DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5 and 8-13 were rejected in the Office Action mailed 1/26/2026.
Applicants filed amendments and a response on 4/14/2026.
Claims 1, 4-7, 13, 16, and 19 are pending.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 13 are rejected, claims 6-7, 16, and 19 are currently withdrawn.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu (CN109097643A, hereinafter “Xu”). The Examiner is providing a machine translation of Xu.
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Xu teaches a high thermal conductivity aluminum alloy that can be used in aviation, aerospace, automotive, machinery manufacturing, shipbuilding, and chemical industries, included welded aluminum alloys comprising the following composition (Xu, [0004], [0008], and [0048]):
Element
Present Invention, mass%
Xu, mass%
Xu, Example 3
Si
0.3-2.0
0.1-0.6
0.3
Mg
0.3-2.0
0.5-1.1
0.7
Sr
0.1-0.2
0.1-0.5
0.2
Other elements
Fe: 0.09-0.15
Cu: 0.09-0.13
Cr: 0.02-0.05
Sm: 0.02-0.04
Pt: 0.01-0.03
Sb: 0.05-0.12
Cd: 0.05-0.1
Fe: 0.11
Cu: 0.1
Cr: 0.03
Sm: 0.025
Pt: 0.015
Sb: 0.07
Cd: 0.07
Balance
Al
Al and impurities (0.03-0.07)
Al: 96
Impurities: 0.05
Given that Example 3 of Xu teaches the aluminum alloy contains 0.02 mass% Sr which is substantially identical to the surface-active element of claim 1, Sr would be capable of reducing a surface tension of molten aluminum as required in claim 1.
Moreover, as Claim 1 uses the transitional phrase “characterized by,” the Examiner is interpreting this to be open language and additional elements can be included in the aluminum alloy, including those elements listed in the table above. See MPEP 2111.03(I).
Example 3 of Xu falls within the elemental ranges of claim 1. Given that Si and Mg are the highest included alloying elements in Example 3 of Xu corresponds to wherein the composition other than the surface-active elements is within the range of the 6000 series aluminum-magnesium-silicon alloys specified in JIS of claim 4. Moreover, the aluminum alloy of Xu being able to be welded corresponds to an aluminum alloy expanded material for welding of claim 1.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wei (CN109371291A, hereinafter “Wei”). The Examiner is providing a machine translation of Wei.
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Wei teaches a new energy battery technology including an aluminum alloy material for casings and covers with the purpose of providing an alloy with excellent laser welding performance comprising the following composition (Wei, [0002], [0004], and [0044]):
Element
Present Invention, mass%
Wei, Example 1, wt.%
Si
0.3-2.0
0.32
Mg
0.3-2.0
0.58
Sr
0.1-0.2
0.20
Other elements
Mn: 0.67
Be: 0.18
Zr: 0.15
Sb: 0.12
Er: 0.10
Pr: 0.03
Tb: 0.01
Dy: 0.04
B: 0.003
Ga: 0.001
Balance
Al
Al
Given that Example 1 of Wei teaches the aluminum alloy contains 0.02 mass% Sr which is substantially identical to the surface-active element of claim 1, Sr would be capable of reducing a surface tension of molten aluminum as required in claim 1.
Moreover, as Claim 1 uses the transitional phrase “characterized by,” the Examiner is interpreting this to be open language and additional elements can be included in the aluminum alloy, including those elements listed in the table above. See MPEP 2111.03(I).
Example 1 of Wei falls within the elemental ranges of claim 1. Given that Si, Mg, and Mn are the highest included alloying elements in Example 1 of Wei corresponds to wherein the composition other than the surface-active elements is within the range of the 6000 series aluminum-magnesium-silicon alloys specified in JIS of claim 4. Moreover, the aluminum alloy of Wei being able to be welded corresponds to an aluminum alloy expanded material for welding of 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of JP2009299138A (hereinafter “JP138”).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, while Xu teaches the aluminum alloy is used in aviation, aerospace, automotive, machinery manufacturing, shipbuilding, and chemical industries (Xu, [0004]), Xu does not explicitly disclose a welding-joined body, which comprises: a welding-joined body formed by welding two or more members, wherein at least one of the members to be welded is the aluminum alloy expanded material for welding of the invention.
With respect to the difference, JP138 teaches a joined body of dissimilar materials in which a steel material and an aluminum material are joined by welding (JP138, [0001] and [0017]). JP138 further teaches the aluminum alloy material to be joined is a 6000 series aluminum alloy (JP138, [0017]).
As JP138 expressly teaches it is desirable to reduce the weight of transport vehicles while maintaining the energy absorption properties by joining dissimilar materials including steel and aluminum alloys together (JP138, [0002]).
Xu and JP138 are analogous as they are both drawn to the use of aluminum alloys in vehicles (Xu, [0004]; JP138, [0002]).
In light of the motivation to use a 6000 serious aluminum alloy as a joined body of dissimilar materials as taught in JP138 above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the 6000 series aluminum alloy of Xu to produce a joined body in order to reduce the weight of transport vehicles while maintaining the energy absorption properties (JP138, [0002]), and thereby arrive at the present invention.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of JP2009299138A (hereinafter “JP138”).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, while Wei teaches the aluminum alloy is used energy battery covers (Wei, [0002]), Wei does not explicitly disclose a welding-joined body, which comprises: a welding-joined body formed by welding two or more members, wherein at least one of the members to be welded is the aluminum alloy expanded material for welding of the invention.
With respect to the difference, JP138 teaches a joined body of dissimilar materials in which a steel material and an aluminum material are joined by welding (JP138, [0001] and [0017]). JP138 further teaches the aluminum alloy material to be joined is a 6000 series aluminum alloy (JP138, [0017]).
As JP138 expressly teaches it is desirable to reduce the weight of transport vehicles while maintaining the energy absorption properties by joining dissimilar materials including steel and aluminum alloys together (JP138, [0002]).
Wei and JP138 are analogous as they are both drawn to the use of aluminum alloys as extruded parts (Wei, [0012]; JP138, [0002]).
In light of the motivation to use a 6000 serious aluminum alloy as a joined body of dissimilar materials as taught in JP138 above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the 6000 series aluminum alloy of Wei to produce a joined body in order to reduce the weight of transport vehicles while maintaining the energy absorption properties (JP138, [0002]), and thereby arrive at the present invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant primarily argues that newly amended claim 1 requires that the surface-active element is Sr, in which JP138 does not disclose. Remarks, pg. 5-6. The Examiner agrees that JP138 does not disclose the use of Sr in the alloy, therefore the previous 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant further argues unexpected results with respect to the amended narrow range of 0.1-0.2 mass% Sr significantly decreases the crack rate. Remarks, pg. 6-7. While the Examiner agrees that there is sufficient data to establish unexpected results with respect to including 0.1-0.2 mass% Sr and withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over JP312. However, upon updating the searches two new references, as noted above, were discovered and both references have Examples that fall within the claimed ranges and would inherently have a decreased crack rate.
Therefore, while the previous 102 and 103 rejections are being withdrawn, a new set of rejections are presented as set forth above, and this action is final.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: CN104946942 teaches an aluminum alloy for liquid-state die forging forming, including an overlapping composition and Example 1, which falls within the ranges of claim 1. Applicant provided a copy of the foreign document with the IDS filed 3/2/2026.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE CARDA whose telephone number is (571)270-1240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-4:00 EST.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/DANIELLE M. CARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights