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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/18/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
An amendment, filed 2/18/2026, is acknowledged. Claim 1 is amended; Claim 2 is canceled. No new matter is present. Claims 1 and 3 are currently pending.
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beals (WO 2020/018477).
With respect to Claim 1, Beals teaches an aluminum alloy, with a composition in mass%, as follows (para. 8-9, 41, 43):
Claim 1
Beals
Si
7.0-9.0
0.1-7.5
Cu
2.0-4.0
0.05-5.0
Mg
0.8-1.2
0.1-5.0
Fe
0.3-0.5
0.12-1.0
Mn
0.3-0.5
≤ 1.8
Zn
2.8-4.0
0.05-6.1
Sr
0.008-0.04
≤ 0.06
Al
Balance with unavoidable impurities
Balance with 0.1 or less total other elements
Be
Optionally, 0.001-0.004
-
Ti
Optionally, 0.05-0.005
Optionally, ≤ 0.2
B
Optionally, 0.01-0.005
-
Compositional ranges including zero are interpreted as optional elements. Thus, Beals teaches an aluminum alloy with compositional ranges overlapping each of the instantly required ranges, overlapping one of the optional element ranges, and that does not require any elements outside the closed composition (see claim 1 preamble, reciting “An aluminum alloy consisting of”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping ranges. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claimed composition overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to Claim 3, Beals teaches that the aluminum alloy exhibits increased strength and Young’s modulus, useful as structural components for automotive vehicles. (para. 32). The reference teaches exemplary embodiments demonstrating the range of properties achievable with the claimed alloy, including examples such as A356 – T6 having a yield strength (i.e. 0.2% proof stress, which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize is conventionally presented as a 0.2% yield strength) of 36 ksi (approx. 248 MPa) and 8% elongation. (Fig. 9, also including additional embodiments with higher and lower proof stress and elongation values). Thus, Beals is deemed to teach an aluminum alloy with proof stress and elongation values overlapping the instantly claimed ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping ranges. MPEP 2144.05. Additionally, Beals is deemed to teach that the 0.2% proof stress and elongation at break are result effective variables that may controlled through the composition and/or processing of the alloy. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a 0.2% proof stress and elongation at break from the ranges of values demonstrated as achieved from the alloy of Beals, in order to obtain a desired balance of strength and elongation for a particular application. For example, the alloy may be selected to have higher strength with lower elongation/ductility or higher elongation/ductility with lower strength depending on the needs of the part.
Finally, Beals teaches that the aluminum alloy is useful for casting and teaches cast components from said alloy (see, e.g., para. 8-9), and therefore, teaches “An aluminum alloy casting material.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2/18/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Pietrowski and Choi have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Specifically, Claim 1 was amended to require a closed composition including Sr. Pietrowski and Choi each require a content of at least one element (e.g. Ni) outside that claimed and therefore, fail to teach the aluminum alloy as required by the amended claim 1. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Beals, as detailed above.
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A HEVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0361. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/JOHN A HEVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735