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. Status of Claims Claims 1-5, 7-13 and 16-19 are amended in view of applicant’s preliminary claim amendments filed 11/13/2023. New claims 21-22 are added. Claims 14-15 are canceled. Therefore, claims 1-13 and 16-22 are currently under examination. 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 1-13 and 16-22 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. Claims 1-5, 12-13 and 16-19 all use the word “approximately”, which is vague and indefinite because the m etes and bounds of the word “approximately” cannot be determined. Instant specification does not provide any definition for the word “approximately”. Therefore, instant claims 1-5, 12-13 and 16-19 are vague and indefinite. Claims 6-11 and 20-22 are also rejected since they depend on vague and indefinite claims 1 and 16. 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- 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/029788 A1(WO788) . WO788 teaches an aluminum alloy for die casting(abstract) that applies to the claimed aluminum alloy as follows: Al alloy (wt %) Instant application WO788 (abstract) Ca Approx. 2.0-6.0 1.1-2.7 Mn Approx. 1.0-3.0 1.2-2.4 Si Approx. 0.1-1.0 0.06-0.22 Fe Approx. 0.1-0.5 0.05-0.25 Zn Approx. 1.0-1.5 Up to 1.0 Balance Al and inevitable impurities Balance Al and inevitable impurities Balance Al and inevitable impurities Regarding claims 1-2, 4-5 and 8, the Al alloy composition as taught by WO788 overlaps the claimed Al alloy composition in terms of Ca, Mn, Si, Fe and Zn content. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The selection of claimed alloy composition from the alloy composition of WO788 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since WO788 teach the same utilities in its disclosed Alloy compositions. Additionally, since the WO788’s Al alloy is also produced by die casting and contains significantly similar alloy composition as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected that the Al alloy of WO788 to have significantly similar grain size as claimed absent persuasive evidence to the contrary. Regarding claim 3, WO788 further teaches that the magnesium can be added to an aluminum alloy increase the strength and elongation properties(page 2 lines 9-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated Mg into the Al alloy of WO788 in order achieve desired strength and elongation properties. Regarding claim 6, WO788 further teaches the at least one of Ti, Zr and Cr can be present(page 4 line 28-page 5 line 2), which implies that the scope of WO788 includes at least one Ti, Zr and Cr may not be present in the Al alloy as claimed. Regarding claim 7, WO788 further teaches the at least one of Ti, Zr and Cr can be present(page 4 line 28-page 5 line 2). Regarding claim 9, the Al alloy of WO788 is produced by die casting as claimed. Regarding claims 10-11, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the claimed Al alloy in any suitable applications with expected success, including the claimed washing machine parts or a TV stand , absent persuasive evidence that the particularly claimed washing machine parts are significant. Claim s 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/029788 A1(WO788) and further in view of CN120940617(CN617). The teachings of WO788 are discussed in section 6 above. However, WO788 does not explicitly teach the claimed Al alloy is produced by cleaning a molten alloy, injecting the molten alloy into a mold, applying a pressure to push the molten alloy into the mold, and opening the mold and extruding a product containing the Al alloy after the molten alloy is solidified. CN617 teaches a die-casting process for an Al alloy comprising melting an Al ingot to obtain a molten alloy([0008] S101-S105), removing the scum of the molten metal(i.e. cleaning the molten metal)([0008] S106), injecting the molten Al alloy into a mold[0012], injecting the molten Al alloy into a mold[0012-0013], applying a pressure to push the molten alloy into the mold[0012-0014], cooling to solidify the Al alloy[0015]. Regarding claim 16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the die-casting process as taught by CN617 into WO788 in order to form large size casting with complex structure as taught by CN617[0004]. Additionally, the claimed opening of the mold and extruding a product would have implicitly taken place in the process of WO788 in view of CN617 in order to remove the cast Al alloy after the die casting process and produce an Al alloy product with desired final shape. Regarding claim 17, CN617 further teaches that the injection pressure is 125-135bar[0013](i.e. 127.5-137.7kgf/cm 2 ), which overlaps the claimed injection pressure of approximately 125-130 kgf /cm 2 . Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The selection of claimed injection pressure from the inject pressure of WO788 in view of CN617 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since WO788 in view of CN617 teaches the same utility in the injection pressure. Regarding claim 18, since the process of WO788 in view of CN617 comprises significantly similar process steps as claimed using an Al alloy that is significantly similar to the claimed Al alloy, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected that the process of WO788 in view of CN617 to have produced Al alloy grains with a size that is significantly similar to the claimed grain size. Regarding claim 19, the Si amount in the Al alloy of WO788 in view of CN617 encompasses the claimed Si amount. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The selection of claimed Si amount from the Si amount of WO788 in view of CN617 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since WO788 in view of CN617 teach the same utility in its disclosed Si amount. Regarding claim 20, WO788 further teaches the at least one of Ti, Zr and Cr can be present(page 4 line 28-page 5 line 2), which implies that the scope of WO788 includes at least one Ti, Zr and Cr may not be present in the Al alloy as claimed. Regarding claims 21-22, since the process of WO788 in view of CN617 comprises significantly similar process steps as claimed using an Al alloy that is significantly similar to the claimed Al alloy, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected that the process of WO788 in view of CN617 to have produced Al alloy with evenly distributed intermetallic compounds, such as the claimed Al 2 Mn and Al 12 Fe 4 , across the entire surface in the Al alloy and away from grain boundaries as claimed. Claim (s) 1- 9 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RU2745595, whose English equivalent is Mann et al. US 2023/0212717(Mann) . Mann teaches an aluminum alloy used to manufacturing a complex shaped part by casting in a metal molding(i.e. die casting)(abstract) . Mann further teaches that its Al alloy part is characterized by high corrosion resistance[0001] and satisfactory strength properties[0018] . T he Al alloy of Mann has a chemical composition that applies to the claimed aluminum alloy as follows: Al alloy (wt %) Instant application Mann [0012-0013] 3 Ca Approx. 2.0-6.0 1.5-5.1 Mn Approx. 1.0-3.0 0.2-2.5 Si Approx. 0.1-1.0 Up to 1.0 Fe Approx. 0.1-0.5 Up to 0.7 Zn Approx. 1.0-1.5 0.1-1.8 Balance Al and inevitable impurities Balance Al and inevitable impurities Balance Al and inevitable impurities Regarding claims 1-2, 4-5 and 8, the Al alloy composition as taught by Mann significantly overlaps the claimed Al alloy composition in terms of Ca, Mn, Si, Fe and Zn content. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The selection of claimed alloy composition from the alloy composition of Mann would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since Mann teach the same utilities in its disclosed Alloy compositions. Additionally, since the Mann ’s Al alloy is also produced by die casting and contains significantly similar alloy composition as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected that the Al alloy of Mann to have significantly similar grain size as claimed absent persuasive evidence to the contrary. Regarding claim 3, Mann further teaches that the magnesium can be added to an aluminum alloy increase the strength , elongation properties and corrosion resistance [0004] . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated Mg into the Al alloy of Mann in order achieve desired strength , elongation properties and corrosion resistance . Additionally, since Mann’s teaching indicates that Mg is a result effective variable that has an impact on the strength, elongation and corrosion resistance of the Al alloy, it would have been well within the skills of an ordinary artisan to have achieved claimed amount of Mg via routine optimization in order to achieve desired strength , elongation properties and corrosion resistance as taught by Mann. Regarding claim 6, Mann further teaches optional presence of Ti, Zr and Cr can be present (abstract , [0013] ), which reads on the claimed absence of at least one Ti, Zr and Cr in the Al alloy. Regarding claim 7, the presence of Ti, Zr and Cr as taught by Mann meets the limitation of the instant claim. Additionally, the language “used for grain refinement during the die casting” merely states the intended use for the claimed at least Regarding claim 9, the Al alloy product of Mann is produced by casting in a metal mold[0010], which reads on the claimed part manufactured via die casting as claimed. Regarding claims 12-13, the scope of the Al alloy of Mann encompasses the claimed Al 92 Ca 4.8 Mn 1.0 Zn 1.5 Si 0.2 Fe 0.2 and Al 9 1 Ca 4.8 Mn 1.0 Zn 1.5 Si 0. 75 Fe 0.2 as recited in the instant claims. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The selection of claimed alloy composition from the alloy composition of Mann would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since Mann teach the same utilities in its disclosed Alloy compositions . Additionally, Sample 10-11 in Table 1 of Mann are Al alloys that are significantly similar, in their alloy compositions, to the claimed Al 92 Ca 4.8 Mn 1.0 Zn 1.5 Si 0.2 Fe 0.2 and Al 9 1 Ca 4.8 Mn 1.0 Zn 1.5 Si 0. 75 Fe 0.2 as recited in the instant claims. Samples 10-11 in Table 1 of Mann have yield strengths of 179 and 204MPa respectively as shown in Table 2, column labeled “σ 0.2 (MPa)”. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected that the claimed Al 92 Ca 4.8 Mn 1.0 Zn 1.5 Si 0.2 Fe 0.2 and Al 9 1 Ca 4.8 Mn 1.0 Zn 1.5 Si 0. 75 Fe 0.2 to have significantly similar yield strength as Samples 10-11 as taught by Mann. Claim s 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RU2745595, whose English equivalent is Mann et al. US 2023/0212717(Mann), and further in view of KR10-2019-0020015(KR015) . The teachings of Mann are discussed in section 8 above. Although Mann teaches that its Al alloy can be used to manufacture parts of electronic devices (abstract) , Mann does not explicitly teach that the claimed Al alloy part is included in a washing machine or a TV stand. Mann also does not explicitly teach that the claimed Al alloy part is at least one of a spider and a hub of a washing machine. KR015 teaches an aluminum alloy for die casting having excellent strength and corrosion resistance are suitable for manufacturing spider of a washing machine[0043, 0045-0047]. Regarding claims 10-11, it would have been obvious to have applied the Al alloy as taught by Mann in an application to manufacture spider of a washing machine with expected success since KR015 teaches that excellent strength and corrosion resistance are desirably qualities in Al alloy for manufacture of spider of a washing machine. Claim s 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RU2745595, whose English equivalent is Mann et al. US 2023/0212717(Mann), and further in view of CN120940617(CN617). The teachings of Mann are discussed in section 8 above. However, Mann does not explicitly teach the claimed Al alloy is produced by cleaning a molten alloy, injecting the molten alloy into a mold, applying a pressure to push the molten alloy into the mold, and opening the mold and extruding a product containing the Al alloy after the molten alloy is solidified . CN617 teaches a die-casting process for an Al alloy comprising melting an Al ingot to obtain a molten alloy ([0008] S101-S105), removing the scum of the molten metal(i.e. cleaning the molten metal)([0008] S106), injecting the molten Al alloy into a mold[0012], injecting the molten Al alloy into a mold[0012-0013], applying a pressure to push the molten alloy into the mold[0012-0014], cooling to solidify the Al alloy[0015] . Regarding claim 16 , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the die-casting process as taught by CN617 into Mann in order to form large size casting with complex structure as taught by CN617[0004] . Additionally, the claimed opening of the mold and extruding a product would have implicitly taken place in the process of Mann in view of CN617 in order to remove the cast Al alloy after the die casting process and produce an Al alloy product with desired final shape . Regarding claim 17, CN617 further teaches that the injection pressure is 125-135bar[0013] (i.e. 127.5-137.7 kgf/cm 2 ) , which overlaps the claimed injection pressure of approximately 125-130 kgf /cm 2 . Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The selection of claimed injection pressure from the inject pressure of Mann in view of CN617 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since Mann in view of CN617 teaches the same utility in the injection pressure. Regarding claim 18 , since the process of Mann in view of CN617 comprises significantly similar process steps as claimed using an Al alloy that is significantly similar to the claimed Al alloy, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected that the process of Mann in view of CN617 to have produced Al alloy grains with a size that is significantly similar to the claimed grain size. Regarding claim 19, the Si amount in the Al alloy of Mann in view of CN617 encompasses the claimed Si amount. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The selection of claimed Si amount from the Si amount of Mann in view of CN617 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since Mann in view of CN617 teach the same utility in its disclosed Si amount. Regarding claim 20, Mann further teaches optional presence of Ti, Zr and Cr can be present(abstract, [0013]), which reads on the claimed absence of at least one Ti, Zr and Cr in the Al alloy. Regarding claim s 21 -22 , since the process of Mann in view of CN617 comprises significantly similar process steps as claimed using an Al alloy that is significantly similar to the claimed Al alloy, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected that the process of Mann in view of CN617 to have produced Al alloy with evenly distributed intermetallic compounds, such as the claimed Al 2 Mn and Al 12 Fe 4 , across the entire surface in the Al alloy and away from grain boundaries as claimed. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LOIS L ZHENG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1248 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Keith Hendricks can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT LOIS ZHENG Primary Examiner Art Unit 1733 /LOIS L ZHENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733