Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/268,705

HIGH-STRENGTH AND HIGH-TOUGHNESS NON-HEAT-TREATABLE DIE-CASTING ALUMINUM-SILICON ALLOY AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREFOR

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jun 21, 2023
Examiner
KESSLER, CHRISTOPHER S
Art Unit
1759
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Fengyang Aer Si Light Alloy Precision Molding Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
59%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 10m
To Grant
74%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 59% of resolved cases
59%
Career Allow Rate
465 granted / 783 resolved
-5.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+15.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 10m
Avg Prosecution
61 currently pending
Career history
844
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.2%
-38.8% vs TC avg
§103
45.2%
+5.2% vs TC avg
§102
16.2%
-23.8% vs TC avg
§112
27.4%
-12.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 783 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . DETAILED ACTION Election/Restriction Applicant’s election without traverse of group I in the reply filed on 25 December 2025 is acknowledged. The restriction requirement erroneously indicated that claims 1-7 were included in Group I and claims 8-10 were included in Group II. In order to expedite prosecution of the instant case, the Restriction Requirement mailed 28 October 2025 is WITHDRAWN. No claims are restricted at this time. Claims 1-10 are under examination. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Drawings The drawings were received on 21 June 2023. These drawings are accepted. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The term “high-strength and high-toughness” in each one of claims 1, 2, and 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-strength and high-toughness” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this case there is no description as to what strength or toughness test is to be used to determined strength or toughness, nor what measure of that test would be “high.” The point of infringement of claim 1 cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite. Each one of claims 2 and 3 includes the same language and is indefinite. Claim 3 includes the language in multiple places. Each one of claims 2-10 depends from claim 1 and is also indefinite for the same reason. 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. Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120000578 A1 (hereinafter “Wang”) in view of US 20140234160 A1 (hereinafter “Mueller”). Wang teaches an aluminum alloy for casting which includes overlapping amounts of Si, Mg, Mn, Cu, Ti, Sr, rare earths, and Fe (see [0009]-[0010] or claim 1). Wang teaches to add up to 2% of rare earths in order to generate an as-cast structure (See [0043]). Wang teaches generally the purpose for each of the alloying elements within the aluminum (See [0049]-[0060]). Wang teaches a more preferred alloy composition (see claim 5). The composition of the alloy of Wang is compared with the claimed alloy composition in the chart below (values in mass percent). Element Claim 1 Wang [0009]-[0010] Wang claim 5 Si Mg Mn Cu Ti Sr V RE Fe Other impurities Al 8-10 0.1-0.5 0.5-0.8 0.05-0.5 0.05-0.2 0.01-0.05 0.01-0.1 0.01-0.15 <0.2 ≤0.4 balance 0.5-14 0.1-1.0 0-1.0 0.25-2.0 0-0.2 0.01-0.2 -- 0-2 0.1-1.0 -- balance 8-12 0.3-0.6 0.5-1.0 0.25-1.5 0-0.2 0.01-0.1 -- 0-1 0.1-0.5 -- balance The composition of Wang except for vanadium overlaps the claimed composition, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan to have selected compositional elements within the claimed ranges because Wang teaches the same utility over the whole ranges disclosed. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2144.05. Additionally, Wang teaches the purposes of adding the elements such as Cu ([0049]-[0053), Si ([0054]-[0056]), Fe/Mn ([0057]-[0060]). The optimization of these elements would have been an obvious matter to obtain the desired effects. Wang does not teach addition of vanadium to the alloy. Mueller teaches an aluminum-silicon alloy for casting with addition of vanadium (see title and claim 1). Mueller teaches about 4-10% of Si (see [0006]). Mueller teaches that the alloying additions may include Mg ([0007]), Cu ([0008]), Mn, TI, Sr ([0011]). Mueller teaches that the addition of vanadium allows improved strength and elongation (see [0004]). Mueller teaches that the effective amount of V addition is 0.01-0.15% by weight (see [0004]), overlapping the claimed range and establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan at time of filing to have made the alloy of Wang, and to have added vanadium as taught by Mueller in order to improve the strength and elongation. Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches La may be added ([0023], [0043])). Allowable Subject Matter NO claims are allowable. NO prior art rejections are made for claims 3-10, only rejections under 35 USC 112 . The prior art does not teach or fairly suggest applicant’s method of making the aluminum alloy, including the preheating of the separate alloys used for the melt, The smelting with the magnesium control specified, and the sequence of adding ingredients. When all of the evidence is considered as a whole it seems unlikely that the skilled artisan would arrive at both of the composition required and also the method as required, without benefit of applicant’s work. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20230008295 A1 is exemplary of die cast aluminums. US 20200325558 A1 teaches a semisolid casting method with Al-Si alloys. US 20230046008 A1 teaches a die cast ally with most of the required ingredient, but is silent as to REM. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6510. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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. CHRISTOPHER S. KESSLER Primary Examiner Art Unit 1734 /CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 21, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601034
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING A PART
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12578038
PIPING ARTICLES INCORPORATING AN ALLOY OF COPPER, ZINC, AND SILICON
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571072
METHOD FOR THE PRODUCTION OF A SMALL-FRACTION TITANIUM-CONTAINING FILLING FOR A CORED WIRE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564885
OSCILLATING NOZZLE FOR SINUSOIDAL DIRECT METAL DEPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12553112
HIGH-STRENGTH BLACKPLATE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
59%
Grant Probability
74%
With Interview (+15.0%)
3y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 783 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month