DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 06 July 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-17 remain pending in the application. Claims 9-16 have been withdrawn. No new claim(s) have been added. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 06 February 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 27 June 2023 and 17 August 2023 were considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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 US2017073802A1 of Hori in view of WO2014054485A1 (machine translation) of Kaneda.
Regarding claim 1, Hori disclose a forged aluminum alloy material and method for producing the same in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Hori teaches The forged aluminum alloy includes Mg in a content of 0.70 to 1.50 mass percent, Si in a content of 0.80 to 1.30 mass percent, Cu in a content of 0.30 to 0.90 mass percent, Fe in a content of 0.10 to 0.40 mass percent, Ti in a content of 0.005 to 0.15 mass percent, and at least one element selected from the group consisting of Mn in a content of 0.10 to 0.60 mass percent, Cr in a content of 0.10 to 0.45 mass percent, and Zr in a content of 0.05 to 0.30 mass percent, with the remainder consisting of Al and inevitable impurities, Para[0015]. Hori also teaches an area percentage of recrystallized grains of 30.0% or less, Para[0073]. Hori does not teach a specific subgrain size.
Kaneda discloses a combination-pressable aluminum alloy fin material for heat exchanger and method for producing the same in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Kaneda discloses a subgrain size of 2.5 µm or less, Para[0023]. Kaneda teaches that when the average grain size of the subgrains exceeds the upper limit value, the proof stress is less than the lower limit value, which is inferior in color cracking resistance and handling property, Para[0068].
The ranges disclosed in Hori and Kaneda overlap for all non-optional elements of the claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, based on the teachings of Hori and Kaneda, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the aluminum alloy plate with the claimed composition, degree of recrystallization, and average subgrain size in the rolling direction to achieve better handling properties and color cracking resistance. Thus, Hori in view of Kaneda covers all limitations of claim 1.
Claim 2 further limits claim 1 by stating that the degree of recrystallization is less than 15%.
Hori disclose a forged aluminum alloy material and method for producing the same in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Hori teaches an area percentage of recrystallized grains of 30.0% or less, Para[0073]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, Hori in view of Kaneda covers all limitations of claim 2.
Claim 3 further limits claim 1 by stating that the average subgrain size in the rolling direction is less than or equal to 5 µm.
Kaneda discloses a combination-pressable aluminum alloy fin material for heat exchanger and method for producing the same in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Kaneda discloses a subgrain size of 2.5 µm or less, Para[0023]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Kaneda teaches that when the average grain size of the subgrains exceeds the upper limit value, the proof stress is less than the lower limit value, which is inferior in color cracking resistance and handling property, Para[0068]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the alloy disclosed in Hori with the subgrain size disclosed in Kaneda to achieve better handling properties and color cracking resistance. Thus, Hori in view of Kaneda covers all limitations of claim 3.
Claim 4 further limits claim 1 by stating that the plate is in a T6 state.
Hori disclose a forged aluminum alloy material and method for producing the same in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Hori teaches a T6 tempering step in order to give maximum strength, Para[0121]. Therefore, Hori in view of Kaneda covers all limitations of claim 4.
Claim 5 further limits claim 4 by stating that the plate has a yield strength of greater than 350 MPa.
Hori disclose a forged aluminum alloy material and method for producing the same in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Hori discloses a yield strength of 360 MPa or more, Para[0167]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, Hori in view of Kaneda covers all limitations of claim 5.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20170073802 of Hori in view of WO2014054485 of Kaneda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US3642542A of Sperry.
Claim 6 further limits claim 1 by stating that the rolled aluminum alloy comprises: from 0.9 to 1.3 wt% silicon (Si) and/or from 0.75 to 0.95 wt% magnesium (Mg) and/or from 0.3 to 0.5 wt% manganese (Mn) and/or from 0.15 to 0.25 wt% zirconium (Zr) and/or from 0.1 to 0.5 wt% copper (Cu) and/or up to 0.5 wt% iron (Fe). While Hori and Kaneda disclose overlapping ranges for Si, Mg, Mn, and Cu, Hori and Kaneda only teach bordering ranges for Zr and Fe.
Sperry teaches a process for preparing aluminum base alloys in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Sperry disclose Zr in the range of 0.03 to 0.20 percent, Para[0015], and Fe in the range of 0.60 percent maximum, Para[0017]. These ranges overlap with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Sperry discloses this amount of Fe as a normal impurity, Para[0017]. Sperry also discloses that before or during hot working some high temperature precipitate should be formed due to Zr, as this is the mechanism by which recrystallization is inhibited, Para[0018]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the alloy disclosed in Hori in view of Kaneda with the amounts of Zr and Fe disclosed in Sperry to inhibit recrystallization, and as an impurity, respectively. Thus, Hori in view of Kaneda further in view of Sperry covers all limitations of claim 6.
Claims 7, 8, and 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20170073802 of Hori in view of WO2014054485 of Kaneda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO2015133588A1 of Matsuo and CN104520061A of Oskarsson.
Claim 7 further limits claim 1 by stating that an intermetallic phase of the aluminum alloy has Zr-containing particles with an average particle size of at most 100 nm, and a quantity of Zr-containing particles is greater than or equal to 1 x 106 particles/mm2.
Hori and Kaneda do not teach a specific average particle size of the Zr containing particles, or a specific quantity of Zr-containing particles.
Matsuo teaches a terminal and method for manufacturing terminal in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Matsuo teaches and average particle size of 10 to 100 nm for the particles which may contain Zr, Para[0006]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Matsuo teaches this range for excellent strength and heat resistance, Para[0047]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the alloy disclosed in Hori in view of Kaneda with the average size of Zr containing particles disclosed in Matsuo to achieve excellent strength and heat resistance.
Oskarsson teaches a strip material with excellent corrosion resistance after brazing in a similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Oskarsson teaches precipitate containing particles in the range of 1.4 x 10 6 - 20 x 10 6 particles/mm2,Para[0028]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Oskarsson teaches that the number density of the particles is proportional to the retardation that hinders recrystallization, Para[0046]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the alloy disclosed in Hori in view of Kaneda with the quantity of precipitate containing particles disclosed in Oskarsson in order to retard recrystallization.
Thus, Hori in view of Kaneda further in view of Matsuo further in view of Oskarsson covers all limitations of claim 7.
Claim 8 further limits claim 1 by stating that the average particle size of the Zr-containing particles is in the range from 30 nm to 100 nm.
Matsuo teaches a terminal and method for manufacturing terminal in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Matsuo teaches and average particle size of 10 to 100 nm for the particles which may contain Zr, Para[0006]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Matsuo teaches this range for excellent strength and heat resistance, Para[0047]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the alloy disclosed in Hori in view of Kaneda further in view of Oskarsson with the average size of Zr containing particles disclosed in Matsuo to achieve excellent strength and heat resistance. Thus, Hori in view of Kaneda further in view of Matsuo further in view of Oskarsson covers all limitations of claim 8.
Claim 17 further limits claim 7 by stating that the quantity of Zr-containing particles is less than or equal to 100 x 106 particles/mm2 and/or greater than or equal to 5 x 106 particles/mm2.
Oskarsson teaches a strip material with excellent corrosion resistance after brazing in a similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Oskarsson teaches precipitate containing particles in the range of 1.4 x 10 6 - 20 x 10 6 particles/mm2, Para[0028]. This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Oskarsson teaches that the number density of the particles is proportional to the retardation that hinders recrystallization, Para[0046]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the alloy disclosed in Hori in view of Kaneda further in view of Matsuo with the quantity of precipitate containing particles disclosed in Oskarrson to achieve adequate retardation of recrystallization. Thus, Hori in view of Kaneda further in view of Matsuo further in view of Oskarsson covers all limitations of claim 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that (remarks, page 8 of 12) in contrast with applicants claim Hori is a forged material and thus has no rolling direction. This is not found persuasive as Hori teaches that the forging material may be one prepared by subjecting the homogenized ingot to working such as extrusion and/or rolling, Para[0117]. Therefore, since Hori teaches rolling, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to reasonable conclude that sub grains would be present in the microstructure of the Al alloy.
Applicant argues that (remarks, pages 8 and 9 of 12) Kaneda’s sub grain size cannot be relied upon because Kaneda and applicant’s claimed invention contain different amounts of aluminum, magnesium, zirconium and silicon. Examiner asserts that while the composition of Kaneda discloses amounts of Si, Mg, Mn and Zr that are slightly lower than the claimed invention, the composition of Kaneda considered as a whole is very similar to that of the claimed invention. For example, applicant’s claimed alloy contains up to 98.65% Al. This is less than a 1% difference compared to the 99.3% Al of Kaneda. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to consider Kaneda’s alloy, based mostly on Al, and apply Kaneda’s sub grain size to applicant’s claimed alloy and Hori’s alloy which are also both based mostly on Al.
Applicant argues that (remarks, page 9 of 12) a person skilled in the art would not be motivated to combine the teachings of Hori and Kaneda because Kaneda discloses a proof stress that is less than Hori’s yield strength, a heat treatment different from Hori’s and that Kaneda’s color cracking concern is specific to thin fin stock during combination pressing. This is not found persuasive as Kaneda is relied upon for its teachings of sub grain size and not for yield strength or heat treatment. While Kaneda’s alloy uses a different heat treatment and differs in yield strength, Kaneda’s teachings considered as a whole would be applicable to Hori’s alloy as they are both alloys based mostly on Al as described above. Since Kaneda teaches this sub grain size because stress concentrates in the sub-crystal grains, causing the crack initiation point to increase, and the color crack resistance to deteriorate, and the alloys of Kaneda and Hori are very similar in composition, one of ordinary skill would find it obvious to apply the sub grain size of Kaneda to Hori’s alloy, resulting in an alloy undergoing the solution treatment of Hori resulting in the microstructure and degree of recrystallization of Hori and the sub grain size of Kaneda.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has attached previously-cited foreign references that were inadvertently omitted in the non-final action. Reference Included herein: CN104520061A, WO2014054485A1, WO2015133588A1
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 JACOB BENJAMIN STILES whose telephone number is (571)272-0598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JACOB BENJAMIN STILES/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights