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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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
Claims 9-19 are examined in this office action of as claims 1-8 are withdrawn as directed to a nonelected invention, claims 9 and 15-18 are amended, and claim 19 is new in the reply dated 7/25/25.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 9 uses the transitional phrase “composed of” to state that the sheet or strip is composed of aluminum alloy. Composed of has been interpreted in the same manner as either "consisting of" or "consisting essentially of," depending on the facts of the particular case, see MPEP § 2111.03(IV). As the specification does not disclose where the sheet or strip includes anything other than aluminum alloy nor where the part contains anything other than the sheet or strip according to claim 9, “composed of” is interpreted as being closed to non-recited elements. Thus, claim 9 is a sheet or strip must be composed only of an aluminum alloy, though the aluminum alloy itself can contain unrecited elements so long as it remains an aluminum alloy. Likewise, the parts must be composed of a sheet or strip according to claim 9 excluding any other elements, though the aluminum alloy itself can contain unrecited elements so long as it remains an aluminum alloy.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the sheet or strip has been subjected to a heat treatment, including recrystallization annealing with subsequent accelerated cooling”. Similarly, claim 18 recites “wherein the sheet or strip has been subjected to the heat treatment, including recrystallization annealing with subsequent accelerated cooling and a stabilization of the sheet or strip that has undergone accelerated cooling”. As it is clear from the Exemplary Embodiments 1-6 in the specification that a recrystallization annealing with water quenching, i.e. accelerated cooling, is a part of the heat treatment of the aluminum, the claims will be interpreted as the aluminum sheet being required to have undergone a heat treatment including recrystallization annealing with subsequent accelerated cooling (as well as a stabilization treatment in claim 18) while this heat treatment is nonetheless open to other unrecited steps.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites “A sheet or strip in ssf quality or ffa quality” in line 1. It is not clear what is meant by “ssf quality” nor “ffa quality”. While page 6 of the instant specification, end of the paragraph under the heading Prior Art notes that outer body shell components “require ssf quality (stretcher strain free) or what is also known by its German abbreviation ffa quality (ffa = flie/figurenarme [low stretcher strain]), i.e. a freedom from or reduction in type A stretcher strain marks” it is not clear what constitutes ssf quality or ffa quality. If these quality metrics are in relation to stretcher strain marks, it is not clear what quantity of stretcher strain marks in the sheet or strip is allowed for the sheet or strip to possess these “quality” metrics.
Further, as “ssf” and “ffa” are abbreviations, these should be in capital letters to properly indicate that they are an abbreviation and in the first instance of use in the independent claim, the words which are being abbreviated should be included in parenthesis after the abbreviation. Claims 10-19 are also rejected as they depend from claim 9 and do not solve the above issue.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2005-113248 A and its English machine translation of Hoshino.
As to claims 9 and 14, Hoshino discloses an aluminum alloy sheet (Hoshino, paragraph [0007]) with the composition in comparison to the instant claims in Table A below.
Table A
Element
Claims 9 and 14 limitations (wt%)
Hoshino claim 1
(mass %)
Hoshino Ex 9
(mass%) (Table 1)
Magnesium
2.0 to 5.5 %
Claim 14: and/or 4.0 to 5.0%
3.0 to 5.5%
4.5%
Manganese
0.2 to 1.2 %
Claim 14: and/or 0.2 to 0.5%
At least one of 0.01 to 0.3%
0.25%
Silicon
Up to 0.45%
0.10 % or less
0.05%
Iron
Up to 0.55%
0.15% or less
0.10%
Chromium
Up to 0.35%
At least one of 0.01 to 0.3 %
Titanium
Up to 0.2 %
Silver
Up to 0.2%
Zinc
Up to 4.0%
Claim 14: And/or 2.0 to 4.0%
Copper
Up to 0.8%
0.2 to 0.6%
0.4%
Zirconium
Up to 0.8%
Niobium
Up to 0.3%
Tantalum
Up to 0.25%
Vanadium
Up to 0.05%
Aluminum
Remainder
balance
Paragraph [0032]: aluminum alloy having the composition in Table 1; i.e. balance Al
So Hoshino discloses Example 9 in Table 1 which has amounts of magnesium, manganese, silicon, iron, copper, and aluminum that all fall within the claimed ranges of claims 9 and 14. Hoshino also discloses where the impurities are permitted up to 0.05 mass % (Hoshino, paragraph [0021, meeting the claim limitations. While Zn has been moved from the “optionally” category of elements in claim 1, the claimed range for Zn is “up to 4.0%” meaning it is inclusive of 0% and therefore still an optional element. As such, Hoshino meets the claim limitation by not disclosing the inclusion of Zn.
Further, with respect to claim 14, as the recited compositional limits for Mg, Mn, and Zn are all connected by “and/or” the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim is that it is met by one of these elements being present at the claimed ranges. As both Mg and Mn fall within the claimed ranges in claim 14, this meets the claim limitation where Zinc is not included in example 9.
Further, Hoshino discloses where the average crystal grain size is 30 to 60 µm (Hoshino, paragraph [0022]) and Hoshino discloses where the average crystal grain size of example 9 is 34 µm (Hoshino, Table 3), meeting the claim limitation of ≤ 60 µm. Hoshino also discloses where there are intermetallic compounds (Hoshino, paragraph [0023]) and where the area ratio of intermetallic compounds in Example 9 is 0.35 % (Hoshino, Table 3), meeting the limitation of there being at least one intermetallic phase with first particles.
Hoshino then discloses a softening treatment of heating at 450 to 560 °C followed by cooling at a rate of 200 °C/min or more (Hoshino, paragraph [0029]) and specifically Hoshino discloses where example 9 is subjected to a softening treatment at 530 °C with a cooling rate of 700 °C/min (11.67 °C/s), meeting the claim limitations of where the sheet is subject to a heat treatment including recrystallization annealing with subsequent accelerated cooling.
However, Hoshino does not disclose where the intermetallic phase has first particle having an average size of 5 to 10 µm. Also, Hoshino does not explicitly disclose where √(D)*A>1.8. Finally, while it is not clear what is meant by “sff quality” nor “ffa quality”, this will be interpreted as requiring where the sheet or strip is free from type A stretcher strain marks and Hoshino is silent concerning the presence of type A stretcher strain marks.
Nevertheless, Hoshino discloses a composition that falls within the claimed composition, see Table A above, and Hoshino discloses a substantially identical method of making the aluminum alloy sheet where the alloy is cast (Hoshino, paragraph [0026]), followed by carrying out homogenization heat treatment at 480 to 550°C for 1 to 48 hours (Hoshino, paragraph [0027]) and specifically homogenizing example 9 at 510 °C for 4 hours (Hoshino, Table 2), meeting applicant’s disclosed method in page 7, last paragraph of the specification. Hoshino discloses then hot rolling and cold rolling the sheet where the cold rolling reduction ratio is 30% or more and Hoshino discloses intermediate annealing by continuous annealing at 500°C (Hoshino, paragraph [0028]), and Hoshino discloses specifically hot rolling example 9, followed by cold rolling with a final cold rolling rate of 60% (Hoshino, Table 2), meeting the disclosed method of hot rolling followed by cold rolling with a rolling reduction of 10 to 65% and intermediate annealing at 300 to 500 °C in page 7, last paragraph and page 9 last paragraph – page 10 first paragraph of the specification. Hoshino then discloses a softening treatment of heating at 450 to 560 °C followed by cooling at a rate of 200 °C/min or more (Hoshino, paragraph [0029]) and specifically Hoshino discloses where example 9 is subjected to a softening treatment at 530 °C with a cooling rate of 700 °C/min (11.67 °C/s), meeting the disclosed method of recrystallization annealing at 300 C or more with accelerated cooling on page 9, second paragraph of the specification. As Hoshino discloses an identical composition, see Table A above, and applies a substantially identical method thereto, it would be expected that the same method applied to the same starting material would produce the same structure of an intermetallic phase has first particle having an average size of 5 to 10 µm, where √(D)*A>1.8, and where the sheet or strip is free from type A stretcher strain marks. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (emphasis added), see MPEP § 2112.01(I).
As to claims 10-13, Hoshino does not disclose where √(D)*A>2.0, where the crystal structure has more than 200 dislocations at each first particle, where the number A of first particles in the aluminum alloy is > 10 particles/mm2, nor where a primary intermetallic phase has an Al-Mn basis, and is of the Al13(Mn,Fe)6 type or of the Al15FeMn3Si2 type or of the Al12Mn type or of the Al6Mn type.
Nevertheless, Hoshino discloses a composition that falls within the claimed composition, see Table A above, and Hoshino discloses a substantially identical method of making the aluminum alloy sheet where the alloy is cast (Hoshino, paragraph [0026]), followed by carrying out homogenization heat treatment at 480 to 550°C for 1 to 48 hours (Hoshino, paragraph [0027]) and specifically homogenizing example 9 at 510 °C for 4 hours (Hoshino, Table 2), meeting applicant’s disclosed method in page 7, last paragraph of the specification. Hoshino discloses then hot rolling and cold rolling the sheet where the cold rolling reduction ratio is 30% or more and Hoshino discloses intermediate annealing by continuous annealing at 500°C (Hoshino, paragraph [0028]), and Hoshino discloses specifically hot rolling example 9, followed by cold rolling with a final cold rolling rate of 60% (Hoshino, Table 2), meeting the disclosed method of hot rolling followed by cold rolling with a rolling reduction of 10 to 65% and intermediate annealing at 300 to 500 °C in page 7, last paragraph and page 9 last paragraph – page 10 first paragraph of the specification. Hoshino then discloses a softening treatment of heating at 450 to 560 °C followed by cooling at a rate of 200 °C/min or more (Hoshino, paragraph [0029]) and specifically Hoshino discloses where example 9 is subjected to a softening treatment at 530 °C with a cooling rate of 700 °C/min (11.67 °C/s), meeting the disclosed method of recrystallization annealing at 300 C or more with accelerated cooling at a cooling rate of at least 10 K/s on page 9, second paragraph of the specification. As Hoshino discloses an identical composition, see Table A above, and applies a substantially identical method thereto, it would be expected that the same method applied to the same starting material would produce the same structure of where √(D)*A>2.0, where the crystal structure has more than 200 dislocations at each first particle, where the number A of first particles in the aluminum alloy is > 10 particles/mm2, nor where a primary intermetallic phase has an Al-Mn basis, and is of the Al13(Mn,Fe)6 type or of the Al15FeMn3Si2 type or of the Al12Mn type or of the Al6Mn type. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (emphasis added), see MPEP § 2112.01(I).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forming of Aluminum Alloys of Burt in view of JP 2005-113248 A and its English machine translation of Hoshino.
As to claims 15-17, Burt discloses where aluminum sheets are used in automotive vehicle body parts (Burt, pg. 336, left column first paragraph and Fig. 1), meeting the claim limitation as aluminum is a metal and the parts in Burt are formed.
However, Burt does not explicitly disclose where the part is composed of a sheet or strip according to claim 9.
As shown in the rejection of claim 9 above, Hoshino discloses the heat treated aluminum sheet according to claim 9. Hoshino teaches where this aluminum sheet has excellent strength, formability, and matte finishability (Hoshino, paragraph [0012]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the heat treated aluminum alloy with the composition as shown in Table A above, with an average crystal grain size of 34 µm, and with the same structure of an intermetallic phase has first particle having an average size of 5 to 10 µm and where √(D)*A>1.8 as taught by Hoshino into the method of forming a vehicle body part disclosed by Burt, thereby producing a molded part with excellent strength, formability, and matte finishability (Hoshino, paragraph [0012]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2005-113248 A and its English machine translation of Hoshino in view of Annealing of Aluminum and Its Alloys of Hirsch.
As to claim 18, Hoshino discloses the aluminum sheet according to claim 9, see claim 9 rejection above. Hoshino then discloses a softening treatment of heating at 450 to 560 °C followed by cooling at a rate of 200 °C/min or more (Hoshino, paragraph [0029]) and specifically Hoshino discloses where example 9 is subjected to a softening treatment at 530 °C with a cooling rate of 700 °C/min (11.67 °C/s), meeting the claim limitations of where the sheet is subject to a heat treatment including recrystallization annealing with subsequent accelerated cooling. However, Hoshino does not explicitly disclose where the sheet is subjected to a stabilization.
Hirsch relates to the same field of endeavor of heat treated aluminum (Hirsch, title) and teaches that stabilization is a heat treatment applied to strain hardened aluminum alloys at final gage and that this process allows the aluminum to retain the strength and formability of the as-rolled metal and prevent sensitization to stress or intracrystalline-corrosion cracking (Hirsch, pg. 143, right column, 3rd full paragraph).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a stabilization as taught by Hirsch to the aluminum sheet disclosed by Hoshino, thereby allowing the sheet in Hoshino to retain the strength and formability of the as-rolled metal and preventing sensitization to stress or intracrystalline-corrosion cracking (Hirsch, pg. 143, right column, 3rd full paragraph).
Claims 9-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 104313413 B with provided English translation of Hou.
As to claims 9, 14 and 19, Hou discloses a high-strength Al-Mg-Zn alloy pate (Hou, paragraph [0002]), with the composition in comparison to the instant claims in Table B below.
Table B
Element
Claims 9 and 14 limitations (wt%)
Hou claim 1
(mass %)
Hou Ex 3
(mass %) (Table 1, paragraph [0021])
Magnesium
2.0 to 5.5 %
Claim 14: and/or 4.0 to 5.0%
4.0-5.7%
4.34%
Manganese
0.2 to 1.2 %
Claim 14: and/or 0.2 to 0.5%
0.4-1.2%
0.8%
Silicon
Up to 0.45%
0-0.4%
0.15%
Iron
Up to 0.55%
0-0.4%
0.2%
Chromium
Up to 0.35%
0-0.1%
0.03%
Titanium
Up to 0.2 %
0-0.15%
0.07%
Silver
Up to 0.2%
Zinc
Up to 4.0%
Claim 14: And/or 2.0 to 4.0%
Claim 19: 2.0 to 4.0%
2.5-4.0%
3.08%
Copper
Up to 0.8%
0-0.4%
0.15%
Zirconium
Up to 0.8%
0.05-0.25%
0.15%
Niobium
Up to 0.3%
Tantalum
Up to 0.25%
Vanadium
Up to 0.05%
Aluminum
Remainder
rest
Al rest (claim 1)
So Hou discloses Example 3 in Table 1 which has amounts of magnesium, manganese, zinc, silicon, iron, chromium, titanium, copper, zirconium, and aluminum that all fall within the claimed ranges of claims 9 and 19 and meets the claimed range in claim 14 for magnesium and zinc. While Example 3’s amount of manganese is merely close to the claim 14 range of 0.2 to 0.5%, the claimed ranges for manganese overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness is established as it 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 to select the claimed amount of manganese over the prior art disclosure since the prior art teaches the improvement in mechanical properties of the aluminum alloy (Hou, paragraph [0009]) throughout the disclosed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . See MPEP § 2144.05 I.
Further, Hou discloses the formation of MgZn2 and Al2Mg3Zn3 intermetallic (Hou, paragraph [0007]), meeting the limitation of there being at least one intermetallic phase with first particles.
Hou discloses where solution treatment is performed at 500-535°C followed by direct water quenching (Hou, paragraph [0018]), meeting the claim limitations of where the sheet is subject to a heat treatment including recrystallization annealing with subsequent accelerated cooling.
However, Hou does not disclose where average crystal grain size D is less than or equal to 60 µm nor where the intermetallic phase has first particle having an average size of 5 to 10 µm. Also, Hou does not explicitly disclose where √(D)*A>1.8. Finally, while it is not clear what is meant by “sff quality” nor “ffa quality”, this will be interpreted as requiring where the sheet or strip is free from type A stretcher strain marks and Hou is silent concerning the presence of type A stretcher strain marks.
Nevertheless, Hou discloses a composition that falls within the claimed composition, see Table A above, and Hou discloses a substantially identical method of making the aluminum alloy sheet where the alloy is cast (Hou, paragraph [0013]), followed by carrying out homogenization heat treatment at 425 to 440°C for 3-8 hours and 510-535°C for 5-15 hours (Hou, paragraph [0014]), meeting applicant’s disclosed method in page 7, last paragraph of the specification. Hou discloses then hot rolling and cold rolling the sheet where the cold rolling deformation amount is 10 to 30% and Hou discloses intermediate annealing at 350-450°C (Hou, paragraphs [0015] – [0016]), meeting the disclosed method of hot rolling followed by cold rolling with a rolling reduction of 10 to 65% and intermediate annealing at 300 to 500 °C in page 7, last paragraph and page 9 last paragraph – page 10 first paragraph of the specification. Hou then discloses a solution treatment of heating at 500-530 °C followed by direct water quenching (Hou, paragraph [0018]), meeting the disclosed method of recrystallization annealing at 300 C or more with accelerated cooling on page 9, second paragraph of the specification. As Hou discloses an identical composition, see Table A above, and applies a substantially identical method thereto, it would be expected that the same method applied to the same starting material would produce the same structure of a sheet with an average crystal grain size D is less than or equal to 60 µm, an intermetallic phase having a first particle having an average size of 5 to 10 µm, where √(D)*A>1.8, and where the sheet or strip is free from type A stretcher strain marks. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (emphasis added), see MPEP § 2112.01(I).
As to claims 10-13, Hou does not disclose where √(D)*A>2.0, where the crystal structure has more than 200 dislocations at each first particle, where the number A of first particles in the aluminum alloy is > 10 particles/mm2, nor where a primary intermetallic phase has an Al-Mn basis, and is of the Al13(Mn,Fe)6 type or of the Al15FeMn3Si2 type or of the Al12Mn type or of the Al6Mn type.
Nevertheless, Hou discloses a composition that falls within the claimed composition, see Table A above, and Hou discloses a substantially identical method of making the aluminum alloy sheet where the alloy is cast (Hou, paragraph [0013]), followed by carrying out homogenization heat treatment at 425 to 440°C for 3-8 hours and 510-535°C for 5-15 hours (Hou, paragraph [0014]), meeting applicant’s disclosed method in page 7, last paragraph of the specification. Hou discloses then hot rolling and cold rolling the sheet where the cold rolling deformation amount 10 to 30% and Hou discloses intermediate annealing at 350-450°C (Hou, paragraphs [0015] – [0016]), meeting the disclosed method of hot rolling followed by cold rolling with a rolling reduction of 10 to 65% and intermediate annealing at 300 to 500 °C in page 7, last paragraph and page 9 last paragraph – page 10 first paragraph of the specification. Hou then discloses a solution treatment of heating at 500-530 °C followed by direct water quenching (Hou, paragraph [0018]), meeting the disclosed method of recrystallization annealing at 300 C or more with accelerated cooling on page 9, second paragraph of the specification. As Hou discloses an identical composition, see Table A above, and applies a substantially identical method thereto, it would be expected that the same method applied to the same starting material would produce the same structure of a sheet with where the crystal structure has more than 200 dislocations at each first particle, where the number A of first particles in the aluminum alloy is > 10 particles/mm2, where a primary intermetallic phase has an Al-Mn basis, and is of the Al13(Mn,Fe)6 type or of the Al15FeMn3Si2 type or of the Al12Mn type or of the Al6Mn type. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (emphasis added), see MPEP § 2112.01(I).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forming of Aluminum Alloys of Burt in view of CN 104313413 B with provided English translation of Hou.
As to claims 15-17, Burt discloses where aluminum sheets are used in automotive vehicle body parts (Burt, pg. 336, left column first paragraph and Fig. 1), meeting the claim limitation as aluminum is a metal and the parts in Burt are formed.
However, Burt does not explicitly disclose where the part is composed of a sheet or strip according to claim 9.
As shown in the rejection of claim 9 above, Hou discloses the heat treated aluminum sheet according to claim 9. Hou teaches where this aluminum sheet has improved strength and elongation (Hou, paragraph [0031]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the heat treated aluminum alloy with the composition as shown in Table A above with the same crystal size of less than 60 µm and structure of an intermetallic phase has first particle having an average size of 5 to 10 µm and where √(D)*A>1.8 as taught by Hou into the method of forming a vehicle body part disclosed by Burt, thereby producing a molded part with improved strength and elongation (Hou, paragraph [0031])
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2005-113248 A and its English machine translation of Hoshino in view of Annealing of Aluminum and Its Alloys of Hirsch.
As to claim 18, Hou discloses the aluminum sheet according to claim 9, see claim 9 rejection above. Hou discloses where solution treatment is performed at 500-535°C followed by direct water quenching (Hou, paragraph [0018]), meeting the claim limitations of where the sheet is subject to a heat treatment including recrystallization annealing with subsequent accelerated cooling. However, Hou does not explicitly disclose where the sheet is subjected to a stabilization.
Hirsch relates to the same field of endeavor of heat treated aluminum (Hirsch, title) and teaches that stabilization is a heat treatment applied to strain hardened aluminum alloys at final gage and that this process allows the aluminum to retain the strength and formability of the as-rolled metal and prevent sensitization to stress or intracrystalline-corrosion cracking (Hirsch, pg. 143, right column, 3rd full paragraph).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a stabilization as taught by Hirsch to the aluminum sheet disclosed by Hou, thereby allowing the sheet in Hou to retain the strength and formability of the as-rolled metal and preventing sensitization to stress or intracrystalline-corrosion cracking (Hirsch, pg. 143, right column, 3rd full paragraph).
Response to Arguments
With respect to the 112(b) and (d) rejections concerning the claimed parts being composed of the sheet or strip according to claim 9, applicant’s amendments cure the previous issue and the rejections are withdrawn.
With respect to the 103 rejection over Hoshino, applicant argues that Hoshino does not disclose or suggest an aluminum alloy sheet in ssf or faa quality (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 10, 2nd paragraph).
However, it is not clear what is meant by ssf or ffa quality, see 112(b) rejection above. Also, applicant uses different terms for ssf and ffa in their arguments than the terms in the specification. The specification recites on page 6 that “require ssf quality (stretcher strain free) or what is also known by its German abbreviation ffa quality (ffa = flie/figurenarme [low stretcher strain]), i.e. a freedom from or reduction in type A stretcher strain marks” while in the remarks instead recite “surface-sensitive forming (ssf) quality” and “free-forming aluminum (ffa) quality” (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 11, first paragraph). This adds to the unclarity as to whether ssf refers to being free of stretcher strain marks, whether it is surface sensitive forming or some other meaning. Also, ffa in the specification is linked to a German phrase while the arguments note it as an English abbreviation. This supports that the terms themselves are unclear, much less that it is also unclear what sort of quantification of the quality of the sheet would need to be to meet these claim limitations.
Nevertheless, as Hoshino discloses an anticipatory composition and applies a substantially identical method, this quality property of the sheet would naturally flow from this process.
Applicant then argues that the method in Hoshino is not substantially identical as claim 1 has been amended to include where after casting the slab is solidified by maintaining a cooling rate of less than 2.5°C/s (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 10, 3rd paragraph). Applicant argues that because of this difference, Hoshino would not have the size of intermetallic particles as claimed and thus would not have sheets with the claimed ssf or ffa quality (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 10, last paragraph – pg. 11 1st paragraph).
However, the cooling rate after the slab is cast is not disclosed as an essential step to forming the claimed invention and applicant does not point to any data that either shows that the cooling rate after slab formation is critical and unexpected, nor that this cooling rate is tied to the (indefinite) ssf or ffa quality of the sheet. As Hoshino (and Hou) discloses an anticipating composition and discloses a method of manufacture that matches what applicant has identified as necessary to form the claimed sheet, the aluminum sheets in Hoshino (and Hou) would necessarily posses the same lack of Luders bands during deformation.
With respect to the 103 rejections over Burt in view of Hoshino and Hoshino in view of Hirsch, applicant renews their arguments concerning the lack of ssf and ffa quality of the aluminum sheets (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 11, last 5 paragraphs). However, as noted above, as Hoshino discloses an anticipatory composition and applies a substantially identical method, this quality property of the sheet would naturally flow from this process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua S Carpenter whose telephone number is (571)272-2724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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.
/JOSHUA S CARPENTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JOPHY S. KOSHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733