alloying ranges.
Overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the range, including the claimed range, from the broader range disclosed in the prior art, because the prior art finds that said composition in the entire disclosed range has a suitable utility.
Concerning claim 14, Becker teaches example E4 exhibits YS=487MPa in T7452 temper ([0052] of Becker), which meets the minimum YS.
Concerning claim 15, Becker teaches example E4 exhibits KIC (S-L)=21 MPa*m1/2 in T7452 temper, which meets the minimum KIC (S-L).
Concerning claims 16, 18, and 19, Becker does not specify the instant properties of: elongation (ST), passing SCC alternate immersion testing, passing HHSCC-G168, the crack growth rate, or realized K value. However, because Becker teaches an example within the claimed alloying ranges (as well as alloying ranges that overlap the claimed ranges), together with processing by substantially the same process of working and heat treating to a T7 temper, then the same properties are expected to be inherently present for the alloy product taught by Becker and “Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys”, as for the instant invention.
Once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977)), see MPEP 2112. Applicant has not clearly shown an unobvious difference between the instant invention and the prior art’s product.
Response to Amendment
In the response received 8/14/25 applicant amended claims 1, 18, and 20, and submitted various arguments traversing the rejections of record. No new matter has been added.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16, 18-20 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.
Conclusion
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 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/J.C.M/Examiner, Art Unit 1733 3/19/26