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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of a certified copy of EP 20160733.0 filed March 3, 2020 as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Receipt is also acknowledged of WO 2021/175761, a copy of the WIPO publication of PCT/EP2021/05499 filed March 1, 2021.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks filed July 21, 2026 and Claim Amendments filed May 6, 2026.
Claims Filing Date
May 6, 2026
Amended
13, 17
Cancelled
1-12, 18, 20
Pending
13-17, 19, 21-24
Withdrawn
21-24
Under Examination
13-17, 19
Response to Remarks filed July 21, 2026
112(b)
Applicant's arguments filed July 21, 2026 with respect to the 112(b) rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues [0021] of the specification provides a clear, measurable standard of objective tensile strength values for the substantially un-recrystallized sheet (p. 2 para. 2), [0033] teaches specific temperature ranges to avoid recrystallization by hot rolling exit about 200°C to about 320°C (p. 2 para. 3), [0063]-[0065] and Fig. 2 compare substantially unrecrystallized versus partially recrystallized material demonstrating the degree of recrystallization is measurable on earing characteristics (p. 2 para. 4), and in claim 13 “essentially unrecrystallized” and “to substantially avoid recrystallization” are used in the same sense (para. spanning pp. 2-3).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., tensile strength for the substantially un-recrystallized sheet, hot rolling exit temperature, and earring characteristic) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Komatsubara (JP H09-287063 machine translation); Komatsubara (JP H09-287063 machine translation) in view of Teruda ‘551 (JP H04-228551 machine translation) and Troeger (US 2001/0023719)
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 4 para. 2, filed July 21, 2026, with respect to Komatsubara have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections over Komatsubara and over Komatsubara in view of Teruda ‘551 and Troeger have been withdrawn.
The applicant persuasively argues claim 13 recites the method “consisting of” (para. spanning pp. 3-4), but Komatsubara includes softening annealing and further cold rolling (p. 4 para. 2).
Komatsubara discloses cold rolling at a ratio of 70% or more ([0029]) after recrystallization annealing by two or more rolling passes with softening annealing carried out between any of the passes of this cold rolling ([0030]). Komatsubara discloses conventional examples in which softening annealing was not carried out in the middle of the final cold rolling after recrystallization annealing ([0035]).
Pending claim 13 lines 14-31 “the method consisting of” homogenizing, hot rolling, cooling, cold rolling, annealing, and cold rolling to produce a cold rolled sheet. The “consisting of” language excludes any step not specified in the claim, such as the softening annealing between the cold rolling at a ratio of 70% or more of Komatsubara. MPEP 2111.03(II).
Tsubota (JP H07-126818 machine translation); Tsubota (JP H07-126818 machine translation) in view of Troeger (US 2001-0023719)
Applicant's arguments filed July 21, 2026 with respect to Tsubota and Tsubota in view of Troeger have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues Tsubota does not disclose the recrystallization state of the material after the sheet has cooled down to the temperature of the first cold rolling step, where claim 13 requires cold rolling on the cooled down sheet that is essentially unrecrystallized (p. 6 para. 9).
Tsubota discloses “the cross-sectional microstructure of hot-finished rolled sheets should be completely unrecrystallized structure” ([0016]) then “the hot-finished rolled sheet is subject to cold rolling” ([0017]). The referenced “hot-finished rolled sheet” in [0017] is disclosed as having a completely unrecrystallized structure in [0016], such that the sheet subject to cold rolling “should be completely unrecrystallized”.
Tsubota also discloses a hot-finished rolled sheet with a completely unrecrystallized structure will inhibit the generation of cubic orientations during the subsequent annealing process ([0016]) and that the hot-finished rolled sheet is subjected to cold rolling followed by annealing, where annealing after cold rolling influences the driving force for recrystallization during annealing and the formation of cubic orientations ([0017]). Therefore, Tsubota discloses benefits of cold rolling a completely unrecrystallized structure.
The applicant argues Tsubota Alloys A, B, and C in Table 1 fall outside the claimed composition ranges of claim 13 (p. 7 paras. 1-2), such that Tsubota deals with entirely different aluminum alloys (p. 7 paras. 3) and claim 14 recites narrower preferred compositional ranges that are further removed from Tsubota’s working examples, such that Tsubota’s actual practice is directed to a different alloy system (p. 7 para. 4).
Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. MPEP 2123(II).
Tsubota discloses a composition ([0005]-[0011]) that overlaps with that claimed. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Element
Claim 13 wt%
Claim 14 wt%
Tsubota
Tsubota
Si
About 0.05 – 0.60
About 0.15 – 0.5
0.1 – 1.5
[0009]
Fe
About 0.10 to 0.80
About 0.25 – 0.70
0.1 – 1.5
[0010]
Mn
About 0.70 – 1.50
About 0.80 – 1.40
0.5 – 2.0
[0006]
Mg
About 0.80 – 1.50
About 0.90 – 1.30
0.5 – 3.0
[0007]
Cu
About 0.05 – 0.25
About 0.10 – 0.25
0.01 – 1.2
[0008]
Ti
Up to 0.10
Up to 0.10
-
-
Zn
Up to 0.25
Up to 0.25
-
-
Impurities
Up to 0.15
Each less than 0.05
Up to 0.25
Each less than 0.05
Unavoidable in typical amounts
[0011]
Al
Remainder
Remainder
Remainder
[0005[]]
With respect to dependent claim 19, the applicant argues Tsubota continuous anneals ([0003], [0004], [0019]) (p. 8 paras. 1-2), batch annealing would not be substituted due to the different thermal profile of slow cooling (p. 8 para. 3), and the combination of Tsubota and Komatsubara is improper (p. 8 para. 4).
While in Tsubota [0019] in the Examples “the annealing treatment was performed using a continuous annealing method”, the pending rejection of claim 19 is over Tsubota in view of Komatsubara to render obvious batch annealing as a conventional method that obtains a homogeneous recrystallized structure without reducing workability (Komatsubara [0027]). One of ordinary skill in the art according to the disclosure of Komatsubara would understand how to vary the thermal profile conditions based on continuous annealing or batch annealing (Komatsubara [0027]). Further, Tsubota [0003] recognizes that both continuous annealing and batch annealing processes benefit from improved formability, supporting the art recognized equivalence.
The applicant argues Tsubota solves a fundamentally different problem and is opposite in direction from the present invention by improving formability by increasing final cold reduction after annealing (Tsubota [0003]), whereas the present invention cold rolls un-recrystallized structure immediately after hot rolling to reduce the 0-90° earing after intermediate annealing (applicant’s [0027], [0067]) (p. 9 para. 1).
In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the invention (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). MPEP 2141.01(a)(I).
Tsubota is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention of aluminum alloy type AA3004, AA3104, or other suitable alloy for making aluminum can sheet (Tsubota [0005]-[0011]) processed by the claimed method consisting of (Tsubota [0012]-[0017]). Therefore, Tsubota is proper for use in an obviousness rejection.
In response to applicant's argument that the present invention reduces the 0-90° earing after intermediate annealing, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
The applicant argues the 6xxx series alloys of Troeger are different from 3xxx can body stock, such that they would not be combined (p. 9 para. 2).
In the pending rejection Troeger discloses the obviousness of cooling down hot rolled aluminum material to a temperature of 100°C or lower and cold rolling at room temperature to plastically deform the alloy (Troeger [0025]) to provide sufficient strain energy to ensure recrystallization (Troeger [0027], [0030]). These advantages of cold rolling at room temperature are not disclosed as being related to the cold rolling temperature of the aluminum alloy nor the composition of the aluminum alloy, such that they are relevant and beneficial to the alloy of Tsubota for the disclosed reasons.
The applicant argues Keeney does not remedy the deficiencies of Komatsubara or Tsubota (p. 9 para. 3).
Keeney is relied upon to reject claims 15 and 16 regarding the obviousness of the claimed single stand reverse mill in the hot rolling mill to effectively and economically heat and to reduce hot rolling thinness in a single stand of rolls (Keeney 1:20-30), which eliminates difficulties in entering and delivering the strips (Keeney 3:104-120).
For the above cited reasons, the rejections over Tsubota and over Tsubota in view of Troeger are maintained.
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 13-17 and 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 13 line 26 “essentially unrecrystallized” renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially” is a relative term. The term “essentially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 14-17 and 19 are rejected as depending from claim 13.
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 13, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsubota ( JP H07-126818 machine translation).
Regarding claim 13, Tsubota discloses a method for producing aluminum can sheet ([0001]-[0004) comprising:
providing a body made of an aluminum alloy type AA3004, AA3104 or other alloy suitable for making aluminum can sheet ([0005]-[0011]);
wherein the aluminum alloy comprises an overlapping composition ([0005]-[0011]);
Element
Claim 13 wt%
Claim 14 wt%
Tsubota
Tsubota
Si
About 0.05 – 0.60
About 0.15 – 0.5
0.1 – 1.5
[0009]
Fe
About 0.10 to 0.80
About 0.25 – 0.70
0.1 – 1.5
[0010]
Mn
About 0.70 – 1.50
About 0.80 – 1.40
0.5 – 2.0
[0006]
Mg
About 0.80 – 1.50
About 0.90 – 1.30
0.5 – 3.0
[0007]
Cu
About 0.05 – 0.25
About 0.10 – 0.25
0.01 – 1.2
[0008]
Ti
Up to 0.10
Up to 0.10
-
-
Zn
Up to 0.25
Up to 0.25
-
-
Impurities
Up to 0.15
Each less than 0.05
Up to 0.25
Each less than 0.05
Unavoidable in typical amounts
[0011]
Al
Remainder
Remainder
Remainder
[0005[]]
the method consisting of:
heating the body to a homogenization temperature ([0012]);
hot rolling said body heated to the homogenization temperature in a hot rolling mill to produce a hot rolled sheet, said hot rolled sheet exiting the hot rolling mill at a hot rolling exit temperature with a hot mill exit gauge (4.5 mm or lower), wherein the hot rolling exit temperature is from about 200°C to about 290°C (280°C or lower) to substantially avoid recrystallization (completely unrecrystallized) of the hot rolled sheet ([0013]-[0016]);
cooling down the hot rolled sheet to a temperature of 100°C or lower to obtain a cooled down sheet ([0017]);
transferring the cooled down sheet to a cold rolling mill ([0017]);
cold rolling the cooled down sheet in the cold rolling mill to apply a cold reduction between 5% and 70% (75% or less) to produce a cold rolled sheet with a cold mill exit gauge smaller than the hot mill exit gauge, wherein cold rolling is performed on the cooled down sheet which is essentially unrecrystallized (the hot-finished rolled sheet with a completely unrecrystallized structure is subjected to cold rolling) ([0016]-[0017]);
annealing the cold rolled sheet in an intermediate temperature range selected to allow recrystallization of the cold rolled sheet to obtain a fully recrystallized annealed sheet (annealing with a driving force for recrystallization to generate recrystallized grains) ([0017]); and
cold rolling the fully recrystallized annealed sheet to apply a cold reduction from 70% to 95% to produce a cold rolled sheet with a final gauge (60% or more) ([0017]);
wherein a total reduction of more than 70% is applied to the aluminum sheet between the hot mill exit gauge and the final gauge (subjecting the hot-finished rolled sheet to cold rolling at a rolling ratio of 75% or less, annealing, then cold rolling with a rolling ratio of 60% or more; initial thickness of hot-rolled sheet is 18 mm and resulting final sheet thickness is 0.3 mm, which is a 98% reduction) ([0017], [0019]).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Tsubota discloses hot rolling then cold rolling ([0013]-[0017]), such that the hot rolled sheet is necessarily cooled down between hot rolling and cold rolling to a temperature at which cold rolling of aluminum is known to be done at to obtain a cooled down sheet. With respect to cooling to a temperature of 100°C or lower, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 14, Tsubota discloses the aluminum alloy comprises an overlapping composition ([0005]-[0011]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 17, Tsubota discloses the hot rolling exit temperature is 200°C to 280°C (280°C or lower) ([0015]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsubota ( JP H07-126818 machine translation) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Keeney (US 1,918,968).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Tsubota discloses hot rolling ([0005], [0013]-[0015]).
Tsubota is silent to the hot rolling mill being a single stand reversing mill that is utilized in two different operation modes, wherein a first operation mode includes one or more flat passes and a second operation mode, utilized after the first operation mode, includes one or more coiling passes producing coiled sheet having the hot mill exit gauge.
Keeney discloses hot rolling using a single stand reversing mill (1:30-40, 2:50-56, 4:4-18, Figs. 1-2, claims 8-9), wherein the single stand reversing mill is utilized in two different operation modes, wherein a first operation mode includes one or more flat passes (claims 12, 15-22) and a second operation mode, utilized after the first operation mode, includes one or more coiling passes producing coiled sheet having the hot mill exit gauge (1:75-76, 2:50-56, 3:40-120, Fig. 2, claims 11-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for Tsubota to use the single stand reversing mill of Keeney, which operates both as flat passes and coiling passes, because the strip for rolling is heated effectively and economically and can be reduced to any hot rolling thinness in a single stand of rolls (Keeney 1:20-30) and it eliminates difficulties in entering and delivering the strip (Keeney 3:104-120).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsubota ( JP H07-126818 machine translation) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Komatsubara (JP H09-287063 machine translation).
Regarding claim 19, Tsubota discloses (continuous) annealing of the cold rolled sheet ([0017], [0019], [0023]).
Tsubota is silent to annealing the cold rolled sheet is performed in a batch furnace.
Komatsubara discloses a method of producing aluminum can sheet ([0001], [0006]-[0007]), wherein annealing the cold rolled sheet is performed in a batch furnace ([0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Tsubota for the annealing to be batch annealing because it is a conventional method that obtains a homogeneous recrystallized structure without reducing workability and it is an art recognized equivalent of continuous annealing (Komatsubara [0027]). It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose. MPEP 2144.06(II).
Claims 13, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsubota ( JP H07-126818 machine translation) in view of Troeger (US 2001/0023719).
Regarding claim 13, Tsubota discloses a method for producing aluminum can sheet ([0001]-[0004) comprising:
providing a body made of an aluminum alloy type AA3004, AA3104 or other alloy suitable for making aluminum can sheet ([0005]-[0011]);
wherein the aluminum alloy comprises an overlapping composition ([0005]-[0011]);
Element
Claim 13 wt%
Claim 14 wt%
Tsubota
Tsubota
Si
About 0.05 – 0.60
About 0.15 – 0.5
0.1 – 1.5
[0009]
Fe
About 0.10 to 0.80
About 0.25 – 0.70
0.1 – 1.5
[0010]
Mn
About 0.70 – 1.50
About 0.80 – 1.40
0.5 – 2.0
[0006]
Mg
About 0.80 – 1.50
About 0.90 – 1.30
0.5 – 3.0
[0007]
Cu
About 0.05 – 0.25
About 0.10 – 0.25
0.01 – 1.2
[0008]
Ti
Up to 0.10
Up to 0.10
-
-
Zn
Up to 0.25
Up to 0.25
-
-
Impurities
Up to 0.15
Each less than 0.05
Up to 0.25
Each less than 0.05
Unavoidable in typical amounts
[0011]
Al
Remainder
Remainder
Remainder
[0005[]]
the method consisting of:
heating the body to a homogenization temperature ([0012]);
hot rolling said body heated to the homogenization temperature in a hot rolling mill to produce a hot rolled sheet, said hot rolled sheet exiting the hot rolling mill at a hot rolling exit temperature with a hot mill exit gauge (4.5 mm or lower), wherein the hot rolling exit temperature is from about 200°C to about 290°C (280°C or lower) to substantially avoid recrystallization (completely unrecrystallized) of the hot rolled sheet ([0013]-[0016]);
cooling down the hot rolled sheet to obtain a cooled down sheet ([0017]);
transferring the cooled down sheet to a cold rolling mill ([0017]);
cold rolling the cooled down sheet in the cold rolling mill to apply a cold reduction between 5% and 70% (75% or less) to produce a cold rolled sheet with a cold mill exit gauge smaller than the hot mill exit gauge, wherein cold rolling is performed on the cooled down sheet which is essentially unrecrystallized (the hot-finished rolled sheet with a completely unrecrystallized structure is subjected to cold rolling) ([0016]-[0017]);
annealing the cold rolled sheet in an intermediate temperature range selected to allow recrystallization of the cold rolled sheet to obtain a fully recrystallized annealed sheet (annealing with a driving force for recrystallization to generate recrystallized grains) ([0017]); and
cold rolling the fully recrystallized annealed sheet to apply a cold reduction from 70% to 95% to produce a cold rolled sheet with a final gauge (60% or more) ([0017]);
wherein a total reduction of more than 70% is applied to the aluminum sheet between the hot mill exit gauge and the final gauge (subjecting the hot-finished rolled sheet to cold rolling at a rolling ratio of 75% or less, annealing, then cold rolling with a rolling ratio of 60% or more; initial thickness of hot-rolled sheet is 18 mm and resulting final sheet thickness is 0.3 mm, which is a 98% reduction) ([0017], [0019]).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Tsubota is silent to cooling down the hot rolled sheet to a temperature of 100°C or lower.
Troeger discloses a method of producing aluminum sheet including cooling down the hot rolled material to a temperature of 100°C or lower (cold rolling at room temperature requires cooling to room temperature) ([0025], [0027], [0028], [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Tsubota to cold then cold roll at room temperature to plastically deform the alloy (Troeger [0025]) to provide sufficient strain energy to ensure recrystallization (Troeger [0027], [0030]).
Regarding claim 14, Tsubota discloses the aluminum alloy comprises an overlapping composition ([0005]-[0011]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 17, Tsubota discloses the hot rolling exit temperature is 200°C to 280°C (280°C or lower) ([0015]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsubota ( JP H07-126818 machine translation) in view of Troeger (US 2001/0023719) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Keeney (US 1,918,968).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Tsubota discloses hot rolling ([0005], [0013]-[0015]).
Tsubota is silent to the hot rolling mill being a single stand reversing mill that is utilized in two different operation modes, wherein a first operation mode includes one or more flat passes and a second operation mode, utilized after the first operation mode, includes one or more coiling passes producing coiled sheet having the hot mill exit gauge.
Keeney discloses hot rolling using a single stand reversing mill (1:30-40, 2:50-56, 4:4-18, Figs. 1-2, claims 8-9), wherein the single stand reversing mill is utilized in two different operation modes, wherein a first operation mode includes one or more flat passes (claims 12, 15-22) and a second operation mode, utilized after the first operation mode, includes one or more coiling passes producing coiled sheet having the hot mill exit gauge (1:75-76, 2:50-56, 3:40-120, Fig. 2, claims 11-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for Tsubota to use the single stand reversing mill of Keeney, which operates both as flat passes and coiling passes, because the strip for rolling is heated effectively and economically and can be reduced to any hot rolling thinness in a single stand of rolls (Keeney 1:20-30) and it eliminates difficulties in entering and delivering the strip (Keeney 3:104-120).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsubota ( JP H07-126818 machine translation) in view of Troeger (US 2001/0023719) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Komatsubara (JP H09-287063 machine translation).
Regarding claim 19, Tsubota discloses (continuous) annealing of the cold rolled sheet ([0017], [0019], [0023]).
Tsubota is silent to annealing the cold rolled sheet is performed in a batch furnace.
Komatsubara discloses a method of producing aluminum can sheet ([0001], [0006]-[0007]), wherein annealing the cold rolled sheet is performed in a batch furnace ([0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Tsubota for the annealing to be batch annealing because it is a conventional method that obtains a homogeneous recrystallized structure without reducing workability and it is an art recognized equivalent of continuous annealing (Komatsubara [0027]). It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose. MPEP 2144.06(II).
Related Art
Mahon (WO 2004/001085)
Mahon discloses an aluminum alloy composition (5:19-33) processed by homogenizing, hot working with a last stage temperature of preferably 180 to 270°C, cooling, deforming at a temperature below recrystallization on a substantially recrystallization-free grain structure (6:1-30), then aged for recrystallization (20:14-28).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANI HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday-Friday 7am-12pm.
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 WALKER can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights