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:
1-8, 11, 13, 16-20, 22, 31, 33-35, 39
Withdrawn:
25-31, 33-35, 39
Rejected:
1-8, 11, 13, 16-20, 22-24
Amended:
1, 4, 6, 7, 13, 16, 25
New:
NONE
Independent:
1, 4, 6, 7, 13, 16, 25
Claim Interpretation
As previously set forth (and confirmed in applicant’s response p 8), the combination of claim 16’s “comprising” together with claim 22’s “other elements in an amount of less than 0.05 wt% based on the total weight of the 6xxx aluminum alloy” does not limit said alloy to only the recited elements, with all other elements limited to <0.05wt% (each), due to the open type “comprising” transitional phrase of instant claim 16. Claim 23 contains a similar limitation, of “a total of the other elements is less than 0.15 wt%. Instant claims 22 and 23 are interpreted as open type claim language consistent with “comprising” type transitional phrase (see also applicant’s response p 8).
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 1-8, 11, 13, 16-20, 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107,385,290A (CN’290), previously cited, in view of Das (2018/0340244), cited herein.
CN’290 teaches an aluminum alloy of the 6xxx/6000 type (see CN’290 at translation p 2) consisting of (in wt%):
Cl. 1,
6XXX alloy consisting of:
Cl. 13
6XXX alloy consisting ess of:
Cl. 16
6XXX alloy comprising:
Dependent claims
CN’290
Ex. 2 (translation p 5, [0067] Table 1)
Das et al.
Si
0.70-1.1
0.70-1.1
0.70-1.1
0.78
Mg
0.75-1.15
0.75-1.15
0.75-1.15
1.02
Cu
0.30-0.8
0.30-0.8
0.30-0.8
0.72
Fe
0.12-0.3
0.12-0.3
0.12-0.3 (cl. 18)
0.15
Mn
0.25-0.65
0.25-0.65
0.25-0.65 (cl. 19)
0.36
Zr
≤0.2
optionally ≤0.2
≤0.2 (cl. 20)
-
Cr
0.06-0.2
optionally ≤0.2
(not taught by CN’290)
0.08-0.2
balance
Aluminum + ≤0.05% each, ≤0.15% total other elements
optionally other elements
0.016% Ti
0.0006% B
Bal. Al
Mg/Si
0.68-1.65
0.68-1.65
0.68-1.65
1.31
Mg+Si
1.5-2.2
1.5-2.2
1.5-2.2 (cl. 17)
1.8
YS
350-400 MPa (cl. 11)
388 MPa
(Table 2, [0160])
Table 1: comparison of instant claims vs. CN’290
which falls within the claimed alloying ranges of Si, Mg, Cu, Fe, Mn, Zr (instant independent claims 1, 13, 16; dependent claims 18-20). Concerning claim 1’s limitation of “other elements”, CN’290 teaches 0.016% Ti and 0.0006% B, which fall within the range of said claim’s “other elements” limitation, and wherein Ti and B qualify as “other elements” recited in claim 2 (see Markush type group of instant claim 2). CN’290 does not teach the presence of any elements excluded from the instant “consisting of” transitional phrase (cl. 1) or excluded from the instant “consisting essentially of” transitional phrase (cl. 13). Further, CN’290 teaches Ex. 2 exhibits a Mg/Si=1.31 (see Table 1 of CN’290), which meets the claimed Mg/Si limitation; as well as a Mg+Si=1.831 (see Table 1 of CN’290), which meets the claimed Mg+Si limitation (cl. 1, 17).
CN’290 does not teach the amended 0.06-0.2% Cr range (instant independent claims 1, 13, 16). However, Das, also drawn to Al-Mg-Si/6xxx series alloys, teaches that Mn, Cr, Zr, and V are added to Al-Mg-Si alloys in order to obtain high strength and corrosion resistance (due to increased dispersoids formed during homogenization, said dispersoid forming elements being Mn, Cr, Zr, and V [0006]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have added Cr or to have partially replaced some of Mn taught by CN’290 with substantial equivalent Cr, such as 0.08-0.2% Cr, see Das at [0006-0007]) in order to provide the predictable result of forming dispersoids during homogenization thereby increasing strength and corrosion resistance (Das at [0006-0007]). Therefore, it is held that CN’290 and Das has created a prima facie case of obviousness of the presently claimed invention.
Concerning claim 11, CN’290 teaches example 2 exhibits YS=388 MPa (Table 2, [0160]), which falls within the claimed YS of 350-400 MPa, and therefore anticipates the instant limitation.
Concerning claim 17, as set forth above, CN’290 teaches Ex. 2 exhibits Mg+Si=1.831 (see Table 1 of CN’290), which meets the claimed Mg+Si limitation (cl. 17).
Concerning claims 22-24, CN’290 teaches 0.016% Ti and 0.0006% B, which fall within the range of instant claim 22’s “other elements” limitation, and the combination of such falls within the maximum of ≤0.15% (claim 23). Concerning claim 24, Ti and B qualify as “other elements” (see Markush type group of instant claim 24), and therefore CN’290 meets the instantly claimed limitation.
Concerning claims 3-8, neither CN’290 nor Das specify the a) amount of Mg or Si in a Mg2Si phase (cl. 3, 4), b) amount of Mg in a Al5Cu2Mg8Si5 Q-phase (cl. 5-7), or c) amount of Cu in an Al2Cu phase (cl. 8). However, concerning said phases, the combination of CN’290 and Das teaches an overlapping Aluminum alloy (see discussion above), also processed by steps of: casting, homogenizing, hot working, quenching, and artificially aging (see instant specification at Ex. 1, [0188-0190]; CN’290 translation p 3). One of skill in the art would have expected the same microstructural phases (such as amounts of Mg and Si in Mg2Si phase, amount of Mg in Q-phase, amount of Cu in an Al2Cu phase) to result for the prior art of CN’290 and Das overlapping alloy processed in substantially identical process steps, as compared to the instant invention. Because CN’290 and Das teach overlapping alloying ranges, together with substantially identical processing steps of casting, homogenizing, hot working, quenching, and artificially aging; then substantially the same microstructural properties are expected for the prior art (i.e. Mg and Si in Mg2Si phase, Mg in Q-phase, Cu in an Al2Cu phase), as for the instant invention. Therefore, it is held that CN’290 and Das have created a prima facie case of obviousness of the presently claimed 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/Arguments
In the response filed 5/20/26 applicant amended claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 13, 16, and 25 and submitted various arguments traversing the rejections of record. No new matter has been added.
Applicant’s argument that the instant invention is allowable because CN’290 does not teach the amended 0.06-0.2% Cr range (instant independent claims 1, 13, 16) has not been found persuasive. As set forth in the rejection above, it is known to add Cr to Al-Mg-Si alloys in order to obtain high strength and corrosion resistance (due to increased dispersoids formed during homogenization, said dispersoid forming elements including Cr, see Das at [0006]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have added Cr, or alternatively, to have partially replaced some of Mn taught by CN’290 with substantial equivalent Cr (wherein Mn and Cr are art recognized functional equivalents, useful for forming dispersoids, see MPEP 2144.06) in order to provide the predictable result of forming dispersoids during homogenization thereby increasing strength and corrosion resistance (Das at [0006-0007]). Therefore, it is held that CN’290 and Das has created a prima facie case of obviousness of the presently claimed invention.
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 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 7/29/26
Prosecution Insights