Detailed Office Action
Notice of Pre-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
Request for Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/25/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed on 11/25/2025 has been entered. Claims 16 – 21, 24, 27, 29 – 35 and 37 – 40 are pending and under examination. Claims 38 – 40 are newly added and find support in at least the Table 5 and Table 2.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §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 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 16 – 21 and 37 – 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAE (AMS4410, NPL, 2019)
Regarding claims 16 – 19 and 38, SAE teaches an aluminum alloy plate with a composition of [Table 1]:
Element
Claimed Invention
SAE (wt%)
Relation
Zinc (Zn)
6.75 – 7.2%
6.9 – 7.5%
Overlaps
Magnesium (Mg)
1.8 – 2.10%
1.8 – 2.2%
Overlap
Copper (Cu)
1.55 – 1.95%
1.2 – 1.8%
Overlaps
Zirconium (Zr)
0.095 – 0.15%
About 0.06 – 0.15%
Overlaps
Incidental
Impurities
0.15% or less (individual)
0.35% or less (total)
0.05% or less (individually)
0.15% or less (total)
Falls within
Silicon (Si)
0.12% or less
0.05% or less (Claim 17)
0.12% or less
Falls within (claim 16)
Overlaps (claim 17)
Iron (Fe)
0.07 – 0.15%
0.07 – 0.1% (Claim 18)
0.15% or less
Overlaps
Chromium (Cr)
0.04% or less
0.04% or less
Falls within
Titanium (Ti)
0.005 – 0.1%
0.06% or less
Falls within
Aluminum
Balance
Balance
Meets
*SAE does not require any additional elements not specifically claimed, meeting the limitation of “consisting of”
Wherein the ratio of Mg to Cu is 1.0 – 1.83 (1.8/1.8 – 2.2/1.2), based on the disclosed ranges of Mg and Cu, which overlaps the claimed range (1.05 – 1.35).
Wherein the ratio of Zn to Mg is 3.14 – 4.17 (6.9/2.2 – 7.5/1.8), based on the disclosed ranges of Zn and Mg, which overlaps the claimed range (3.4 – 4).
SAE teaches that the LT yield strength is at least 67 ksi [Table 2A] which fall within the claimed ranges of claim 16 and overlaps with claim 19. SAE teaches that the aluminum alloy plate has a thickness ranging from 1 – 7 inches, which falls within the claimed range of 1 – 10 inches [Table 2A].
With regards to the overlapping ranges taught, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed. Selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP § 2144.05.I).
In reference to the claimed formula/relationship of Mg/Cu and Zn/Mg, the claimed invention is not distinguished from the prior art solely because the prior art does not disclose the claimed formula/relationship, where the prior art teaches a composition that overlaps with or anticipates the claimed range and claimed relationship/formula. That is, the claimed invention is not distinguished from the prior art if the prior art discloses a composition range/values that satisfies/overlaps with the claimed formula, even if the prior art does not disclose the formula itself, absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results. “Patentability of the claims may not rest solely on the fact that the…contents…are calculated from the formula”. See In Re Cooper, 134 F.2d 630, 631–32 (CCPA 1943).
SAE does not expressly disclose Kmax-dev in any orientation, including L-S (claim 38). However, SAE teaches an overlapping compositon to the claimed aluminum alloy product as well as a thickness, L-T yield strength, and T-L K1c that fall within the claimed range (claim 20 – 21), and the aluminum alloy plate is subjected to the same T7451 treatment as claimed (claim 37). As such, there is a reasonable expectation to a person of ordinary skill in the art that SAE would possess a Kmax-dev in the claimed range in a particular orientation (claim 16 and 19) and specifically in the L-S orientation (claim 38).
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, in this case an overlapping composition, substantially identical properties, and substantially identical method of making, a prima facie case of obviousness is established (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (See MPEP 2112.01))
Regarding claim 20, SAE teaches the invention as applied in claim 16. SAE teaches that the T-L K1c is at least 26 ksi-in1/2 for a product of 4 – 5 inches [Table 3], which meets the claimed range and limitation.
Regarding claim 21, SAE teaches the invention as applied in claim 16. SAE teaches that the T-L K1c is at least 29 ksi-in1/2 for a product of 1 – 2 inches [Table 3], which meets the claimed range and limitation.
Regarding claim 37, SAE teaches the invention as applied in claim 16. The examiner notes that the claim limitation of claim 37 is a product-by-process limitation and the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production”, only the structure implied (MPEP 2113 I).
However, for purposes of compact prosecution, Sae teaches that the aluminum alloy plate is T7451 tempered [Page 1], meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claims 39 – 40, SAE teaches the invention as applied in claim 16. SAE does not expressly disclose the YTS or UTS of the aluminum alloy plate in a tensile direction 45 degrees off thickness (ST) direction (ST-45). However, SAE teaches an overlapping compositon to the claimed aluminum alloy product as well as a thickness, L-T yield strength, and T-L K1c that fall within the claimed range (claim 20 and 21), and the aluminum alloy plate is subjected to the same T7451 treatment as claimed (claim 37). As such, there is a reasonable expectation to a person of ordinary skill in the art that SAE would possess YTS and UTS as claimed.
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, in this case an overlapping composition, substantially identical properties, and substantially identical method of making, a prima facie case of obviousness is established (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (SEE MPEP 2112.01))
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAE (AMS4410, NPL, 2019), as applied to claim 16, as evidenced by De Francisco (“Hydrogen environmentally assisted cracking during static loading of AA7075 and AA7449”, NPL)
Regarding claim 24, SAE teaches the invention as applied in claim 16. SAE does not disclose performing an EAC test, however, SAE teaches that the nominal Zn content is 7.2%, which falls within the claimed range [Page 1] as well as an overlapping composition to the claimed range. Additionally, based on [0051], Table 7, and Table 8 of the instant invention, higher levels of zinc (Zn) negatively affect EAC resistance. This is further supported by De Francisco (NPL) which states “a higher Zn content has been correlated with an increased sensitivity”.
Therefore, because SAE teaches that the nominal Zn content is 7.2 wt%, which falls within the claimed range, and teaches overlapping ranges with the other components, there is a reasonable expectation to a person of ordinary skilled in art that SAE would achieve a 100 or more day value when subjected to an EAC test.
Claims 27 and 29 – 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAE (AMS4410, NPL, 2019) as evidenced by De Francisco (“Hydrogen environmentally assisted cracking during static loading of AA7075 and AA7449”, NPL)
Regarding claims 27 and 29, SAE teaches an aluminum alloy plate with a composition of [Table 1]:
Element
Claimed Invention
SAE (wt%)
Relation
Zinc (Zn)
6.75 – 7.2%
7.2% (nominal/intended amount)(Page 1)
Falls within
Magnesium (Mg)
1.8 – 2.10%
1.8 – 2.2%
Overlap
Copper (Cu)
1.55 – 1.75%
1.2 – 1.8%
Overlaps
Zirconium (Zr)
0.095 – 0.15%
About 0.06 – 0.15%
Overlaps
Incidental
Impurities
0.15% or less (individual)
0.35% or less (total)
0.05% or less (individually)
0.15% or less (total)
Falls within
Silicon (Si)
0.12% or less
0.12% or less
Falls within
Iron (Fe)
0.07 – 0.15%
0.15% or less
Overlaps
Chromium (Cr)
0.04% or less
0.04% or less
Falls within
Titanium (Ti)
0.005 – 0.1%
0.06% or less
Falls within
Aluminum
Balance
Balance
Meets
*SAE does not require any additional elements not specifically claimed, meeting the limitation of “consisting of”
Wherein the ratio of Mg to Cu is 1.0 – 1.83 (1.8/1.8 – 2.2/1.2), based on the disclosed ranges of Mg and Cu, which overlaps the claimed range (1.05 – 1.35).
Wherein the ratio of Zn to Mg is 3.27 – 4 (7.2/2.2 – 7.2/1.8), based on the disclosed ranges of Zn and Mg, which overlaps the claimed range (3.4 – 4).
SAE teaches that the LT yield strength is at least 67 ksi [Table 2A] which fall within the claimed ranges of 27 and overlaps with claim 29. SAE teaches that the aluminum alloy plate has a thickness ranging from 1 – 7 inches, which falls within the claimed range of 1 – 10 inches [Table 2A].
With regards to the overlapping ranges taught, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed. Selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP § 2144.05.I).
In reference to the claimed formula/relationship of Mg/Cu and Zn/Mg, the claimed invention is not distinguished from the prior art solely because the prior art does not disclose the claimed formula/relationship, where the prior art teaches a composition that overlaps with or anticipates the claimed range and claimed relationship/formula. That is, the claimed invention is not distinguished from the prior art if the prior art discloses a composition range/values that satisfies/overlaps with the claimed formula, even if the prior art does not disclose the formula itself, absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results. “Patentability of the claims may not rest solely on the fact that the…contents…are calculated from the formula”. See In Re Cooper, 134 F.2d 630, 631–32 (CCPA 1943).
SAE does not expressly disclose Kmax-dev in any orientation. However, SAE teaches an overlapping compositon to the claimed aluminum alloy product as well as a thickness, L-T yield strength, and T-L K1c that fall within the claimed range (claims 30 and 31), and the aluminum alloy plate is subjected to the same T7451 treatment as claimed (claim 37). As such, there is a reasonable expectation to a person of ordinary skill in the art that SAE would possess a Kmax-dev in the claimed range in a particular orientation.
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, in this case an overlapping composition, substantially identical properties, and substantially identical method of making, a prima facie case of obviousness is established (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (SEE MPEP 2112.01))
SAE does not disclose performing an EAC test, however, SAE teaches that the nominal Zn content is 7.2%, which falls within the claimed range [Page 1] as well as an overlapping composition to the claimed range. Additionally, based on [0051], Table 7, and Table 8 of the instant invention, higher levels of zinc (Zn) negatively affect EAC resistance. This is further supported by De Francisco (NPL) which states “a higher Zn content has been correlated with an increased sensitivity”.
Therefore, because SAE teaches that the nominal Zn content is 7.2 wt%, which falls within the claimed range, and teaches overlapping ranges with the other components, there is a reasonable expectation to a person of ordinary skilled in art that SAE would achieve a 100 or more day value when subjected to an EAC test.
Regarding claim 30, SAE teaches the invention as applied in claim 27. SAE teaches that the T-L K1c is at least 26 ksi-in1/2 for a product of 4 – 5 inches [Table 3], which meets the claimed range and limitation.
Regarding claim 31, SAE teaches the invention as applied in claim 27. SAE teaches that the T-L K1c is at least 29 ksi-in1/2 for a product of 1 – 2 inches [Table 3], which meets the claimed range and limitation.
Claims 32 – 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAE (AMS4410, NPL, 2019) as evidenced by De Francisco (“Hydrogen environmentally assisted cracking during static loading of AA7075 and AA7449”, NPL)
Regarding claims 32 – 33, SAE teaches an aluminum alloy plate with a composition of [Table 1]:
Element
Claimed Invention
SAE (wt%)
Relation
Zinc (Zn)
6.84 – 7.2%
7.2% (nominal/intended amount)(Page 1)
Falls within
Magnesium (Mg)
1.8 – 2.10%
1.8 – 2.2%
Overlap
Copper (Cu)
1.55 – 1.74%
1.2 – 1.8%
Overlaps
Zirconium (Zr)
0.095 – 0.15%
About 0.06 – 0.15%
Overlaps
Incidental
Impurities
0.15% or less (individual)
0.35% or less (total)
0.05% or less (individually)
0.15% or less (total)
Falls within
Silicon (Si)
0.12% or less
0.12% or less
Falls within
Iron (Fe)
0.07 – 0.15%
0.15% or less
Overlaps
Chromium (Cr)
0.04% or less
0.04% or less
Falls within
Titanium (Ti)
0.005 – 0.1%
0.06% or less
Falls within
Aluminum
Balance
Balance
Meets
*SAE does not require any additional elements not specifically claimed, meeting the limitation of “consisting of”
Wherein the ratio of Mg to Cu is 1.0 – 1.83 (1.8/1.8 – 2.2/1.2), based on the disclosed ranges of Mg and Cu, which overlaps the claimed range (1.10 – 1.35).
Wherein the ratio of Zn to Mg is 3.27 – 4 (7.2/2.2 – 7.2/1.8), based on the disclosed ranges of Zn and Mg, which overlaps the claimed range (3.4 – 4).
SAE teaches that the LT yield strength is at least 67 ksi [Table 2A] which fall within the claimed ranges of 27 and overlaps with claim 29. SAE teaches that the aluminum alloy plate has a thickness ranging from 1 – 7 inches, which falls within the claimed range of 1 – 10 inches [Table 2A].
With regards to the overlapping ranges taught, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed. Selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP § 2144.05.I).
In reference to the claimed formula/relationship of Mg/Cu and Zn/Mg, the claimed invention is not distinguished from the prior art solely because the prior art does not disclose the claimed formula/relationship, where the prior art teaches a composition that overlaps with or anticipates the claimed range and claimed relationship/formula. That is, the claimed invention is not distinguished from the prior art if the prior art discloses a composition range/values that satisfies/overlaps with the claimed formula, even if the prior art does not disclose the formula itself, absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results. “Patentability of the claims may not rest solely on the fact that the…contents…are calculated from the formula”. See In Re Cooper, 134 F.2d 630, 631–32 (CCPA 1943).
SAE does not expressly disclose Kmax-dev in any orientation. However, SAE teaches an overlapping compositon to the claimed aluminum alloy product as well as a thickness, L-T yield strength, and T-L K1c that fall within the claimed range (claims 34 and 35), and the aluminum alloy plate is subjected to the same T7451 treatment as claimed (claim 37). As such, there is a reasonable expectation to a person of ordinary skill in the art that SAE would possess a Kmax-dev in the claimed range (claim 32 and 33) in a particular orientation.
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, in this case an overlapping composition, substantially identical properties, and substantially identical method of making, a prima facie case of obviousness is established (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (SEE MPEP 2112.01))
SAE does not disclose performing an EAC test, however, SAE teaches that the nominal Zn content is 7.2%, which falls within the claimed range [Page 1] as well as an overlapping composition to the claimed range. Additionally, based on [0051], Table 7, and Table 8 of the instant invention, higher levels of zinc (Zn) negatively affect EAC resistance. This is further supported by De Francisco (NPL) which states “a higher Zn content has been correlated with an increased sensitivity”.
Therefore, because SAE teaches that the nominal Zn content is 7.2 wt%, which falls within the claimed range, and teaches overlapping ranges with the other components, there is a reasonable expectation to a person of ordinary skilled in art that SAE would achieve a 100 or more day value when subjected to an EAC test.
Regarding claim 34, SAE teaches the invention as applied in claim 32. SAE teaches that the T-L K1c is at least 26 ksi-in1/2 for a product of 4 – 5 inches [Table 3], which meets the claimed range and limitation.
Regarding claim 35, SAE teaches the invention as applied in claim 32. SAE teaches that the T-L K1c is at least 29 ksi-in1/2 for a product of 1 – 2 inches [Table 3], which meets the claimed range and limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered. Upon further consideration, the examiner has found persuasive the arguments that the claimed limitation of the Kmax-dev ≥ 33 MPa-m1/2 distinguishes the claimed invention from the prior art of Bray (EP 829552) (alone or in view of Dangerfield (US2006/0191609)) such that it does not anticipate or reasonably render obvious the cumulative limitations of claims 16, 27, or 32. The rejection is withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new rejection is made of:
Claims 16 – 21 and 37 – 40 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAE (AMS4410, NPL, 2019)
Claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAE (AMS4410, NPL, 2019), as applied to claim 16, as evidenced by De Francisco (“Hydrogen environmentally assisted cracking during static loading of AA7075 and AA7449”, NPL)
Claims 27 and 29 – 31 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAE (AMS4410, NPL, 2019) as evidenced by De Francisco (“Hydrogen environmentally assisted cracking during static loading of AA7075 and AA7449”, NPL)
Claims 32 – 35 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAE (AMS4410, NPL, 2019) as evidenced by De Francisco (“Hydrogen environmentally assisted cracking during static loading of AA7075 and AA7449”, NPL)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN POLLOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-5602. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (8 - 5).
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, Sally Merkling can be reached on (571) 272-6297. 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.
/AUSTIN POLLOCK/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738