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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 11, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-3, 6-10, 12, 14-19, 22, 26-28 and 40-41 are pending wherein claims 1-2, 10, 14, 22 and 41 are amended, claims 4-5, 11, 13, 20-21, 23-25 and 29-39 are canceled and claims 15-19 are withdrawn from consideration. The previously indicated allowable subject matter of claims 13-14, now canceled, is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference to Pandey (‘148), which now forms the basis of this Office Action.
Status of Previous Rejections
The previous rejection of claims 1-2, 6, 12, 26-28 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka et al. (EP 1413636 A1) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
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, 6, 12, 14, 26-28, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandey (US 2010/0252148).
In regard to claim 1, Pandey (‘148) discloses aluminum base alloys having compositions relative to that of the instant invention as set forth below (claim 1 and claim 7)
Element
Instant Claim
(weight percent)
Pandey (‘148)
(weight percent)
Overlap
Mg
about 2.5 – 6.2
about 0.2 – 3
about 2.5 – 3
Mn
about 0.01 – 0.25
about 0.1 – 2
about 0.1 – 0.25
Fe
about 0.01 – 0.6
0 – about 0.1
about 0.01 – 0.1
Si
about 0.01 – 0.50
about 0.1 – 2
about 0.1 – 0.5
Cu
about 0.01 – 1
about 0.2 – 6.5
about 0.2 – 1
Al
Balance
Balance
Balance
The Examiner notes that the amounts of magnesium, manganese, iron, silicon and copper disclosed by Pandey (‘148) overlaps the amounts of the instant invention, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant inventio to select the claimed amounts of magnesium, manganese, iron, silicon, and copper from the amounts disclosed by Pandey (‘148) because Pandey (‘148) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
With respect to the recitation “wherein the alloy comprises Cu-containing phases, and the Cu-containing phases comprise Al2CuMg precipitates and/or S’ phase” in claim 1, Pandey (‘148) discloses the presence of Al2CuMg precipitates and S’ phase ([0064] and claim 3).
In regard to claim 6, Pandey (‘148) discloses about 0.1 to 0.5 weight percent scandium (claim 1), which is within the range of the instant invention.
With respect to the recitation “wherein the Cu-containing phases enhance thermal stability during moderate aging treatment, after cold rolling, forming or stretching” in claim 12, Pandey (‘148) discloses substantially similar compositions relative to the instant invention as well as the presence of Al2CuMg precipitates and S’ phase ([0064], claim 1 and claim 3). Therefore, enhanced thermal stability during moderate aging treatment, after cold rolling, forming or stretching would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
With respect to the recitation “wherein the formation of Al2CuMg precipitates results in an increase in tensile strength compared to a reference AA5182 alloy without intentionally added copper” in claim 14, Pandey (‘148) discloses substantially similar compositions relative to the instant invention as well as the presence of Al2CuMg precipitates and S’ phase ([0064], claim 1 and claim 3). Therefore, an increase in tensile strength compared to a reference AA5182 alloy without intentionally added copper would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
With respect to the recitation “wherein the alloy possesses a yield strength of at least 370 MPa, a tensile strength of at least 430 MPa, and an elongation of at least 5% in a hard-temper condition” in claim 26, Pandey (‘148) discloses substantially similar compositions relative to the instant invention as well as the presence of Al2CuMg precipitates and S’ phase ([0064], claim 1 and claim 3). Therefore, a yield strength of at least 370 MPa, a tensile strength of at least 430 MPa, and an elongation of at least 5% in a hard-temper condition would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
With respect to the recitation “wherein after cold rolling, the alloy resists strength softening during stabilization treatment, and shows improved ductility” in claim 27, Pandey (‘148) discloses substantially similar compositions relative to the instant invention as well as the presence of Al2CuMg precipitates and S’ phase ([0064], claim 1 and claim 3). Therefore, resistance to strength softening during stabilization treatment and improved ductility would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
With respect to the recitation “wherein after cold rolling, the alloy resists strength softening during coat cure treatment, and shows improved ductility” in claim 28, Pandey (‘148) discloses substantially similar compositions relative to the instant invention as well as the presence of Al2CuMg precipitates and S’ phase ([0064], claim 1 and claim 3). Therefore, resistance to strength softening during coat cure treatment and improved ductility would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
In regard to claim 40, Pandey (‘148) discloses the presence of impurities up to 1 weight percent and does not require the presence of zinc and therefore would read on the claim (claim 1 and claim 6).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandey (US 2010/0252148) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Klauga et al. (The influence of impurity level and tin addition on the ageing heat treatment of the 356 class alloy).
In regard to claim 2, Pandey (‘148) discloses aluminum bases alloy as set forth above wherein zirconium would also be present in an amount of 0.05 to 1 weight percent (claim 1). However, Pandey (‘148) does not specify wherein the alloys would comprise about 0.01 to 0.2 weight percent tin.
Kliauga et al. teaches that the presence of tin an amount of about 0.05 weight percent may be used to enhance the precipitation hardening of aluminum-copper and aluminum-copper-magnesium alloys (Introduction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to add about 0.05 weight percent tin, as disclosed by Kliauga et al., to the aluminum base alloys containing copper and magnesium, as disclosed by Pandey (‘148), in order to enhance the precipitation hardening, as disclosed by Kliauga et al. (Introduction).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7-10 and 41 are allowed.
Claims 3, 7-10 and 41 are allowable for the reasons as set forth in the Office Action of December 1, 2025.
Claim 22 is allowed.
Claim 22 is allowed for the reasons as set forth in the Office Action of May 11, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 6, 12, 14, 26-28, and 40 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessee Roe whose telephone number is (571)272-5938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7:30 am to 4 pm.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights