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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of the Al composition species A3 without traverse in the response dated 06/26/2025 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 10/11/2025 has been entered. Claim(s) 1 is/are pending in the application.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamat et al. (US20170121802A1).
Regarding Claims 1-2, 8-12, Kamat teaches the Al alloy may have a composition similar to the claimed composition (See Table 2)
Element
Claimed Range (wt%)
Prior Art range (wt%)
Si
0-0.12
0.05-0.2
Fe
0.25 or greater
0.1-0.35
Cu
2-2.6
0.2-2.6
Mn
0-0.1
0.01-0.05
Mg
1.9-2.6
1.4-2.8
Cr
0-0.04
0.01-0.05
Zn
5.7-6.7
5.6-9.3
Zr
0.08-0.15
0.05-0.15
Ti
0-0.06
0.001-0.05
Al
Balance
Balance
In the case where a claimed range overlaps or lies inside of a claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Kamat teaches particles are present in the form of Al7Cu2Fe particles [0074] and is considered to have similar hydrogen embrittlement properties to those claimed under the expectation that similar products have similar properties. (See MPEP 2112.01(I))
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, applicant compares the composition of the prior art to the claimed composition, where the claimed composition A3 has an increased amount of Fe to improve the volume ratio of AlCuFe particles to improve quasi-cleavage crack properties (Tables 2 and 3); whereas Table 2 of Kamat includes ranges that do not correspond to Alloy 7050 where the prior art of 0.1-0.35 Fe overlaps with Fe ranges of A3 and A[2] equally and does not teach that increasing the amount of Fe will improve any affect compared to alloy 7050.
This is not persuasive. The prior art is not required to teach or suggest that increasing the amount of Fe is beneficial if the prior art already teaches a range of Fe 0.1-0.35% where by applicants own admission in Table 2 and Figure 9 would have the same improved properties compared to comparative Fe range of 0.05 or lower.
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 RICARDO D MORALES whose telephone number is (571)272-6691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9 am- 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, Sally Merkling can be reached at 5712726297. 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.
/RICARDO D MORALES/Examiner, Art Unit 1738