DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/24/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7, 10-15, and 18-21 are pending. Of the pending claims, claims 1-7, 10-12, and 21 are presented for examination on the merits, and claims 13-15 and 18-20 are withdrawn from examination.
Claims 1 and 2 are currently amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
Two (2) information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) were submitted on 02/24/2026 and 04/03/2026. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2004/0211498 (A1) to Keidel et al. (“Keidel”).
Regarding claim 21, Keidel is directed to producing aluminum alloy structures, with specific focus on AA7000-series alloys. Para. [0002], [0022]. The aluminum alloy can be made into a product (article comprising an alloy). Para. [0008], [0011], [0022]; claims 19-22.
The composition of the alloy contains the following elements in percent by weight (para. [0024], [0025]; claims 11 and 18):
Element
Claim 21
US 2004/0211498 A1
Zn
3.4 - 5.5
5.0 - 8.5
Mg
1.3 - 2.1
1.0 - 2.9
Cu
at least 0.07
1.0 - 2.6
Zr
no greater than 0.08
0.03 - 0.25 (optional)
Fe
0.04 - 0.20
< 0.3
Al & incidental impurities
balance
balance
Zr is an optional element (para. [0025]), i.e., can be zero percent, which falls within the claimed range.
Keidel discloses that it is known to artificially over-age AA7000-series aluminum alloys to a T79, T76, T74, or T73-type temper in order to improve their resistance to stress corrosion, exfoliation corrosion and fracture toughness. Para. [0004]. Keidel teaches that their alloys are artificially aged to improve dimensional stability during subsequent machining operations. Para. [0016]. Example preferred tempers include T6 and T76 (corresponds to A76) (tempered under a T6 or A76 condition). Para. [0016].
The overlap between the ranges taught in the prior art and recited in the claims creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select from among the prior art ranges because there is utility over an entire range disclosed in the prior art.
Claims 1-7, 10-12, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2005/0238528 (A1) to Lin et al. (“Lin”).
Regarding claim 21, Lin discloses aluminum alloys for making cast components for use in aerospace and automotive industries (article comprising an alloy). Para. [0002].
The aluminum alloy contains the following elements in percent by weight (para. [0007]-[0012]; claims 14-21):
Element
Claim 21
US 2005/0238528 A1
Zn
3.4 - 5.5
about 3.5-5.5
Mg
1.3 - 2.1
about 1-3
Cu
at least 0.07
about 0.05-0.5
Zr
no greater than 0.08
below 0.2 (if added)
Fe
0.04 - 0.20
less than about 0.30
Al & incidental impurities
balance
base
In one embodiment, the aluminum alloy may have the following composition (Table VI – Sample Date Apr-04):
Element
Claim 21
US 2005/0238528 A1
Zn
3.4 - 5.5
4.1 - 4.7
Mg
1.3 - 2.1
1.9 - 2.2
Cu
at least 0.07
0.22 - 0.27
Zr
no greater than 0.08
0.00 - 0.15
Fe
0.04 - 0.20
0.03 - 0.04
Al & incidental impurities
balance
base
In another embodiment, the aluminum alloy may have the following composition (Table VI – Sample Date Jun-04):
Element
Claim 21
US 2005/0238528 A1
Zn
3.4 - 5.5
4.6 - 4.9
Mg
1.3 - 2.1
1.5 - 2.0
Cu
at least 0.07
0.24 - 0.29
Zr
no greater than 0.08
0.00 - 0.12
Fe
0.04 - 0.20
0.04 - 0.08
Al & incidental impurities
balance
base
The article can be treated with a T6 temper (tempered under a T6 condition). Para. [0017]; example tempers in Tables II, III, V; claims 16 and 23.
The overlap between the ranges taught in the prior art and recited in the claims creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select from among the prior art ranges because there is utility over an entire range disclosed in the prior art.
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses aluminum alloys containing the following elements in percent by weight (para. [0007]-[0012]; claims 14-21):
Element
Claim 1
US 2005/0238528 A1
Zn
3.4 - 5.5
about 3.5-5.5
Mg
1.3 - 2.1
about 1-3
Cu
0.08 - 0.45
about 0.05-0.5
Zr
no greater than 0.08
below 0.2 (if added)
Fe
0.04 - 0.20
less than about 0.30
Ti
no greater than 0.05
e.g., 0.00, 0.029, 0.036
Si
no greater than 0.05
less than about 1.0
Al & incidental impurities
balance
base
In one embodiment, the aluminum alloy may have the following composition (Table VI – Sample Date Apr-04):
Element
Claim 1
US 2005/0238528 A1
Zn
3.4 - 5.5
4.1 - 4.7
Mg
1.3 - 2.1
1.9 - 2.2
Cu
0.08 - 0.45
0.22 - 0.27
Zr
no greater than 0.08
0.00 - 0.15
Fe
0.04 - 0.20
0.03 - 0.04
Ti
no greater than 0.05
0.03 - 0.06
Si
no greater than 0.05
0.05 - 0.09
Al & incidental impurities
balance
base
In another embodiment, the aluminum alloy may have the following composition (Table VI – Sample Date Jun-04):
Element
Claim 1
US 2005/0238528 A1
Zn
3.4 - 5.5
4.6 - 4.9
Mg
1.3 - 2.1
1.5 - 2.0
Cu
0.08 - 0.45
0.24 - 0.29
Zr
no greater than 0.08
0.00 - 0.12
Fe
0.04 - 0.20
0.04 - 0.08
Ti
no greater than 0.05
0.03 - 0.11
Si
no greater than 0.05
0.03 - 0.09
Al & incidental impurities
balance
base
The article can be treated with a T6 temper (tempered under a T6 condition). Para. [0017]; example tempers in Tables II, III, V; claims 16 and 23.
The overlap between the ranges taught in the prior art and recited in the claims creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select from among the prior art ranges because there is utility over an entire range disclosed in the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, Lin teaches the following with respect to the claimed elements (para. [0011]-[0013], [0015]; claims 1-3):
Element
Claim 2
US 2005/0238528 A1
Mn
no greater than 0.05
less than about 0.30
Cr
no greater than 0.05
-------------
Ga
no greater than 0.05
-------------
Sn
no greater than 0.05
-------------
V
no greater than 0.05
-------------
B
no greater than 0.05
0.0025 - 0.05 (if added)
Li
no greater than 0.05
-------------
Cd
no greater than 0.05
-------------
Pb
no greater than 0.05
-------------
Ni
no greater than 0.05
-------------
P
no greater than 0.05
-------------
Na
no greater than 0.05
-------------
Ca
no greater than 0.05
-------------
total Mn and Cr
no greater than 0.03
less than about 0.30
any one additional element
no greater than 0.02
less than about 0.30
total additional elements
no greater than 0.10
less than about 0.30
If present, the amounts encompass the claimed ranges. In the case they are absent (i.e., zero percent), they fall within the claimed ranges. Any impurities (additional elements) are less than about 0.30% by weight (para. [0012]), which overlaps the claimed range.
Example Si amounts include 0.04% by weight (Table I) and 0.04-0.05% by weight (Table VI – Sep-04), which falls within the claimed range. From Table VI, other Si amounts include 0.05-0.09% by weight (Apr-04) and 0.03-0.09% by weight (Jun-04) , each of which overlaps the claimed range.
Example Mn amounts include 0.00, 0.05%, and 0.04% by weight (Table I), each of which falls within the claimed range. From Table VI, other Mn amounts include 0.03-0.04% (Apr-04), 0.04-0.05% (Jun-04), and 0.03-0.04% by weight (Sep-04), each of which falls within the claimed range.
Boron is an optional element (para. [0015]; claims 2 and 3) and may be omitted (zero percent), which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 3, Lin teaches a Cu content of about 0.05-0.5% by weight (para. [0010]; claims 1, 14, 21) and 0.22-0.27% by weight (Table VI – Date Apr-04), each of which overlaps the claimed range.
Further regarding claim 3, Lin teaches a Cu content of 0.24-0.29 wt.% (Table VI – Date Jun-04); about 0.25-0.3% by weight (claims 10, 19, and 26); and about 0.27-0.28% by weight (claims 11, 20, and 27), each of which falls entirely within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, Lin teaches a Cu content of about 0.05-0.5% by weight (para. [0010]; claims 1, 14, 21); about 0.25-0.3% (claims 10, 19, and 26); 0.24-0.29 wt.% (Table VI – Date Jun-04); and about 0.27-0.28% by weight (claims 11, 20, and 27), each of which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, Lin teaches a Zn content of about 3.5-5.5% by weight (para. [0008]; claims 1, 14, 21); 4.1-4.7 wt.% (Table VI – Date Apr-04); and about 4.2-4.8 wt.% (claims 8, 17, 24), which overlaps the claimed range. Lin teaches a Zn content of 4.6-4.9% by weight (Table VI – Date Jun-04), which falls entirely within the claimed range.
Further regarding claim 5, Lin teaches a Mg content of about 1-3% by weight (para. [0009]; claims 1, 14, and 21); about 1.7-2.3% by weight (claim 9); about 1.8-2.2% by weight (claims 18 and 25); and 1.9-2.2% by weight (Table VI – Date Apr-04), each of which overlaps the claimed range. Lin teaches a Mg content of 1.5-2.0% by weight (Table VI – Date Jun-04), which falls entirely within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, Lin teaches a Zn content of about 3.5-5.5% by weight (para. [0008]; claims 1, 14, 21) and 4.6-4.9% by weight (Table VI – Date Jun-04), each of which overlaps the claimed range. Lin teaches a Zn content of 4.1-4.7 wt.% (Table VI – Date Apr-04) and about 4.2-4.8 wt.% (claims 8, 17, 24), which falls entirely within the claimed range.
Further regarding claim 6, Lin teaches a Mg content of about 1-3% by weight (para. [0009]; claims 1, 14, and 21); 1.5-2.0% by weight (Table VI – Date Jun-04); about 1.7-2.3% by weight (claim 9); and about 1.8-2.2% by weight (claims 18 and 25), each of which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 7, Lin shows that Zn is about two to three times the amount of Mg (i.e., ratio of Zn to Mg is about 2 to 3), which falls within the claimed range. For example, the Zn-to-Mg ratio is about 2.8 in Sample 59 and about 3.0 in Sample 86 in Table IV, each of which falls within the claimed range. From Table VI, taking the midpoint of the Zn and Mg ranges, the Zn-to-Mg ratio is about 2.2 for Sample Date Apr-04 and about 2.7 for Sample Date Jun-04, each of which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 10, Lin teaches that a T6 temper improves the tensile yield strength. Para. [0017]. Specific values that meet or exceed 370 MPa include examples in Table II (fifth and sixth lines); Table III (T6 temper – Sample Location 2); and Table VII (April 2004 tests – Samples 1-024, 2-007, 2-024, 3-165; June 2004 tests – Sample 159; Sep 2004 tests – Sample 53, 151-Location 3, 151-Location 4, 152-Location 2).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Lin is silent regarding the failure rate of the alloys measured under an ASTM G30 U-bend standard under the claimed conditions. However, it is well established that when a material is produced by a process that is identical or substantially identical to that of the claims and/or possesses a structure or composition that is identical or substantially identical to that of the claims, any claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Such a finding establishes a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness. See MPEP § 2112.01.
In the present instance, Lin teaches an aluminum alloy composition comprising elemental ranges that fall within or overlap the claimed ranges. Additionally, Lin teaches applying the claimed temper aging conditions to alloys having compositions that meet the claimed compositional ranges. Therefore, the resulting alloy would be expected to possess the claimed properties and display the same behavior because Lin teaches the claimed composition and claimed tempering heat treatments.
Claims 1-6, 10-12, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0090373 (A1) to Gable et al. (“Gable”) in view of Keidel.
Regarding claim 21, Gable teaches an aluminum alloy and articles produced therefrom (article comprising an alloy). Title; abstract; para. [0002], [0007]. The alloy includes the following elements in percent by weight (para. [0008], [0040]-[0048], [0054]-[0070]; claim 1):
Element
Claim 21
US 2015/0090373 A1
Zn
3.4 - 5.5
4.0 - 10.0
Mg
1.3 - 2.1
0.5 - 2.0
Cu
at least 0.07
0 - 0.50
Zr
no greater than 0.08
0 - 0.10
Fe
0.04 - 0.20
≤ 0.30
Al & incidental impurities
balance
balance
In some embodiments, the Zn is greater than 4.0 wt.% and less than 5.45 wt.%. Para. [0041], [0042].
In some embodiments, the Mg is greater than 1.5 wt.% and less than 1.75 wt.%. Para. [0045].
In some embodiments, the Cu is greater than 0.10 wt.% and less than 0.30 wt.%. Para. [0052].
In some embodiments, the alloy is free of Zr, i.e., no more than naturally occurring amount. Para. [0060]. The alloy can have up to 0.08 wt.% Zr. Para. [0063].
In some embodiments, the Fe is 0.04-0.12 wt.%. Para. [0058].
The overlap between the ranges taught in the prior art and recited in the claims creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select from among the prior art ranges because there is utility over an entire range disclosed in the prior art.
Gable teaches alloys directed to 7xxx series aluminum alloys. Para. [0033]. Gable teaches that the alloy may go through various heat treatments, including an aging treatment (para. [0109], [0114]), but does not specify the temper.
Keidel is directed to producing aluminum alloy structures, with specific focus on AA7000-series alloys. Para. [0002]. Keidel discloses that it is known to artificially over-age AA7000-series aluminum alloys to a T79, T76, T74, or T73-type temper in order to improve their resistance to stress corrosion, exfoliation corrosion and fracture toughness. Para. [0004]. Keidel teaches that their alloys are artificially aged to improve dimensional stability during subsequent machining operations. Para. [0016]. Example preferred tempers include T6 and T76 (corresponds to A76) (aluminum alloy is tempered under a T6 or A76 condition). Para. [0016].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used one of the temper designations of Keidel for the aging treatment of Gable because the aforementioned treatments would improve corrosion and fracture toughness properties as well as ensure dimensional stability of the treated alloy for later machining processes.
Regarding claim 1, Gable teaches an aluminum alloy and articles produced therefrom (article comprising an alloy). Title; abstract; para. [0002], [0007]. The alloy includes the following elements in percent by weight (para. [0008], [0040]-[0048], [0054]-[0070]; claim 1):
Element
Claim 1
US 2015/0090373 A1
Zn
3.4 - 5.5
4.0 - 10.0
Mg
1.3 - 2.1
0.5 - 2.0
Cu
0.08 - 0.45
0 - 0.50
Zr
no greater than 0.08
0 - 0.10
Fe
0.04 - 0.20
≤ 0.30
Ti
no greater than 0.05
≤ 0.100
Si
no greater than 0.05
up to 0.20
Al & incidental impurities
balance
balance
In some embodiments, the Zn is greater than 4.0 wt.% and less than 5.45 wt.%. Para. [0041], [0042].
In some embodiments, the Mg is greater than 1.5 wt.% and less than 1.75 wt.%. Para. [0045].
In some embodiments, the Cu is greater than 0.10 wt.% and less than 0.30 wt.%. Para. [0052].
In some embodiments, the alloy is free of Zr, i.e., no more than naturally occurring amount. Para. [0060]. The alloy can have up to 0.08 wt.% Zr. Para. [0063].
In some embodiments, the Fe is 0.04-0.12 wt.%. Para. [0058].
Ti is considered an additional element and is not to exceed 0.050 wt.%, alternatively not more than 0.100 wt.%. Para. [0072].
In some embodiments, Si ranges from 0.03 wt.% to 0.05 wt.% (para. [0070]), which falls within the claimed range.
The overlap between the ranges taught in the prior art and recited in the claims creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select from among the prior art ranges because there is utility over an entire range disclosed in the prior art.
Gable teaches alloys directed to 7xxx series aluminum alloys. Para. [0033]. Gable teaches that the alloy may go through various heat treatments, including an aging treatment (para. [0109], [0114]), but does not specify the temper.
Keidel is directed to producing aluminum alloy structures, with specific focus on AA7000-series alloys. Para. [0002]. Keidel discloses that it is known to artificially over-age AA7000-series aluminum alloys to a T79, T76, T74, or T73-type temper in order to improve their resistance to stress corrosion, exfoliation corrosion and fracture toughness. Para. [0004]. Keidel teaches that their alloys are artificially aged to improve dimensional stability during subsequent machining operations. Para. [0016]. Example preferred tempers include T6 and T76 (corresponds to A76) (aluminum alloy is tempered under a T6 or A76 condition). Para. [0016].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used one of the temper designations of Keidel for the aging treatment of Gable because the aforementioned treatments would improve corrosion and fracture toughness properties as well as ensure dimensional stability of the treated alloy for later machining processes.
Regarding claim 2, Gable teaches that the alloy includes the following limits (para. [0034], [0072]):
Element
Claim 2
US 2015/0090373 A1
Mn
no greater than 0.05
not to exceed 0.050
Cr
no greater than 0.05
not to exceed 0.050
Ga
no greater than 0.05
not to exceed 0.050
Sn
no greater than 0.05
not to exceed 0.050
V
no greater than 0.05
not to exceed 0.050
B
no greater than 0.05
-------------
Li
no greater than 0.05
not to exceed 0.050
Cd
no greater than 0.05
-------------
Pb
no greater than 0.05
-------------
Ni
no greater than 0.05
not to exceed 0.050
P
no greater than 0.05
-------------
Na
no greater than 0.05
-------------
Ca
no greater than 0.05
not to exceed 0.050
total Mn and Cr
no greater than 0.03
not to exceed 0.050 each
any one additional element
no greater than 0.02
not to exceed 0.050
total additional elements
no greater than 0.10
impurities ≤ 2
Additional elements can be added in amounts that not exceed 0.050 wt.% per element. Para. [0072]. Impurities (corresponds to additional elements) can be less than or equal to about 2 wt.%, alternatively less than or equal to about 0.1 wt.%. Para. [0034].
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Gable teaches that the Cu is greater than 0.10 wt.% and less than 0.30 wt.% in some embodiments (para. [0052]), which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, Gable teaches that the Zn is greater than 4.5 wt.% and less than 5.45 wt.% in some embodiments. Para. [0041], [0042]. In some embodiments, the Mg is greater than 1.5 wt.% and less than 2.0 wt.%. Para. [0045].
Regarding claim 6, Gable teaches that the Zn is greater than 4.0 wt.% and less than 4.75 wt.% in some embodiments. Para. [0041], [0042]. In some embodiments, the Mg is greater than 1.0 wt.% and less than 2.0 wt.%. Para. [0045].
Regarding claim 10, Gable teaches that the tensile yield strength is at least 350 MPa. Para. [0035]; claim 18. In some embodiments, the yield strength is at least 370 MPa. Para. [0053].
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Gable is silent regarding the failure rate of the alloys under the claimed conditions. However, it is well established that when a material is produced by a process that is identical or substantially identical to that of the claims and/or possesses a structure or composition that is identical or substantially identical to that of the claims, any claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Such a finding establishes a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness. See MPEP § 2112.01.
In the present instance, Gable teaches an aluminum alloy composition comprising elemental ranges that fall within or overlap the claimed ranges. Additionally, it is known to apply the claimed temper aging conditions claimed to AA7000-series alloys, as noted above and seen in Keidel. Therefore, the resulting alloy would be expected to possess the claimed properties because Gable in view Keidel teach applying a heat treatment (one that corresponds to the claimed heat treatments) to an alloy meeting the claimed alloy composition.
Claims 1-6, 10-12, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0090373 (A1) to Gable et al. (“Gable”) in view of Lin.
Regarding claim 21, Gable teaches an aluminum alloy and articles produced therefrom (article comprising an alloy). Title; abstract; para. [0002], [0007]. The alloy includes the following elements in percent by weight (para. [0008], [0040]-[0048], [0054]-[0070]; claim 1):
Element
Claim 21
US 2015/0090373 A1
Zn
3.4 - 5.5
4.0 - 10.0
Mg
1.3 - 2.1
0.5 - 2.0
Cu
at least 0.07
0 - 0.50
Zr
no greater than 0.08
0 - 0.10
Fe
0.04 - 0.20
≤ 0.30
Al & incidental impurities
balance
balance
In some embodiments, the Zn is greater than 4.0 wt.% and less than 5.45 wt.%. Para. [0041], [0042].
In some embodiments, the Mg is greater than 1.5 wt.% and less than 1.75 wt.%. Para. [0045].
In some embodiments, the Cu is greater than 0.10 wt.% and less than 0.30 wt.%. Para. [0052].
In some embodiments, the alloy is free of Zr, i.e., no more than naturally occurring amount. Para. [0060]. The alloy can have up to 0.08 wt.% Zr. Para. [0063].
In some embodiments, the Fe is 0.04-0.12 wt.%. Para. [0058].
The overlap between the ranges taught in the prior art and recited in the claims creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select from among the prior art ranges because there is utility over an entire range disclosed in the prior art.
Gable teaches alloys directed to 7xxx series aluminum alloys. Para. [0033]. Gable teaches that the alloy may go through various heat treatments, including an aging treatment (para. [0109], [0114]), but does not specify the temper.
Lin is directed to aluminum alloys containing Zn, Mg, and Cu in amounts that fall within or overlap the amounts disclosed by Gable. Lin teaches that applying T6 tempers to such type of aluminum alloys improves their tensile yield strength. Para. [0017], [0041]; Tables II and III.
The alloys of Gable have high yield strengths exceeding 350 MPa. Para. [0053]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied the T6 temper of Lin for the aging treatment of Gable because the aforementioned treatment would enhance the yield strength of the alloy.
Regarding claim 1, Gable teaches an aluminum alloy and articles produced therefrom (article comprising an alloy). Title; abstract; para. [0002], [0007]. The alloy includes the following elements in percent by weight (para. [0008], [0040]-[0048], [0054]-[0070]; claim 1):
Element
Claim 1
US 2015/0090373 A1
Zn
3.4 - 5.5
4.0 - 10.0
Mg
1.3 - 2.1
0.5 - 2.0
Cu
0.08 - 0.45
0 - 0.50
Zr
no greater than 0.08
0 - 0.10
Fe
0.04 - 0.20
≤ 0.30
Ti
no greater than 0.05
≤ 0.100
Si
no greater than 0.05
up to 0.20
Al & incidental impurities
balance
balance
In some embodiments, the Zn is greater than 4.0 wt.% and less than 5.45 wt.%. Para. [0041], [0042].
In some embodiments, the Mg is greater than 1.5 wt.% and less than 1.75 wt.%. Para. [0045].
In some embodiments, the Cu is greater than 0.10 wt.% and less than 0.30 wt.%. Para. [0052].
In some embodiments, the alloy is free of Zr, i.e., no more than naturally occurring amount. Para. [0060]. The alloy can have up to 0.08 wt.% Zr. Para. [0063].
In some embodiments, the Fe is 0.04-0.12 wt.%. Para. [0058].
Ti is considered an additional element and is not to exceed 0.050 wt.%, alternatively not more than 0.100 wt.%. Para. [0072].
In some embodiments, Si ranges from 0.03 wt.% to 0.05 wt.% (para. [0070]), which falls within the claimed range.
The overlap between the ranges taught in the prior art and recited in the claims creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select from among the prior art ranges because there is utility over an entire range disclosed in the prior art.
Gable teaches alloys directed to 7xxx series aluminum alloys. Para. [0033]. Gable teaches that the alloy may go through various heat treatments, including an aging treatment (para. [0109], [0114]), but does not specify the temper.
Lin is directed to aluminum alloys containing Zn, Mg, and Cu in amounts that fall within or overlap the amounts disclosed by Gable. Lin teaches that applying T6 tempers to such type of aluminum alloys improves their tensile yield strength. Para. [0017], [0041]; Tables II and III.
The alloys of Gable have high yield strengths exceeding 350 MPa. Para. [0053]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied the T6 temper of Lin for the aging treatment of Gable because the aforementioned treatment would enhance the yield strength of the alloy.
Regarding claim 2, Gable teaches that the alloy includes the following limits (para. [0034], [0072]):
Element
Claim 2
US 2015/0090373 A1
Mn
no greater than 0.05
not to exceed 0.050
Cr
no greater than 0.05
not to exceed 0.050
Ga
no greater than 0.05
not to exceed 0.050
Sn
no greater than 0.05
not to exceed 0.050
V
no greater than 0.05
not to exceed 0.050
B
no greater than 0.05
-------------
Li
no greater than 0.05
not to exceed 0.050
Cd
no greater than 0.05
-------------
Pb
no greater than 0.05
-------------
Ni
no greater than 0.05
not to exceed 0.050
P
no greater than 0.05
-------------
Na
no greater than 0.05
-------------
Ca
no greater than 0.05
not to exceed 0.050
total Mn and Cr
no greater than 0.03
not to exceed 0.050 each
any one additional element
no greater than 0.02
not to exceed 0.050
total additional elements
no greater than 0.10
impurities ≤ 2
Additional elements can be added in amounts that not exceed 0.050 wt.% per element. Para. [0072]. Impurities (corresponds to additional elements) can be less than or equal to about 2 wt.%, alternatively less than or equal to about 0.1 wt.%. Para. [0034].
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Gable teaches that the Cu is greater than 0.10 wt.% and less than 0.30 wt.% in some embodiments (para. [0052]), which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, Gable teaches that the Zn is greater than 4.5 wt.% and less than 5.45 wt.% in some embodiments. Para. [0041], [0042]. In some embodiments, the Mg is greater than 1.5 wt.% and less than 2.0 wt.%. Para. [0045].
Regarding claim 6, Gable teaches that the Zn is greater than 4.0 wt.% and less than 4.75 wt.% in some embodiments. Para. [0041], [0042]. In some embodiments, the Mg is greater than 1.0 wt.% and less than 2.0 wt.%. Para. [0045].
Regarding claim 10, Gable teaches that the tensile yield strength is at least 350 MPa. Para. [0035]; claim 18. In some embodiments, the yield strength is at least 370 MPa. Para. [0053].
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Gable is silent regarding the failure rate of the alloys under the claimed conditions. However, it is well established that when a material is produced by a process that is identical or substantially identical to that of the claims and/or possesses a structure or composition that is identical or substantially identical to that of the claims, any claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Such a finding establishes a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness. See MPEP § 2112.01.
In the present instance, Gable teaches an aluminum alloy composition comprising elemental ranges that fall within or overlap the claimed ranges. Additionally, it is known to apply the claimed temper aging conditions claimed to AA7000-series alloys, as noted above and seen in Lin. Therefore, the resulting alloy would be expected to possess the claimed properties because Gable in view Lin teach applying a heat treatment (one that corresponds to the claimed heat treatments) to an alloy meeting the claimed alloy composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/24/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that inherency is an insufficient basis to reject the surprising and unexpected results rebutted by the evidence provided. Applicant argues that the Office must show that the properties were know or that they were not unexpected.
In response, the prior art documents disclose alloys containing alloying elements that overlap substantial portions of the claimed ranges (such as Keidel) or alloying ranges that fall entirely within the claimed ranges (such as the Cu, Zn, and Mg in Lin). The prior art alloys are also tempered according the same temper designations claimed. Once the Office makes these findings, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established, and Applicant may rebut the prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. See MPEP § 2144.05(III)(A).
Applicant’s reliance on data in the present specification to support their position of unexpected and surprising results of the present invention is acknowledged. Applicant explains that the claimed amount of Cu results in dramatically reduced delamination defects under T6 temper and dramatically reduced stress corrosion cracking (SCC) under A76 temper.
However, the data are insufficient to show unexpected results because they are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. To show unexpected results, the claimed ranges must be consistent with the data provided, and the unexpected result must occur over the entire claimed range. See MPEP § 716.02(d). The data relied upon by Applicant shows different comparative and inventive examples containing Cu spanning amounts ranging from 0.04% to 0.30% by weight. However, the Cu content recited in claim 21 has a broader range of “at least 0.07 wt.% Cu” with no upper limit, and the data provided do not span this whole claimed range. Since the data do not support the alleged unexpected and surprising result over the entirety of the claimed range, Applicant has not demonstrated criticality of the invention as claimed.
With respect to claim 1, the results are also not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. The data in Table 2 shows results of one comparative alloy (Cu is 0.04%) and six inventive alloys (Cu from 0.08% to 0.30%). But claim 1 recites a Cu content ranging from 0.08% to 0.45%. The data in Table 2 provide no information regarding criticality at the upper end of the range. The data also do not test examples outside the claimed range at the upper limit (i.e., outside 0.45%), as required by MPEP § 716.02(d)(II). Therefore, one cannot draw a conclusion of criticality when the unexpected results have not been demonstrated over the entirety of the claimed Cu range.
Applicant states that the Cu content imparts the unexpected results of improved SCC resistance and anti-delamination performance.
In response, the claimed amount of Cu is not unknown or unrecognized by the prior art. Keidel teaches a Cu content of 1.0-2.6 wt.% (para. [0024]), which falls entirely within the claimed range of at least 0.07 wt.% (claim 21). Lin discloses specific amounts of Cu, such as 0.27-0.28 wt.% (claims 11, 20, and 27) and 0.25-0.30 wt.% (claims 10, 19, and 26), which fall entirely within the Cu ranges recited in instant claims 1 and 21. For example, Cu can be exactly 0.29 wt.% (Table IV – Sample No. 59), which falls entirely within the Cu range recited in instant claim 4. Gable teaches an embodiment where copper is greater than 0.10 wt.% and less than 0.30 wt.% (para. [0052]), which falls entirely within the range of 0.08%-0.45% (claim 1) and at least 0.07% (claim 21). Thus, Keidel, Lin, and Gable teach Cu quantities with specificity that are consistent with the claimed invention.
Applicant argues that the Office must show that the unexpected properties were known or that they are not actually unexpected.
In response, the Office has met its burden by citing alloys comprising specific ranges that correspond to the claimed ranges, in particular the important Cu alloying element which is known in the prior art to be added in the claimed amounts. In doing so, the burden then shifts to Applicant to show that the prior art alloys do not possess the property. See MPEP § 2112(V). Applicant has not provided any objective evidence that the prior art alloys would not possess SCC and delamination properties. Furthermore, a previously disclosed alloy does not become novel merely because of the discovery of an unappreciated or unknown property. See MPEP § 2112(I).
Applicant’s request for an interview is acknowledged, but is denied because the prior art documents cited in this Office action have been previously discussed in interviews held on 07/02/2024 and 08/18/2025. In addition, no new data or claim amendments have since been presented that would warrant further discussion.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2006/0000094 (A1) to Gareshcé et al. discloses a forged, low-copper 7000-series aluminum alloy. Abstract. In one embodiment, the alloy contains (by weight) Zn 3-7, Mg 0.5-2, Cu less than 0.2, Fe up to 0.4, Ti less than 0.2, and Si up to 0.35. Para. [0038]. The alloy may be subjected to a T6 temper. Para. [0044].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANESSA T. LUK whose telephone number is (571)270-3587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM ET.
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 D. 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.
/VANESSA T. LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
June 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights