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 .
The Amendment filed September 12, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-5, 7-10, and 18-25 are pending in this application. Claim 5 was previously withdrawn from consideration, and new claims 18-24 stand withdrawn from consideration as directed to the same non-elected invention as claim 5. Thus claims 1-4, 7-10 and 25 are examined herein.
Rejections -- 35 U.S.C. 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 1-4, 7-10 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (US 2019/0161835).
Fig. 1 of Martin and para [0059] of that reference depicts and discloses a particle of an aluminum alloy functionalized with TiB2 nanoparticles. Martin para [0118-0122] indicates that those nanoparticles can be considered equivalent to the presently claimed “grain refiner”. While the size and percentage of those nanoparticles is not immediately apparent from the Figure, i) Martin para [0281] suggests specific nanoparticle sizes fully within the range recited in claim 1 as amended, and ii) Martin para [0118] suggests specific concentrations of the nanoparticles within the percentage range presently claimed. While the prior art does not specify the “degree of circularity” as claimed, the depiction in Fig. 1 shows a substantially spherical powder, which would have a degree of circularity approaching 1, i.e. within the claimed range of “not less than 0.90”.
With respect to claims 2, 3 and 7, the nanoparticles in Fig. 1 are TiB2. With respect to claims 4, 8, 9 and 10, the alloy in Fig. 1 is a 7075 alloy. Further, Martin para [0125-0127] indicates that the prior art disclosure is applicable to a number of 2000, 6000 and 7000 series alloys. With respect to new claim 25, the powder depicted in Fig. 1 clearly has a particle diameter within the presently claimed range, as evidenced by the scale bar in that Figure.
Thus, the prior art would have rendered a powder including Al alloy particles and grain refiner possessing all the features of the presently amended claims nothing more than an obvious variant of the material disclosed by Martin et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed September 12, 2025 have been fully considered. The examiner agrees that the previously applied prior art (Nelson, Kilmer) is not particularly relevant to the claims as presently amended. However, the amended claims are subject to new grounds of rejection, as detailed supra.
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 GEORGE WYSZOMIERSKI whose telephone number is (571) 272-1252. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm Eastern time.
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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, 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
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.
/GEORGE WYSZOMIERSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733 October 9, 2025