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 .
Status of Claims
Responsive to the amendment filed 7 April 2026 claims 1-6 are amended and claims 8-10 are added. Claims 1-4 and 8-10 are currently under examination. Claims 5-7 are withdrawn.
Status of Previous Rejections
Responsive to the amendment filed 7 April 2026, new grounds of rejection are presented.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20110126947 A1 (hereinafter “Garat”), in view of Junsheng Wang, Physical Metallurgy of Aluminum Alloys, Aluminum Science and Technology, Vol 2A, ASM Handbook, Edited By Kevin Anderson, John Weritz, J. Gilbert Kaufman, ASM International, 2018, p 44–79, https://doi.org/10.31399/asm.hb.v02a.a0006503 (hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claim 1, Garat teaches a casting made from an aluminum alloy (see title, abstract). Garat teaches the alloy composition in [0029] or claim 1. Garat teaches that the alloy has a high mechanical strength (see [0029]). The composition of the alloy of Garat is compared with the claimed alloy in the chart below (values in mass percent).
Element
Claim 1
Garat
Mg
Si
Cu
Mn
Fe
Ti
Zn
Sn
Sr
Zr
Hf
Cr
Mo
V
W
Nb
Al
Unavoidable impurities
<0.25
6-8
2-4
<0.2
<0.2
0.05-0.1
<1
0.03-0.09
<0.03
<0.2
<0.5
<0.3
<0.3
<0.3
<0.3
<0.3
Balance
Up to 0.05
0.1-0.45
3-11
2-5
0.05-0.50
<0.5
0.01-0.25
<0.3
--
30-500 ppm
0.05-0.25
--
--
--
0.05-0.3
--
--
Balance
<0.15 in total
The composition of the aluminum alloy of Garat overlaps the claimed compositional ranges (with the exception of Sn), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness for the ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to have selected a composition in the ranges as claimed because Garat teaches the same utility over an overlapping range. Applicant is further directed to MPEP 2144.05.
Garat teaches that the alloys are subjected to ageing treatment (see [0054], [0090]-[0095]). Regarding the amount of tin, Garat does not disclose the presence of tin.
However tin is known as an additive in aluminum.
Wang teaches the physical metallurgy of aluminum as related to composition, work, and heat treatment (see p 44). Wang teaches that heat treatable alloys include Al-Si-Cu alloys (see pp. 49-50). Wang describes the effects of specific alloying elements on the properties of aluminum at pp 67-77. Wang teaches that tin is added to aluminum-copper alloys in amounts of 0.05% in order to enhance the response of the alloys to aging treatments (see pp 75-76).
It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan at time of filing to have altered the alloy composition of Garat as by adding 0.05% of tin in order to enhance the aging response of the aluminum, as taught by Wang (see pp 75-76).
Regarding claim 2, Garat teaches that the alloy includes 30-500 ppm of Sr (see [0029]), said range overlapping the range as claimed and establishing a prima facie case of obviousness for that range.
Regarding claim 3, Garat teaches that the alloy includes 0.05-0.25% of Zr (see [0029]), said range overlapping the range as claimed and establishing a prima facie case of obviousness for that range.
Regarding claim 4, Garat teaches a casting made from an aluminum alloy (see title, abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Garat in view of Wang is applied to the claim as stated above. The composition of the alloy of Garat is compared with the claimed alloy in the chart below (values in mass percent).
Element
Claim 8
Garat
Mg
Si
Cu
Mn
Fe
Ti
Zn
Sn
Sr
Zr
Hf
Cr
Mo
V
W
Nb
Al
Unavoidable impurities
0.01-0.2
6-8
2-4
0.01-0.1
<0.2
0.05-0.1
<1
0.04-0.08
0.001-0.03
<0.2
<0.5
<0.3
<0.3
<0.3
<0.3
<0.3
balance
Up to 0.05
0.1-0.45
3-11
2-5
0.05-0.50
<0.5
0.01-0.25
<0.3
--
30-500 ppm
0.05-0.25
--
--
--
0.05-0.3
--
--
Balance
<0.15 in total
The composition of the aluminum alloy of Garat overlaps the claimed compositional ranges (with the exception of Sn), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness for the ranges. It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan at time of filing to have altered the alloy composition of Garat as by adding 0.05% of tin in order to enhance the aging response of the aluminum, as taught by Wang (see pp 75-76).
Regarding claim 9, Garat teaches 0.05-0.5% of Mn ([0.029] or claim 1), overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding claim 10, Garat teaches Sr is present at 30-500 ppm, overlapping the claimed range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in the Remarks that “Wang cannot be generalized to any aluminum alloy.” The examiner disagrees with this position. Specifically, the title of Wang is “Physical Metallurgy of Aluminum Alloys.” While Wang includes many examples of specific aluminum alloys, at least the first few pages of Wang provide teachings that are generalized to many different aluminum alloys. This would seem to be actually the entire purpose of the article.
Applicant more specifically argues that Wang does not teach the effects of addition of tin to Al-Si-Cu alloys, and only descries its effects in Al-Cu alloys. Applicant argues that the addition of Sn would have tended to precipitate, such that after casting, Sn would have to be solutionized in the aluminum alloy by heat treatment. The examiner agrees with the facts regarding the theory of solidification kinetics expressed by applicant, but must disagree with the conclusions. The skilled artisan in the field of aluminum alloys understand that a great man y alloying elements would have behaved in such a ways, such that a tempering treatment is almost always performed on aluminum alloys. See for example Garat, which teaches a T7 temper including solutionizing (see Background, EXAMPLES, claims 16 and 17). Wang mentions solutionizing the aluminum in the first column. At least pages 49-56 of Wang discuss heat treatment theory generally applicable to a wider variety of aluminum alloys. While it is true that Wang does not specifically teach to add Sn to Al-Si-Cu alloys, Wang specifically mentions “wrought alloys” and “casting alloys” would each benefit from tin addition (pp 75-76). In other words, the teaching of Wang that the Sn is known as an addition to Al-Cu alloys is in no way a teaching away from adding Sn to any other alloy. The skilled artisan would not have read that Sn can be added to wrought and cast alloys and then been disestablished from addition of tin to any other alloy because Al-Cu alloys particularly benefit. For this reason, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Finally applicant argues that the addition of tin is shown by applicant’s Fig. 5, and that the specific effects gained are not disclosed by Wang. This argument is not persuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention, nor with the prior art. The claimed invention describes 0.04-0.08% tin alloying addition. There is no description in applicant’s specification that this range yields unexpectedly better results than what the prior art suggests. Further, Wang teaches to add 0.05% of tin, in the middle of the claimed range. Wang as cited teaches that this affects the aging response dramatically, this is e=essentially the same thing that applicant argues. If anything, the skilled artisan upon reading the effects of tin addition stated by Wang would have expected a result like the one which applicant now argues teaches away from Wang. The argument is considered as a statement that the results are expected results. For this reason applicant’s arguments are not convincing.
When all of the evidence is considered as a whole, evidence of obviousness outweighs evidence of patentability.
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 CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6510. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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.
CHRISTOPHER S. KESSLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights