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 .
Priority
Applicant’s priority claim to US Provisional 63/094,120 filed October 20, 2020 is acknowledged. The instant application is acknowledged as being a continuation of PCT/US2021/055655 filed October 19, 2021 and published as WO 2022/086997, a copy of which is attached.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks and Claim Amendments filed March 2, 2026.
Claims Filing Date
March 2, 2026
Amended
1, 2, 4-7, 14, 15-17
New
20, 21
Cancelled
9
Pending
1-8, 10-21
Withdrawn
12, 15-19
Under Examination
1-8, 10-11, 13, 14, 20, 21
Withdrawn Abstract Objection
The following objection is withdrawn due to abstract amendment:
Line 1 “aluminum alloys alloys”.
Withdrawn Claim Objection
The following objection is withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 6 line 2 “0.07 vol.,”.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following 112(b) rejection is withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 2 lines 1-2 reciting the broad recitation “(wt. % Zr + wt. % Mn) is at least 0.08”, and the narrower “(wt. % Zr + wt. % Mn) is at least 0.10”.
Response to Remarks filed March 2, 2026
Smeyers (US 2012/0090742)
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks para. spanning pp. 10-11, filed February 27, 2026, with respect to Smeyers have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Smeyers has been withdrawn.
The applicant persuasively argues amended claim 1 recite 5.0 – 6.7 wt% Zn, but Smeyers requires 6.9-8.0 wt% Zn (Smeyers [0010]-[0014], [0028], [0064], [0077]) (Remark para. spanning pp. 10-11).
Matsuo (JP H05-212562 machine translation)
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 11 paras. 4-5, filed February 27, 2026, with respect to Matsuo have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Matsuo has been withdrawn.
The applicant persuasively argues amended claim 1 requires an average grain size of at least 45 micrometers (Remarks p. 11 para. 4), but Matsuo discloses a crystal grain size of 40 micrometers or less ([0018], [0035]) (Remarks p. 11 para. 5).
New Grounds
In light of claim amendment and upon further consideration new grounds of rejection are made over Baba in view of Smeyers and over Benedictus in view of Smeyers and Tundal.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 lines 20-22 “wherein the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product realizes a dispersoid content of not greater than 1.95 vol. %, wherein the amount of dispersoids is calculated from the formula (wt. % Mn)*3.52 + (wt. % Zr)*1.28 + (wt. % Cr + wt. % V)*6.34”. The calculation multiplies wt. % by a unitless number in the formula, but has a dispersoid content in vol. %.
Claim 6 lines 1-4 “wherein the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product realizes a dispersoid content of at least 0.07 vol. %, wherein the amount of dispersoids is calculated from the formula (wt. % Mn)*3.52 + (wt. % Zr)*1.28 + (wt. % Cr + wt. % V)*6.34”. The calculation multiplies wt. % by a unitless number in the formula, but has a dispersoid content in vol. %.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-11, 13, 14, 20, and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 lines 23-24 “the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product realizes an average grain size of at least 45 micrometers” fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 14 lines 20-21 “the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product realizes an average grain size of at least 45 micrometers” fails to comply with the written description requirement.
With respect to an average grain size of the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product, applicant’s specification discloses in [0043] “a grain size may be preselected, such as any of the grain sizes shown in Example 1, Table 3”. The grain sizes shown in Example 1, Table 3 range from 22.81 micrometers (P AN-01) to 130.1 micrometers (F AN-05, G AN-10).
In the Remarks filed March 2, 2026 applicant argues support in [003]-[004], originally filed dependent claim 2, and Table 3 (Remarks p. 1 para. 1). Only Table 3 is directed an average grain size.
Applicant does not have a broader disclosure in the specification that supports the claimed “an average grain size of at least 45 micrometers”, which has no upper limit.
Claims 2-8, 10, 11, 13, 20, and 21 are rejected as depending from claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-8, 13, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baba (US 4,410,370) in view of Smeyers (US 2012/0090742).
Regarding claim 1, Baba discloses a 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product (2:40-46) comprising:
an overlapping composition (at least one of Cr and Zr) (2:40-46, 3:50 to 4:35);
wherein the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product has a thickness of from 0.5 to 4.0 mm (3 mm) (8:58 to 9:43);
wherein the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product realizes a dispersoid content of not greater than 1.95 vol. %, wherein the amount of dispersoids is calculated from the formula (wt. % Mn)*3.52 + (wt. % Zr)* 1.28 + (wt. % Cr + wt. % V)*6.34 (at least one of Cr and Zr, 0.064 to 5.00 vol% with inventive examples 1-7 ranging from 0.29 to 1.78 vol%) (2:40-46, 3:50 to 4:35, Table 1); and
wherein the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product realizes an average grain size of at least 45 micrometers (100 um and less) (2:34-36, 63-68, 5:31-32, 7:39-44).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Element
Claim 1 (wt%)
Baba (wt%)
Baba Citation
Zn
5.0 to 6.7
5.1 to 8.1
3:56-62
Mg
1.30 to 2.05
1.8 to 3.4
3:63-68
Cu
1.10 to 2.10
1.2 to 2.6
4:1-4
Cu + Mg
2.55 to 3.85
3.0 to 6.0
3:63 to 4:4
At least one of:
Mn
Zr
0.03 to 0.40
0.02 to 0.15
Up to 0.70
0.05 to 0.25
4:31-34
4:15-22
Zr + Mn
0.05 to 0.50
Up to 0.95
4:15-22, 31-34
Cr
Up to 0.20
0.18 to 0.35
4:10-14
V
Up to 0.20
-
-
Fe
Up to 0.20
Up to 0.50
4:23-26
Si
Up to 0.15
Up to 0.40
4:27-30
Ti
Up to 0.15
0.2 or less
4:5-9
B
Up to 75 ppm
-
-
Al
Balance
Balance
2:39-46
Baba discloses recrystallization (5:22-56).
Baba is silent to the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product comprising at least from 15 to 90 vol. % recrystallized grains.
Smeyers discloses a 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product ([0013]-[0014]) comprising at least from 15 to 90 vol. % recrystallized grains (70% or more grains are recrystallized) ([0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product of Baba to have a microstructure with 70% or more recrystallized grains for a more isotropic microstructure that obtains good formability (Smeyers [0026]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 2, Baba discloses (wt. % Zr + wt. % Mn) is at least 0.08 (up to 0.95 with inventive examples 1-7 ranging from 0.02 to 0.27) (2:40-46, 4:15-22, 32-35, Table 1). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 3, Baba discloses (wt. % Zr + wt. %Mn) is not greater than 0.45 (up to 0.95 with inventive examples 1-7 ranging from 0.02 to 0.27) (2:40-46, 4:15-22, 32-35, Table 1). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, Baba discloses the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product includes at least 0.08 wt. % Mn (up to 0.70) (4:31-34). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 5, Baba discloses the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product includes not greater than 0.45 wt. % Mn (up to 0.70) (4:31-34). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 6, Baba discloses the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product realizes a dispersoid content of at least 0.07 vol.%, wherein the amount of dispersoids is calculated from the formula (wt. % Mn)*3.52 + (wt. % Zr)* 1.28 + (wt. % Cr + wt. % V)*6.34 (at least one of Cr and Zr, 0.064 to 5.00 vol% with inventive examples 1-7 ranging from 0.29 to 1.78 vol%) (2:40-46, 3:50 to 4:35, Table 1). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 7, Baba discloses the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product realizes a dispersoid content of not greater than 1.90 vol. % (at least one of Cr and Zr, 0.064 to 5.00 vol% with inventive examples 1-7 ranging from 0.29 to 1.78 vol%) (2:40-46, 3:50 to 4:35, Table 1). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 8, Baba in view of Smeyers discloses the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product comprises at least 20 vol. % recrystallized grains (70% or more grains are recrystallized) (Smeyers [0026]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 13, Baba discloses an aluminum alloy ingot (4:35-38) that is cast (4:6-7).
The limitation of realizing a strength to three-point bend at extension relationship at or above a line defined by the formula: Y = -0.039X+Z; wherein X is the LT-TYS (MPa) of the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product and wherein X is at least 450 MPa; wherein Y is the LT three-point bend extension (mm) of the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product and wherein Y is at least 7.0 mm; and wherein Z is 25.25 has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product. The prior art discloses a composition (Baba 2:40-46, 3:50 to 4:35), thickness (Baba 8:58 to 9:43), recrystallized grain structure (Smeyers [0026]), dispersoid content (Baba 2:40-46, 3:50 to 4:35, Table 1), and grain size (Baba 2:34-36, 63-68, 5:31-32, 7:39-44) that overlap with that claimed. Therefore, the claimed properties naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including a strength to three-point bend at extension relationship at or above a line defined by the formula: Y = -0.039X+Z; wherein X is the LT-TYS (MPa) of the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product and wherein X is at least 450 MPa; wherein Y is the LT three-point bend extension (mm) of the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product and wherein Y is at least 7.0 mm; and wherein Z is 25.25.
Regarding claim 20, Baba discloses (wt. % Zr + wt. %Mn) is at least 0.10 (up to 0.95 with inventive examples 1-7 ranging from 0.02 to 0.27) (2:40-46, 4:15-22, 32-35, Table 1). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 21, Baba in view of Smeyers discloses the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product comprises from 15 to 88 vol. % recrystallized grains (70% or more grains are recrystallized) (Smeyers [0026]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baba (US 4,410,370) in view of Smeyers (US 2012/0090742) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li (Li and Starink. Effect of compositional variations on characteristics of coarse intermetallic particles in overaged 7000 aluminum alloys. Materials Science and Technology. November 2001. Vol. 17. 1324-1328.).
Regarding claim 10, Baba in view of Smeyers is silent to the presence of S-phase precipitate.
Li discloses a 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product (Experimental) that contains S-phase precipitate (S phase is either not dissolved and/or some remains due to compositional segregation originating from solidification) and wherein the S-phase precipitates realize a solvus temperature of not greater than 850°F (454°C) (composition dependent) (Abstract, Results and discussion: Conditions for Presence of S and T Phases, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the aluminum alloy sheet of Baba in view of Smeyers to contain S-phase because some S phase is expected as a result of compositional segregation originating from the solidification process (Li Results and discussion: Conditions for Presence of S and T Phases). The solvus temperature of S-phase precipitates being not greater than 850°F (454°C) has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet that is dependent on the composition (Li Results and discussion: Conditions for Presence of S and T Phases, Fig. 4). Since the prior art discloses a substantially similar composition to that claimed (Baba 2:40-46, 3:50 to 4:35), then the properties of the prior art are substantially similar to the properties claimed, including the solvus temperature of S-phase precipitates being not greater than 850°F (454°C).
The claims are directed to a 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product. The limitation of the solvus temperature being calculated using THERMO-CALC software and the THERMO-CALC Aluminum Database, Version 5 has been considered and determined to not further limit the structure of the claimed 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product. As discussed above, Smeyers in view of Li renders obvious the claimed 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product claimed. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. MPEP 2113(I).
Regarding claim 11, Baba in view of Smeyers is silent to the absence of T-phase precipitates.
Li discloses a 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product (Experimental) that is absent of T-phase precipitates (well homogenized alloys are not expected to contain T phase, T phase dissolves to be replaced by or transform directly into S phase) (Results and discussion: Conditions for Presence of S and T Phases).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product of Baba in view of Smeyers to be absent T-phase precipitates because in a well homogenized 7xxx series alloy T phase precipitate is not expected to be contained because it either dissolves or is replaced by or transforms directly into S phase (Li Results and discussion: Conditions for Presence of S and T phases).
The claims are directed to a 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product. The limitation of the presence of T phase precipitates is determined using THERMO-CALC software and the THERMO-CALC Aluminum Database, Version 5 has been considered and determined to not further limit the structure of the claimed 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product. As discussed above, Smeyers in view of Li renders obvious the claimed 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product claimed. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. MPEP 2113(I).
Claims 1-8, 13, 14, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedictus (WO 2005/049878) in view of Smeyers (US 2012/0090742) and Tundal (US 2018/0237894).
Regarding claim 1, Benedictus discloses a 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product (1:3-7) comprising:
an overlapping composition (6:10-15);
wherein the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product has a thickness of from 0.5 to 4.0 mm (about 2 to 7 mm) (5:12);
wherein the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product realizes a dispersoid content of not greater than 1.95 vol. %, wherein the amount of dispersoids is calculated from the formula (wt. % Mn)*3.52 + (wt. % Zr)* 1.28 + (wt. % Cr + wt. % V)*6.34 (preferably 0.08 to 4.61 vol%) (6:10-15).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Element
Claim 1 (wt%)
Benedictus 6:10-15 (wt%)
Zn
5.0 to 6.7
5.0 to 9.5
Mg
1.30 to 2.05
1.0 to 3.0
Cu
1.10 to 2.10
1.0 to 3.0
Cu + Mg
2.55 to 3.85
2.0 to 6.0
At least one of:
Mn
Zr
0.03 to 0.40
0.02 to 0.15
< 0.35
Pref. 0.06 to 0.16
Zr + Mn
0.05 to 0.50
Pref. 0.06 to 0.51
Cr
Up to 0.20
< 0.25
V
Up to 0.20
< 0.25
Fe
Up to 0.20
< 0.25
Si
Up to 0.15
< 0.25
Ti
Up to 0.15
< 0.10
B
Up to 75 ppm
-
Al
Balance
Balance
Benedictus is silent to the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product comprising from 15 to 90 vol. % recrystallized grains.
Smeyers discloses a 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product ([0013]-[0014]) comprising at least from 15 to 90 vol. % recrystallized grains (70% or more grains are recrystallized) ([0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product of Baba to have a microstructure with 70% or more recrystallized grains for a more isotropic microstructure that obtains good formability (Smeyers [0026]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Benedictus is silent to the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product realizing an average grain size of at least 45 micrometers.
Tundal discloses a 7xxx aluminum alloy product ([0001]) realizing an average grain size of at least 45 micrometers (below approximately 70 um) ([0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the aluminum alloy product of Benedictus in view of Smeyers to have an average grain size below approximately below 70 um for the best surface appearance (Tundal [0005]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 2, Benedictus discloses (wt. % Zr + wt. % Mn) is at least 0.08 (preferably 0.06 to 0.51) (6:10-15). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 3, Benedictus discloses (wt. % Zr + wt. %Mn) is not greater than 0.45 (preferably 0.06 to 0.51) (6:10-15). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, Benedictus discloses the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product includes at least 0.08 wt. % Mn (< 0.35) (6:10-15). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 5, Benedictus discloses the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product includes not greater than 0.45 wt. % Mn (< 0.35) (6:10-15). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 6, Benedictus discloses the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product realizes a dispersoid content of at least 0.07 vol.%, wherein the amount of dispersoids is calculated from the formula (wt. % Mn)*3.52 + (wt. % Zr)* 1.28 + (wt. % Cr + wt. % V)*6.34 (preferably 0.08 to 4.61 vol%) (6:10-15). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 7, Benedictus discloses the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product realizes a dispersoid content of not greater than 1.90 vol. % (preferably 0.08 to 4.61 vol%) (6:10-15). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 8, Benedictus in view of Smeyers discloses the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product comprises at least 20 vol. % recrystallized grains (70% or more grains are recrystallized) ([0026]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 13, Benedictus discloses the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product is produced from a direct cast ingot (3:21-22, 4:1-2).
The use of the alloy of Benedictus in a vehicular member (1:8-10, 6:21-22) is substantially similar to the use of the alloy of applicant’s invention (applicant’s specification [0066]).
The limitation of realizing a strength to three-point bend at extension relationship at or above a line defined by the formula: Y = -0.039X+Z; wherein X is the LT-TYS (MPa) of the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product and wherein X is at least 450 MPa; wherein Y is the LT three-point bend extension (mm) of the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product and wherein Y is at least 7.0 mm; and wherein Z is 25.25 has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product. The prior art discloses a composition (Benedictus 6:10-15), thickness (Benedictus 5:12), recrystallized grain structure (Smeyers [0026]), dispersoid content (Benedictus 6:10-15), and grain size (Tundal [0028]) that overlap with that claimed. Therefore, the claimed properties naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including a strength to three-point bend at extension relationship at or above a line defined by the formula: Y = -0.039X+Z; wherein X is the LT-TYS (MPa) of the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product and wherein X is at least 450 MPa; wherein Y is the LT three-point bend extension (mm) of the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product and wherein Y is at least 7.0 mm; and wherein Z is 25.25.
Regarding claim 14, Benedictus discloses a 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product (1:3-7) comprising:
an overlapping composition (6:10-15);
wherein the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product has a thickness of from 0.5 to 4.0 mm (about 2 to 7 mm) (5:12); and
wherein the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product realizes a dispersoid content of from 0.65 to 1.45 vol. %, wherein the amount of dispersoids is calculated from the formula (wt. % Mn)*3.52 + (wt. % Zr)* 1.28 + (wt. % Cr + wt. % V)*6.34 (preferably 0.08 to 4.61) (6:10-15).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Element
Claim 14 (wt%)
Benedictus 6:10-15 (wt%)
Zn
6.0 to 6.7
5.0 to 9.5
Mg
1.50 to 1.65
1.0 to 3.0
Cu
1.35 to 1.55
1.0 to 3.0
Mn
0.15 to 0.35
< 0.35
Zr
0.07 to 0.15
Pref. 0.06 to 0.16
Cr
Up to 0.20
< 0.25
V
Up to 0.20
< 0.25
Fe
Up to 0.20
< 0.25
Si
Up to 0.15
< 0.25
Ti
Up to 0.15
< 0.10
B
Up to 75 ppm
-
Al
Balance
Balance
Benedictus is silent to the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product comprising from 20 to 90 vol. % recrystallized grains.
Smeyers discloses a 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product ([0013]-[0014]) comprising at least from 15 to 90 vol. % recrystallized grains (70% or more grains are recrystallized) ([0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product of Baba to have a microstructure with 70% or more recrystallized grains for a more isotropic microstructure that obtains good formability (Smeyers [0026]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Benedictus is silent to the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product realizing an average grain size of at least 45 micrometers.
Tundal discloses a 7xxx aluminum alloy product ([0001]) realizing an average grain size of at least 45 micrometers (below approximately 70 um) ([0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the aluminum alloy product of Benedictus in view of Smeyers to have an average grain size below approximately below 70 um for the best surface appearance (Tundal [0005]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 20, Benedictus discloses (wt. % Zr + wt. %Mn) is at least 0.10 (preferably 0.06 to 0.51) (6:10-15). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 21, Benedictus in view of Smeyers discloses the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product comprises from 15 to 88 vol. % recrystallized grains (70% or more grains are recrystallized) (Smeyers [0026]).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedictus (WO 2005/049878) in view of Smeyers (US 2012/0090742) and Tundal (US 2018/0237894) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li (Li and Starink. Effect of compositional variations on characteristics of coarse intermetallic particles in overaged 7000 aluminum alloys. Materials Science and Technology. November 2001. Vol. 17. 1324-1328.).
Regarding claim 10, Benedictus in view of Smeyers and Tundal is silent to the presence of S-phase precipitate.
Li discloses a 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product (Experimental) that contains S-phase precipitate (S phase is either not dissolved and/or some remains due to compositional segregation originating from solidification) and wherein the S-phase precipitates realize a solvus temperature of not greater than 850°F (454°C) (composition dependent) (Abstract, Results and discussion: Conditions for Presence of S and T Phases, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the aluminum alloy sheet of Benedictus in view of Smeyers and Tundal to contain S-phase because some S phase is expected as a result of compositional segregation originating from the solidification process (Li Results and discussion: Conditions for Presence of S and T Phases). The solvus temperature of S-phase precipitates being not greater than 850°F (454°C) has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet that is dependent on the composition (Li Results and discussion: Conditions for Presence of S and T Phases, Fig. 4). Since the prior art discloses a substantially similar composition to that claimed (Benedictus 6:10-15), then the properties of the prior art are substantially similar to the properties claimed, including the solvus temperature of S-phase precipitates being not greater than 850°F (454°C).
The claims are directed to a 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product. The limitation of the solvus temperature being calculated using THERMO-CALC software and the THERMO-CALC Aluminum Database, Version 5 has been considered and determined to not further limit the structure of the claimed 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product. As discussed above, Smeyers in view of Li renders obvious the claimed 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product claimed. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. MPEP 2113(I).
Regarding claim 11, Benedictus in view of Smeyers and Tundal is silent to the absence of T-phase precipitates.
Li discloses a 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product (Experimental) that is absent of T-phase precipitates (well homogenized alloys are not expected to contain T phase, T phase dissolves to be replaced by or transform directly into S phase) (Results and discussion: Conditions for Presence of S and T Phases).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product of Benedictus in view of Smeyers and Tundal to be absent T-phase precipitates because in a well homogenized 7xxx series alloy T phase precipitate is not expected to be contained because it either dissolves or is replaced by or transforms directly into S phase (Li Results and discussion: Conditions for Presence of S and T phases).
The claims are directed to a 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product. The limitation of the presence of T phase precipitates is determined using THERMO-CALC software and the THERMO-CALC Aluminum Database, Version 5 has been considered and determined to not further limit the structure of the claimed 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product. As discussed above, Smeyers in view of Li renders obvious the claimed 7xxx aluminum alloy sheet product claimed. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. MPEP 2113(I).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANI HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday-Friday 7am-12pm.
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.
/STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights