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 .
Status of Claims
Pending:
1, 2, 7-9, 11-24
Withdrawn:
20-23
Rejected:
1, 2, 7-9, 11-16, 18, 19, 24
Amended:
1, 2, 13
New:
NONE
Independent:
1
Objected to (allowable):
17
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 2, 7-9, 11-15, 18, 19, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamat et al (US 2014/0366999) in view of “Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys” p 20, 21, 60 and Haszler (US 6,495,269).
Kamat teaches a rolled 2xxx alloy (including 2324, 2024, example 1, [0259]) that can be formed into a multilayer product [0408] such as a 3xxx-2xxx-3xxx multi-layered product [0408] or 3xxx-2xxx multi-layered product [0394], wherein the 3xxx alloy clad layers improve corrosion [0395] and/or weldability [0402] of the high strength 2xxx sheet layer. Kamat does not teach a) the claimed alloying ranges of the 3xxx alloy layer (amended independent claim 1, dependent claim 2), b) the thickness of the Al-Mn alloy layer (claim 1), or c) the open corrosion of the 3xxx layer or the corrosion potential difference between the 2xxx and 3xxx layers (amended claim 1).
Concerning a), “Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys” teaches 3xxx alloys contain Mn ranges ranging from 0.05-1.5% Mn (see p 21), and in particular AA3014 which contains: ≤0.6% Si, ≤1.0% Fe, ≤0.50% Cu, 1.0-1.5% Mn, ≤0.10% Mg (which touches the boundary of claim 1’s amended 0.10-0.70% Mg range), 0.50-1.0% Zn, balance aluminum and unavoidable impurities (“Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys” p 21), which overlaps the alloying ranges of instant claims 1-2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used AA3014 (as taught by “Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys”) in the multi-layer structure of Kamat, because Kamat teaches selecting an 3xxx alloy cladding layer is desirable to improve weldability and corrosion; see Kamat at [0395], [0402], and because AA3014 qualifies as a 3xxx series aluminum alloy.
Concerning b), Kamat does not specify the amount of cladding (3xxx alloy layer thickness) applied to the core 2xxx alloy layer. However, Haszler, which is similarly directed to composites comprising multiple layers of aluminum alloys, would have rendered it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied a clad layer with 1-30% of the thickness of the core material + clad layer (see Haszler col. 2, ll. 33-36, and example at 10%), and further rolling to a final product thickness of <3 mm (Haszler col. 4, ll. 56-60), because Haszler teaches said parameters are useful to provide sufficient corrosion resistance and surface properties to an underlying high strength core alloy (example).
Concerning c), because Kamat together with “Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys”, and Haszler teach a composite structure formed by alloys that overlap the claimed alloys, then substantially the same properties would be expected for the prior art’s composite structure, as for the instant invention (including potential difference and open corrosion potential of the 3xxx layer).
Therefore, it is held that that the combination of Kamat, “Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys”, and Haszler would have created a prima facie case of obviousness of the presently claimed invention.
Concerning the alloying ranges of dependent claim 2, the composition of AA3014 taught by “Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys” overlaps/touches the boundary of the claimed ranges of Cu and Mg, and therefore meets the instant limitations (including the amended range of Mg or 0.10-0.70%).
Concerning claims 7-8, Kamat does not teach the Al-Mn layer is either homogenized or not homogenized. However, the multilayered product can be subjected to homogenization [0392], wherein said homogenization would be expected to provide the predictable result of dissolving precipitates/alloying elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have homogenized (or not homogenized) the multilayered product of Kamat in order to provide the predictable result of dissolving precipitates/alloying elements (or to save energy and allow precipitates to remain in an unhomogenized state).
Omission of a step or element and its function is obvious if the function of the step or element is not desired or required, MPEP 2144.04, Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). See also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) (Omission of additional framework and axle which served to increase the cargo carrying capacity of prior art mobile fluid carrying unit would have been obvious if this feature was not desired.); and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (deleting a prior art switch member and thereby eliminating its function was an obvious expedient). Note that the omission of an element and retention of its function is an indicia of unobviousness. In re Edge, 359 F.2d 896, 149 USPQ 556 (CCPA 1966).
Concerning claim 9, Kamat teaches said multi-layered product can be formed by roll bonding [0392], which meets the instant product by process step.
Concerning claims 11-12, see above discussion of multi-layer structure taught by Kamat.
Concerning claims 13-15, Kamat teaches 2xxx series alloy can be selected from 2x24 series [0228] and the T3 temper can be applied [0228], which meets the instant limitations.
Concerning claim 19, Kamat teaches said multi-layer 3xxx-2xxx product can be used in aerospace applications [0408], which meets the instant limitations.
Concerning claim 24, see above teachings of Haszler concerning the thickness of the Al-Mn alloy cladding layer(s), including an example at 10%.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamat, “Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys” and Haszler et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schelin (US 6,251,527).
Kamat, “Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys” and Haszler are discussed above. Kamat does not teach the application of a liner layer in-between the core and the cladding layer. However, Schelin teaches (at least) two different corrosion resistant (column 4 line 40) liner materials can be laminated to a core aluminum material, in order to optimize properties (column 3 lines 26-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have applied a liner layer as claimed in-between the core and the cladding layer of Kamat, because Schelin teaches said liner layer is useful for further optimizing properties (column 3 lines 26-28).
Allowable Subject Matter
As stated in the Office Action mailed 1/31/25, claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art is Kamat, “Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys”, and Schelin. As set forth above, Schelin teaches (at least) two different corrosion resistant (column 4 line 40) liner materials can be laminated to a core aluminum material. However, Schelin does not teach or suggest the selection of the Al-Mn-Zn alloy of the specific composition as an interlayer between the core and the Al-Mn alloy layer, substantially as set forth in claim 17.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed on 5/29/26 applicant amended claims 1, 2, 13 and submitted various rejections traversing the rejections of record. No new matter has been added.
Applicant’s argument that the instant invention is allowable because the prior art does not teach or suggest a 2xxx series aluminum alloy clad with a 3xxx series aluminum alloy, complete with a 3xxx clad layer having the amended composition (0.10-0.70% Mg) as not been found persuasive. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used AA3014 (as taught by “Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys”) in the multi-layer structure of Kamat, because Kamat teaches 3xxx alloy cladding layer is desirable to improve weldability and corrosion; see Kamat at [0395], [0402], and because AA3014 qualifies as a 3xxx series aluminum alloy. The composition of AA3014 taught by “Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys” overlaps/ touches the boundary of the claimed ranges of Cu and Mg, and therefore meets the instant limitations (including the amended range of Mg or 0.10-0.70%).
With respect to the overlap in alloying ranges taught by the prior art, Applicant has not clearly shown specific unexpected results with respect to the prior art of record or criticality of the instant claimed range (wherein said results must be fully commensurate in scope with the instantly claimed ranges; see MPEP 716.02 d).
Evidence of unexpected properties may be in the form of a direct or indirect comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) and MPEP §716.02(d) - § 716.02(e).An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979), see also MPEP 716.02(e). “A comparison of the claimed invention with the disclosure of each cited reference to determine the number of claim limitations in common with each reference, bearing in mind the relative importance of particular limitations, will usually yield the closest single prior art reference.” In re Merchant, 575 F.2d 865, 868, 197 USPQ 785, 787 (CCPA 1978) (emphasis in original). Where the comparison is not identical with the reference disclosure, deviations therefrom should be explained, In re Finley, 174 F.2d 130, 81 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1949), and if not explained should be noted and evaluated, and if significant, explanation should be required. In re Armstrong, 280 F.2d 132, 126 USPQ 281 (CCPA 1960).
In the instant case, applicant has not clearly shown the claimed 2xxx-3xxx layered product with the claimed alloying ranges is unexpected, in view of the teachings of the prior art.
Applicant’s argument that the instant invention is allowable because the prior art does not teach or suggest the amended properties of potential difference and open corrosion potential of the 3xxx layer, has not been found persuasive. As set forth above, because Kamat together with “Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys”, and Haszler teach a composite structure with alloys that overlap the claimed alloys, then substantially the same properties would be expected for the prior art’s composite structure, as for the instant invention (including potential difference and open corrosion potential of the 3xxx layer).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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 8/20/26
