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 without traverse of group I claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 3/17/26 is acknowledged. Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 4 and 5 recite a cooling rate “for a plate in a thickness range of 1.6 to 12 mm”, however, said claims (as well as the claims that claim 4 and 5 are dependent upon) do not mention that a plate of 1.6 to 12 mm is actually treated or formed by said process. This limitation is held to be conditional, i.e. “for a plate in a thickness range of 1.6 to 12 mm”. In other words, claims 4 and 5 are interpreted as (in light of the instant specification, see [0030], etc.): under the condition that when the aging process of cl. 4 & 5 is applied to a plate of 1.6 to 12 mm thickness, a cooling rate of 100-1000°C/min (cl. 4) or 200-600°C/min is provided. If this interpretation is not consistent with applicant’s intended interpretation, please clarify (including where said interpretation is found in the original specification) in response to this action.
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 2-6, 9, 10, 15-17 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 2 recites the limitation “cold worked or cold formed 2xxx-series aluminum alloy product”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 2 is indefinite as the order of method steps is unclear; and it is unclear how the method steps of claim 2 relate to the method steps of claim 1. Claim 1 is drawn to an aging process, with a starting material of “a solution-heat-treated and quenched 2XXX-series aluminum alloy wrought product” (implying steps of solution heat treating, quenching, and working/forming into a wrought product). Claim 2 (which is dependent on claim 1) recites the limitation “a solution-heat-treated, quenched, and subsequently cold worked or cold formed 2XXX-series aluminum alloy product”. It is unclear how the aging process recited in claim 1 is to result in “a solution-heat-treated, quenched, and subsequently cold worked or cold formed 2XXX-series aluminum alloy product” of claim 2.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "further natural aging" in line 3, as well as “final artificial aging (cl. 3 line 3). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the two artificial aging steps” (cl. 3 line 4). Though claim 1 recites “a first aging step” as well as “a second aging step”- claim 1 does not identify these two steps as “the two artificial aging steps”, nor does claim 1 clearly identify an artificial aging step as “final artificial aging”. Claims 4-5, which are directly or indirectly dependent on claim 3, are likewise rejected under this statute.
Claim 6 (dependent on claim 1) recites the limitation “the aging process is of a worked product to provide a wrought product, solution-heat-treated, quenched, and subsequently cold worked or cold formed 2xxx-series aluminum alloy product”. The order of the method steps is confusing and renders claim 6 indefinite. It is unclear the process steps involved, and how the “wrought product” of independent claim 1 relates to the “wrought product” of dependent claim 6. It is unclear how the aging process recited in claim 1 is to result in “a wrought product, solution-heat-treated, quenched, and subsequently cold worked or cold formed 2xxx-series aluminum alloy product” of claim 6.
Claims 9 line 9 and claim 10 line 13 refer to “impurities up to 0.15%”. It is unclear if this is the total amount of impurities allowed, or the amount allowed of each impurity. For the purposes of the office action, impurities are interpreted to be allowed as up to 0.15% each. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 (which is dependent on claim 1) is indefinite, the order of the method steps is confusing and renders claim 15 indefinite. Claim 15 states the limitation “the 2xxx-series aluminum alloy is provided as a rolled product”. It is unclear how the “solution heat treated and quenched 2xxx series aluminum alloy wrought product” (claim 1) relates to the “the 2xxx-series aluminum alloy is provided as a rolled product” of claim 15. Claim 16 is dependent on claim 15 and likewise rejected under this statute.
Concerning claim 17, the relationship of the process steps of claim 1 (upon which claim 17 is dependent upon) and claim 17 is unclear and renders said claim indefinite. Claim 17 recites the limitation “casting of an ingot of an 2xxx series alloy having a composition according to claim 1”, however, the composition recited in claim 1 appears to be identical to the composition recited in claim 17 (namely, a 2xxx-series aluminum alloy). However, the aging steps referred to in claims 1 and 17 are inconsistent in terminology. Claim 17 lines 12-13 recites “artificial aging in accordance with the SHT, quenched product and optionally cold working or cold forming”, wherein it is unclear how the aging recited in cl. 17 relates to the aging steps of independent claim 1.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “artificial aging in accordance with of the SHT, quenched product and optionally cold working or cold forming” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear the meaning of “artificial aging in accordance with of the SHT”. Appropriate correction/explanation is required.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the SHT product” (claim 17 line 10), as well as “the SHT and quenched product” (claim 17 line 11). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Additionally, claim 17 lines 12-13 recite the limitation “the SHT, quenched product”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Appropriate correction/explanation is required.
Claim 17 item (iv) mentions “the hot worked wrought product” while item (v) mentions “the wrought product”, it is unclear if these are equivalents, or how these terms relate to each other. Appropriate correction/explanation is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-12, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colvin et al. (US 9,587,294).
Colvin teaches an process of forming and heat treating an aluminum alloy sheet (wherein the main alloying element is Cu, and therefore qualifies as “2xxx series aluminum alloy” see Colvin at column 5 line 66 and examples), by steps including: casting an Al-Cu alloy composition, homogenizing, processing by working into a wrought product by hot rolling, extrusion, or forging; solution heat treating, quenching (column 5 lines 48-64), optionally cold working <4% (column 1 lines 42-50), and aging in multiple steps as follows:
Claim 1
Colvin et al.
1st aging
(one or more temperatures)
90-120°C
for cumulative
t ≥ 10 hours
200-275°F
(93-135°C)
t=12-17 hr
2nd aging
(one or more temperatures)
150-205°C
for cumulative
t ≥ 4 hours
290-325°F
(143-163°C)
t=16-22 hr
Table 1: Aging Times of Claim 1 vs. Colvin
Which overlaps the claimed 1st and 2nd aging temperature and time parameters. Because Colvin teaches a process of aging applied to a wrought Al-Cu (2xxx) alloy that has been subjected to solution heating and quenching, with overlapping aging parameters of time and temperature, it is held that Colvin has created a prima facie case of obviousness of the presently claimed invention.
Overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the range, including the claimed range, from the broader range disclosed in the prior art, because the prior art finds that said composition in the entire disclosed range has a suitable utility. Additionally, "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages," In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d at 1379 (CAFC 2003).
Concerning claims 2 and 6, as set forth above, Colvin teaches said 1st and 2nd aging steps are applied to a wrought product (which qualifies as “a worked product”), solution heat treated, quenched, and optionally cold worked 2xxx Al-Cu alloy product, which meets the instant limitations.
Concerning claim 3, as set forth above, Colvin teaches an optional <4% cold working is applied to said alloy product after solution heat treating and quenching, and before the 1st and 2nd aging steps, which meets the instant limitations. Colvin does not specify natural aging, however said natural aging step is optional.
Concerning claims 7 and 8, the cumulative time taught by Colvin of 12-17 hrs (1st aging) and 16-22 (2nd aging) overlap the claimed ranges, and therefore meet the instant limitations.
Concerning the compositions in instant claims 9-12, Colvin teaches an Al-Cu alloy composition comprising (in wt%): 3.4-4.3% Cu, 0.1-0.6% Mn, 0.1-0.6% Mg, 0.3-0.7% Ag, 0.2-0.8% Zn, 0.01-0.6% of at least one grain structure control element (abstract) including ≤0.4% Zr (column 3 lines 66-67), which overlaps the instant alloying ranges and therefore meets said limitations.
Concerning claim 15, Colvin teaches applying the instant steps of heat treating on a rolled product, which meets the instant limitation.
Concerning claim 16, Colvin teaches said process of aging Al-Cu alloys can be used when forming a variety of structural components, including aerospace components (column 9 lines 31-43), which meets the instant limitation.
Concerning claim 17 (see also 112(b) rejections supra), as set forth above, Colvin teaches said 1st and 2nd aging steps are applied to the Al-Cu alloy product after steps of: casting, homogenizing, hot working to form a wrought product by: rolling, extruding, or forging; solution heat treating, quenching, and optionally cold working said 2xxx Al-Cu alloy product, followed by said 1st and 2nd aging steps; which meets the instant limitations.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN110,423,966A (CN’966).
CN’966 teaches an process of forming and heat treating an aluminum alloy sheet (wherein the main alloying element is Cu, and therefore qualifies as “2xxx series aluminum alloy” see CN’966 at examples), by steps including: casting an Al-Cu alloy composition, preheating to hot deformation temperature, processing by hot rolling or forging [0030] (which meets the instant working into a wrought product limitation); solution heat treating, quenching [0010-0011], cold stretching or compression 3-7% [0014,0018], and aging ([0021] [0038]), said aging in multiple steps as follows:
Claim 1
CN’966
1st aging
(one or more temperatures)
90-120°C
for cumulative
t ≥ 10 hours
115-125°C
typically 15-20 hr
2nd aging
(one or more temperatures)
150-205°C
for cumulative
t ≥ 4 hours
140-165°C
typically 10-16 hr
Table 1: Aging parameters of Claim 1 vs. Colvin
which overlaps the claimed 1st and 2nd aging temperature and time parameters. Because CN’966 teaches a process of aging applied to a wrought Al-Cu (2xxx) alloy that has been subjected to solution heating and quenching, with overlapping aging parameters of time and temperature, it is held that CN’966 has created a prima facie case of obviousness of the presently claimed invention.
Overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the range, including the claimed range, from the broader range disclosed in the prior art, because the prior art finds that said composition in the entire disclosed range has a suitable utility. Additionally, "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages," In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d at 1379 (CAFC 2003).
Concerning claims 2 and 6, as set forth above, CN’966 teaches said 1st and 2nd aging steps are applied to the hot worked product (which qualifies as “a worked product” as well as a “wrought product”), solution heat treated, quenched, and cold worked 2xxx Al-Cu alloy product, which meets the instant limitations.
Concerning claim 3, as set forth above, CN’966 teaches cold working is applied to said alloy product after solution heat treating and quenching, and before the 1st and 2nd aging steps, which meets the instant limitations. CN’966 does not specify natural aging, however said natural aging step is optional.
Concerning claims 7 and 8, the typical aging time taught by CN’966 of 15-20 hrs (1st aging) and 10-16 hrs (2nd aging, see CN’966 at [0038]) overlaps the claimed ranges, and therefore meet the instant limitations.
Concerning the compositions in instant claims 9-14, CN’966 teaches an Al-Cu alloy composition comprising (in wt%): 3.0-6.5% Cu, 0.2-1.0% Mn, 0.2-5.0% Mg, 0.2-0.8% Ag, 0.02-0.25% Zr [0022], which overlaps the instant alloying ranges and therefore meets said limitations.
Concerning claim 15, CN’966 teaches applying the instant steps of heat treating on a rolled product [0030], which meets the instant limitation.
Concerning claim 16, CN’966 teaches said process of aging Al-Cu alloys can be used when forming aerospace components [0030], which meets the instant limitation.
Concerning claim 17 (see also 112(b) rejections supra), as set forth above, CN’966 teaches said 1st and 2nd aging steps are applied to the Al-Cu alloy product after steps of: casting, homogenizing, hot working to form a wrought product by: rolling or forging; solution heat treating, quenching, cold working said 2xxx Al-Cu alloy product, followed by said 1st and 2nd aging steps; which meets the instant limitations.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colvin or CN’966 as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of “ASM Handbook Vol 4E” p 148-178.
Colvin and CN’966 are discussed in paragraphs above. Neither CN’966 nor Colvin specify the quenching rate “for a plate in a thickness range of 1.6 to 12 mm” (see “Claim Interpretation” section above). However, “ASM Handbook Vol 4E” at p151 teaches average cooling rates ~10°C/s (wherein 10°C/s=600°C/min) achieve excellent strength values (see Fig. 5) for similar 2xxx series alloys. Further, Fig. 6 of “ASM Handbook Vol 4E” teaches corrosion properties are improved for lower quench rates, though strength is moderate (see Fig. 6 p 151). Fig.10 on page 153 gives further evidence that quenchant and thickness effect the average cooling rate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have optimized the quenching rate for a given thickness (such as 600°C/min taught by “ASM Handbook Vol 4E”) in order to balance the distortion, strength, and corrosion properties during the Al-Cu alloy quenching step taught by Colvin or CN’966 (see “ASM Handbook Vol 4E” p 148, Fig. 5, Fig. 6, Fig. 10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANELL COMBS MORILLO whose telephone number is (571)272-1240. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am-3pm.
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 Hendricks can be reached at 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 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/J.C.M/Examiner, Art Unit 1733 3/31/2026