DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7 are pending. Of the pending claims, claims 1-5 are presented for examination on the merits, and claims 6 and 7 are withdrawn from examination.
Status of Previous Claim Rejections Under 35 USC § 112
The previous rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) regarding the letter ‘T’ is withdrawn in view of the remarks.
The previous rejection of claims 2-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) regarding the terms “conventional,” “conventionally,” and “comparable” are maintained.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 1785499 (A2) to Becker et al. (“Becker”) (abstract and computer-generated translation in the file as of 02/06/2026).
Regarding claims 1-5, the claims are rejected for the same reasons presented in the Office action dated 02/06/2026.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0017631 (A1) (also WO 2019/122076 (A1)) to Da Fonseca Barbatti et al. (“Da Fonseca Barbatti”) in view of Becker.
Regarding claims 1-5, the claims are rejected for the same reasons presented in the Office action dated 02/06/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim terms, such as “conventional” and “conventionally,” are definite because the specification provides comparative examples that highlight the processing differences and resulting microstructural data for invention examples and conventionally processed examples, providing the necessary framework for understanding the scope of the terms.
In response, this is not persuasive because the disclosure of specific examples is insufficient to provide definitive boundaries when the claims refer to a broad class of alloys. The examples in the specification are limited to specific aluminum alloys (e.g., 6026LF, 6020, 6262A, 6061) (para. [0036]-[0043]), whereas the claims refer generally to 6xxx extruded product, without limitation as to type or kind. The same reasoning extends to the conventional press-quench claim limitation, which is applied to certain alloy(s), whereas the claims refer to conventional press-quenching as applied to the broad class of 6xxx alloys of a “comparable composition, product form, size and temper,” without basis for guidance clarifying what constitutes “comparable” for these attributes. Without an understanding of a clear meaning of these terms, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain what constitutes more or higher texture or texture intensity of the claimed extruded alloy given the variability of these reference points.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention is not obvious over Becker because Becker expressly defines the effective grain size as dimensions perpendicular to the surface, apart from the possibly recrystallized surface and recrystallized residual proportions, whereas the claimed invention measures the unrecrystallized from T/10 to 9T/10.
In response, the argument is not persuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. Applicant states that ‘T’ represents thickness (p. 5 – Section I). It therefore follows that for a product with a thickness of 10 mm, for example, the unrecrystallized microstructure would be measured from 1 mm (10 mm/10) to 9 mm (9*10 mm/10) of the extruded product. The claim recites that the unrecrystallized microstructure in the region measured from T/10 to 9T/10 is 50 vol% or more unrecrystallized grains. This means that up to 50 vol% of the region measured from T/10 to 9T/10 is recrystallized grains. This also means that the claimed invention is silent regarding the microstructure at the surface regions, i.e., from surface (0 mm) to a depth of 1 mm of the product and from 9 mm to the other surface (10 mm) of the product.
With respect to the prior art, Becker discloses that the microstructure is largely not recrystallized and substantially non-crystalline (abstract; para. [0008]). Becker discloses that the effective grain size assumes that the invention requirements apply to the entire cross-section of the product, except for the possibly recrystallized surface zone and recrystallized residual fractions, 20 vol% in the remaining area (para. [0009]). Given that recrystallization is prevented and the microstructure is largely/substantially not recrystallized (abstract; para. [0008], [0022], [0025]) and that the recrystallized residual fraction is possibly 20% by volume (para. [0009]), it must follow that the non-surface regions, remaining 80% by volume (=100-20 vol%), are largely/substantially not recrystallized. This is consistent with the claims, which refer to the microstructure as measured from T/10 to 9T/10 (the middle 80%) of the product.
Applicant argues that Da Fonseca Barbatti measures the recrystallized fraction on the forged product, not from the extruded form of the product.
In response, the argument seems to suggest that an extruded product that has been forged is not an extruded product. However, the forging does not undo the extruded working history that has occurred. Da Fonseca Barbatti states that the intent of the invention is to “maintain the fibrous structure of the extruded feedstock” (para. [0025]).
With respect to the recrystallization fraction, Da Fonseca Barbatti states that the extrusion feedstock has properties that enable one to control and limit recrystallization (para. [0025], [0101]). This suggests that the extruded feedstock has a limited or unrecrystallized structure because this very structure is limited and controlled (minimized) when subjected to downstream heat treatment processes. This is supported by Example 2 (para. [0207]-[0220]) in which the alloy is extruded but not forged and in which the extruded alloy is resistant to recrystallization (para. [0217]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
August 25, 2026
