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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/18/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendments/ Status of Claims
An amendment, filed 12/18/2025, is acknowledged.
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claims 16-17 are newly added.
Claims 1 has been amended.
The amendments of claim 1 and new claims 16-17 find support at least in the paragraphs [Page 5-6] of the instant specification, therefore, no new matter is presented.
Therefore, and claims 1-17 remain for examination on the merits.
Status of Previous Rejections
The previous 35 USC § 103 rejections of the claims 1-15 have been withdrawn due to amendment of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 recites a Cu content is at least equal to 3.9 wt.% without including the upper limitations, therefore, broadening the scope of claim 1.
Claim 4 recites a Zr content is at least equal to 0.08 wt.% without including the upper limitations, therefore, broadening the scope of claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer, Philippe, et.al. [WO2020049021A1].
Regarding claim 1 and claim 17, Meyer discloses an aluminum alloy wrought product (an integrated monolithic aluminum structure, an alloy plate made by hydroforming and machining) [Abstract]. [Page 3, line 1-3] in a T8 temper (ageing is performed to a desired temper to achieve final mechanical properties is to a T8 temper) [Page 8, line 8-9],
Meyer’s disclosed wrought product made of aluminum alloy and the composition is being compared with a wrought product made of aluminum alloy of the instant claim.
Element (wt. %)
Instant Claim 1
Meyer's composition wt. % [Page11, line 7-11]
Within/Overlapping Range
Cu
3.6 - 4.4
1.9 – 7.0
Overlapping
Mg
1.2 – 1.40
0.3 – 1.8
Overlapping
Mn
0.5 – 0.8
Up to 1.2
Overlapping
Zr
0.07 - 0.15
Up to 0.25
Overlapping
Ti
0.01 – 0.05
Up to 0.15
Overlapping
Si
≤ 0.20
Up to 0.15
Within
Fe
≤ 0.20
Up to 0.25
Overlapping
Zn
0.05 - 0.25
Up to 1.0
Overlapping
Other elements
≤ 0.04
< 0.05
Overlapping
Al
Balance
Balance
Overlapping
Meyer’s composition for all elements are overlapping with the as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected and produced a wrought product made of aluminum alloy with a composition from the teachings of Meyer that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
With respect to the limitation of “in an application, wherein said product is kept at a temperature of 80°C to 250°C for a significant period of at least 200 hours”, although, Meyer is silent about an application in a claimed temperature application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention, Meyer’s wrought product would meet the limitation of “in an application, wherein said product is kept at a temperature of 80°C to 250°C for a significant period of at least 200 hours”, because, “a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim” [MPEP 7.37.09]. In this case, claim is directed to a wrought aluminum alloy in a T8 temper with a composition and an intended application. In addition, the paragraph 2 of page 1 of the instant specification, describes “Some aluminum alloys are routinely used for applications for which they have a high temperature of use, typically between 80 and 250° C. and generally between 100 and 200° C., for example as a structural component or attachment means near engines in the automotive or aerospace industry or as rotors or other air suction pump components such as particularly vacuum pumps” as well as the paragraph 3 of page 3 of the instant specification further describes “there is a composition range of Al-Cu-Mg alloys containing Mn which makes it possible when they are used in the T8 temper to obtain wrought products that perform particularly well at high temperature”.
The prior art Meyer, as shown above, discloses a wrought aluminum alloy with an overlapping composition as recited in the instant claim [Page11, line 7-11] and the aluminum alloy product is in the T8 temper [Page 8, line 8-9] dependent on the intended field of application of the alloy the appropriate temper is selected to give the alloy product desired mechanical properties. Meyer further discloses the ageing is to a desired temper to develop the required strength and other engineering properties relevant for the intended application of the integrated monolithic aluminum structure. The aged and machined final integrated monolithic aluminum structure can be part of a structure like a fuselage panel with integrated stringers, cockpit of an aircraft, lateral windshield of a cockpit, integral lateral windshield of a cockpit, an integral frontal windshield of a cockpit, front bulkhead, door surround, nose landing gear bay, and nose fuselage. It can also be part of a structure like an underbody structure of an armored vehicle providing mine blast resistance, the door of an armored vehicle, the engine hood or front fender of an armored vehicle, a turret. [Page 12, line 5-16].
As because, the structure of the wrought aluminum alloy of instant claim is defined by the composition and the T8 Temper designation, and the application and/or intended use of the claimed aluminum alloy and does not provide how the structural part is made of, and the prior art Meyer has similar structure of the wrought aluminum alloy of instant claim is defined by the composition and the T8 Temper designation, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, that the prior art structure is capable of performing in the application and/or intended use, i.e. Meyer’s product of wrought aluminum alloy would be capable of being in application wherein the product is kept at a temperature of 80°C to 250°C for a significant period of at least 200 hours.
Regarding claim 2 and 13, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 2, wherein Meyer already teaches Cu is 1.9 – 7.0 [Page11, line 7-11].
Meyer’s Cu composition is overlapping with the as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected and produced a wrought product made of aluminum alloy with a composition from the teachings of Meyer that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Regarding claim 3, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 3, wherein Meyer already teaches Mn is up to 1.2 [Page11, line 7-11].
Meyer’s Mn composition is overlapping with the as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected and produced a wrought product made of aluminum alloy with a composition from the teachings of Meyer that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Regarding claim 4, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 4, wherein Meyer already teaches Zr is up to 0.25 [Page11, line 7-11].
Meyer’s Zr composition is overlapping with the as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected and produced a wrought product made of aluminum alloy with a composition from the teachings of Meyer that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Regarding claim 5 and 14, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 5 and 14, in addition, Meyer discloses the aluminum alloy product the aluminum alloy plate having a thickness of 12.7 mm and is at most 127 mm [Page 8, line 20-25].
Meyer’s all example thicknesses are within the as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected and produced a wrought product made of aluminum alloy with a composition from the teachings of Meyer that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Regarding claim 6, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 6 and 15, although Meyer teaches the aluminum structure has a tensile strength of at least more preferably at least 280 MPa, which is overlapping with the range as recited in the instant claim. Although, Meyer is silent about the wrought product has in the longitudinal direction an ultimate tensile strength Rm of at least 490 MPa and has after long term exposure at 150°C for 1000h, an ultimate tensile strength Rm of at least 475 MPa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention, Meyer’s wrought product has in the longitudinal direction an ultimate tensile strength Rm of at least 490 MPa and has after long term exposure at 150°C for 1000h, an ultimate tensile strength Rm of at least 475 MPa, because, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. [MPEP 2112.01 (I)]”. In this case, claim is directed to a wrought aluminum alloy in a T8 temper with a composition and in an application wherein the product is kept at a temperature of 80°C to 250°C for a significant period of at least 200 hours, and wrought product has in the longitudinal direction an ultimate tensile strength Rm of at least 490 MPa and has after long term exposure at 150°C for 1000h, an ultimate tensile strength Rm of at least 475 MPa.
Prior art Meyer discloses a wrought aluminum alloy in a T8 temper [Page 8, line 8-9] with an overlapping composition [Page11, line 7-11] with the instant claim and thus Meyer’s structure is substantially identical in structure and/or composition. Given the above teachings of the reference, the resulting reference product and the claimed product would be expected to be the same or similar, and any slight differences in properties would not be expected to result in a patentable distinction, and thus, Meyer’s wrought product would be expected to exhibit in the longitudinal direction an ultimate tensile strength Rm of at least 490 MPa and has after long term exposure at 150°C for 1000h, an ultimate tensile strength Rm of at least 475 MPa.
Regarding claim 7, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 7 and 15, although Meyer is silent about the creep test, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention, Meyer’s wrought product has a necessary period to attain a 0.35% deformation during a creep test as per the standard ASTM E139-06 for a stress of 250 MPa and at a temperature of 150°C of at least 700 hours and optionally preferably of at least 800h, because, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. [MPEP 2112.01 (I)]”. In this case, claim is directed to a wrought aluminum alloy in a T8 temper with a composition and in an application wherein the product is kept at a temperature of 80°C to 250°C for a significant period of at least 200 hours, and wrought product has a necessary period to attain a 0.35% deformation during a creep test as per the standard ASTM E139-06 for a stress of 250 MPa and at a temperature of 150°C of at least 700 hours and optionally preferably of at least 800h.
Prior art Meyer discloses a wrought aluminum alloy in a T8 temper [Page 8, line 8-9] with an overlapping composition [Page11, line 7-11] of the instant claim and thus Meyer’s structure is substantially identical in structure and/or composition. Given the above teachings of the reference, the resulting reference product and the claimed product would be expected to be the same or similar, and any slight differences in properties would not be expected to result in a patentable distinction, and thus, Meyer’s wrought product would be expected to exhibit a necessary period to attain a 0.35% deformation during a creep test as per the standard ASTM E139-06 for a stress of 250 MPa and at a temperature of 150°C of at least 700 hours and optionally preferably of at least 800h.
Regarding claim 8, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 8, it is to be noted, this claim is a product-by-process claims and product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113 [R-1]. In the instant case, the structure of the wrought aluminum alloy of instant claim is defined by the composition and the T8 Temper designation, and the application and/or intended use of the claimed aluminum alloy, and the prior art Meyer has similar structure of the wrought aluminum alloy of instant claim is defined by the overlapping composition [Page 3, line 13-28] and the T8 Temper designation [Page 7, line 4-7], the structure and composition of the wrought aluminum alloy appears to be either identical or only slightly different than the structure and composition of the instantly claimed wrought aluminum alloy. As because, therefore, a rejection based alternatively on either 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 103 is eminently fair and acceptable [MPEP 2113. I].
In addition, Meyer’s wrought product having a composition as disclosed [Page11, line 7-11] is a starting plate product is provided an aluminum alloy plate with a predetermined thickness in an F-temper [Page 3, line 26-27], wherein F-temper is provided by means that the plate material has been cast into a rolling ingot, preheated and/or homogenized, hot-rolled (hot working) and optionally cold-rolled, to final gauge [Page 6, line 15-21], then solution heat-treating and cooling of the resultant high-energy hydroformed structure; and machining or mechanical milling of the solution heat-treated high-energy formed structure to a near-final or final machined integrated monolithic aluminum structure (cold working); and ageing of the integrated monolithic aluminum structure to a desired temper to develop the required strength and other engineering properties relevant for the intended application of the integrated monolithic aluminum structure [Page 6, line 1-14]. Solution heat-treatment is performed at about 460°C to 535°C and can be performed in one step or as a multistep [[Page 10, line 1].
Meyer’s solution heat-treating temperature is overlapping with the as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected and produced a wrought product made of aluminum alloy using solution heat-treating temperature from the teachings of Meyer that falls within the instantly claimed ranges, because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Meyer further teaches the artificial ageing step for the T6 and T8 temper preferably includes at least one ageing step at a temperature in the range of 130°C to 210°C for a soaking time in a range of 4 to 30 hours [Page 10, line 1]. Therefore, Meyer’s both aging temperature and time are overlapping with the as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected and produced a wrought product made of aluminum alloy ageing with temperature and time from the teachings of Meyer that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Regarding claim 9, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 9, wherein Meyer With respect to the limitation of “in an application, wherein said product is kept at a temperature of 100°C to 200°C”, although, Meyer is silent about an application in a claimed temperature application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention, Meyer’s wrought product would meet the limitation of “in an application, wherein said product is kept at a temperature of 100°C to 200°C”, because, “a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim” [MPEP 7.37.09]. In this case, claim is directed to a wrought aluminum alloy in a T8 temper with a composition and an intended application. In addition, the paragraph 2 of page 1 of the instant specification, describes “Some aluminum alloys are routinely used for applications for which they have a high temperature of use, typically between 80 and 250° C. and generally between 100 and 200° C., for example as a structural component or attachment means near engines in the automotive or aerospace industry or as rotors or other air suction pump components such as particularly vacuum pumps” as well as the paragraph 3 of page 3 of the instant specification further describes “there is a composition range of Al-Cu-Mg alloys containing Mn which makes it possible when they are used in the T8 temper to obtain wrought products that perform particularly well at high temperature”.
The prior art Meyer, as shown above, discloses a wrought aluminum alloy with an overlapping composition as recited in the instant claim [Page11, line 7-11] and the aluminum alloy product is in the T8 temper [Page 8, line 8-9] dependent on the intended field of application of the alloy the appropriate temper is selected to give the alloy product desired mechanical properties. Meyer further discloses the ageing is to a desired temper to develop the required strength and other engineering properties relevant for the intended application of the integrated monolithic aluminum structure. The aged and machined final integrated monolithic aluminum structure can be part of a structure like a fuselage panel with integrated stringers, cockpit of an aircraft, lateral windshield of a cockpit, integral lateral windshield of a cockpit, an integral frontal windshield of a cockpit, front bulkhead, door surround, nose landing gear bay, and nose fuselage [Page 12, line 5-16].
As because, the structure of the wrought aluminum alloy of instant claim is defined by the composition and the T8 Temper designation, and the application and/or intended use of the claimed aluminum alloy and does not provide how the structural part is made of, and the prior art Meyer has similar structure of the wrought aluminum alloy of instant claim is defined by the composition and the T8 Temper designation, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, that the prior art structure is capable of performing in the application and/or intended use, i.e. Meyer’s product of wrought aluminum alloy would be capable of being in application wherein the product is kept at a temperature of 100°C to 200°C.
Regarding claim 10-12, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 10, in addition it is to be noted the structure of the wrought aluminum alloy of instant claim is defined by the composition and the T8 Temper designation, and the application and/or intended use of the claimed aluminum alloy and does not provide how the structural part is made of, and the paragraph 2 of page 1 of the instant specification, describes “Some aluminum alloys are routinely used for applications for which they have a high temperature of use, typically between 80 and 250° C. and generally between 100 and 200° C., for example as a structural component or attachment means near engines in the automotive or aerospace industry or as rotors or other air suction pump components such as particularly vacuum pumps”.
The prior art Meyer, as shown above, discloses a wrought aluminum alloy with an overlapping composition as recited in the instant claim [Page11, line 7-11] and the aluminum alloy product is in the T8 temper [Page 8, line 8-9] dependent on the intended field of application of the alloy the appropriate temper is selected to give the alloy product desired mechanical properties. Meyer further discloses the ageing is to a desired temper to develop the required strength and other engineering properties relevant for the intended application of the integrated monolithic aluminum structure. The aged and machined final integrated monolithic aluminum structure can be part of a structure like a fuselage panel with integrated stringers, cockpit of an aircraft, lateral windshield of a cockpit, integral lateral windshield of a cockpit, an integral frontal windshield of a cockpit, front bulkhead, door surround, nose landing gear bay, and nose fuselage It can also be part of a structure like an underbody structure of an armored vehicle providing mine blast resistance, the door of an armored vehicle, the engine hood or front fender of an armored vehicle, a turret [Page 12, line 5-16]. Meyer’s wrought aluminum alloy are being used for intended use as a structural component or attachment in automotive or aerospace industry.
As because, the structure of the wrought aluminum alloy of instant claim is defined by the composition and the T8 Temper designation, and the application and/or intended use of the claimed aluminum alloy and does not provide how the structural part is made of, and the prior art Meyer has similar structure of the wrought aluminum alloy of instant claim is defined by the composition and the T8 Temper designation, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, that Meyer’s product of wrought aluminum alloy would be capable of being in application and/or intended use as similar as the instant claim’s application and/or intended use, wherever needed or appropriate.
Regarding claim 15, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 6 and 15, although Meyer is silent about the wrought product has in the longitudinal direction an ultimate tensile strength Rm of at least 495 MPa and has after long term exposure at 150°C for 1000h, an ultimate tensile strength Rm of at least 480 MPa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention, Meyer’s wrought product has in the longitudinal direction an ultimate tensile strength Rm of at least 495 MPa and has after long term exposure at 150°C for 1000h, an ultimate tensile strength Rm of at least 480 MPa, because, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. [MPEP 2112.01 (I)]”. In this case, claim is directed to a wrought aluminum alloy in a T8 temper with a composition and in an application wherein the product is kept at a temperature of 80°C to 250°C for a significant period of at least 200 hours, and wrought product has in the longitudinal direction an ultimate tensile strength Rm of at least 495 MPa and has after long term exposure at 150°C for 1000h, an ultimate tensile strength Rm of at least 480 MPa.
Prior art Meyer discloses a wrought aluminum alloy in a T8 temper [Page 8, line 8-9] with an overlapping composition [Page11, line 7-11] with the instant claim and thus Meyer’s structure is substantially identical in structure and/or composition. Given the above teachings of the reference, the resulting reference product and the claimed product would be expected to be the same or similar, and any slight differences in properties would not be expected to result in a patentable distinction, and thus, Meyer’s wrought product would be expected to exhibit in the longitudinal direction an ultimate tensile strength Rm of at least 495 MPa and has after long term exposure at 150°C for 1000h, an ultimate tensile strength Rm of at least 480 MPa.
Regarding claim 16, all the discussions above claim 1 are applicable for claim 16, wherein Meyer already teaches Cr is up to 0.1 [Page11, line 7-11], i.e. Cr content can be zero.
Meyer’s Cr composition is overlapping with the as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected and produced a wrought product made of aluminum alloy with a composition from the teachings of Meyer that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remark dated 12/18/2025 regarding the 35U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 in the previous office action, dated 10/31/2025 have been fully acknowledged. As Applicant amended claim to overcome the previously cited rejection and thus previously cited rejection have been withdrawn due to amendment to the corresponding claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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 NAZMUN NAHAR SHAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5421. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM-7:00PM (EST).
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, Sally Merkling can be reached on (571)2726297. 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.
/NAZMUN NAHAR SHAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738