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
Pending:
1, 8-20
Withdrawn:
NONE
Rejected:
1, 8-20
Amended:
1, 8
New:
NONE
Independent:
1, 19
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1, 8-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Smet (US 2016/0002761, cited on IDS filed 7/3/23) in view of Steins (2008/0318081, cited on PTO-892 12/9/24).
De Smet (abstract, etc.) is drawn to an aluminum alloy comprising (in wt%):
cl. 1
De Smet
Si
1.0-1.4
0.5-1.5
Fe
0.22-0.28
0.03-0.30
Cu
-0.15
Mg
-0.35
0.2-0.7
Mn
0.06-0.08
*preferably 0.05-0.2%
Cr
0.03-0.04
*preferably 0.01-0.15%
Sr
0.06-0.1
-
Ti
-0.1
-0.15
Zn
-0.1
-0.3
impurities
-0.15
≤0.05% each (abstract)
*teaches opt. one or more of Mn, Zr, Cr, and V but prefer above ranges of Cr and Mn [0049-0050]
which overlaps the alloying ranges of independent amended claim 1. De Smet teaches examples with an average grain size ranging 20-25 microns (see De Smet at Table 2). De Smet does not teach the addition of 0.06-0.10% Sr (claim 1). However, Steins, also drawn to Al-Si-Mg alloys for sheet products, teaches 0.005-0.1% Sr is added to enhance mechanical and physical properties (wherein Steins teaches Sr decreases the coarseness of Zr, Cr, V, Fe phases, thereby eliminating visible clouding and improving malleability- abstract, Table 5, [0007]) of said Al-Si-Mg alloys. Based on the disclosure of Steins, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added 0.005-0.1% Sr to the Al-Si-Mg alloy of De Smet in order to decrease the coarseness of Zr, Cr, V, Fe phases, and improve malleability.
Because De Smet together with Steins teaches an overlapping Al-Si-Mg alloy, together with an average grain size that overlaps the claimed range of 25-35 microns, it is held that De Smet and Steins have create a prima facie case of obviousness of the presently claimed invention.
Overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the range, including the claimed range, from the broader range disclosed in the prior art, because the prior art finds that said composition in the entire disclosed range has a suitable utility. Additionally, "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages," In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d at 1379 (CAFC 2003).
Concerning claims 8-16, neither De Smet nor Steins specify the type and shape of the intermetallics as recited said claims 8-15, or the texture (cl. 16). However, because De Smet and Steins teach an overlapping alloy processed substantially identically (casting, homogenizing, hot rolling, cold rolling, solution treatment, and quench see De Smet at examples) to the instant invention (instant specification at [0081-0097]), then the same microstructure, texture, and properties would be reasonably expected in the alloy product of De Smet and Steins, as for the instant invention. Therefore, because the prior art teaches an overlapping Al-Si-Mg-Mn-Cr alloy, and because the same properties and microstructure are expected for the prior art’s product by virtue of said overlapping alloy processed by substantially identical heat treatment and working steps compared to the present invention, it is held that De Smet and Steins have created a prima facie case of obviousness of the presently claimed invention.
Overlapping ranges have been held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the range, including the claimed range, from the broader range disclosed in the prior art, because the prior art finds that said composition in the entire disclosed range has a suitable utility. Additionally, "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages," In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d at 1379 (CAFC 2003).
Concerning claim 18, De Smet teaches forming said Al-Mg-Si alloy into a sheet for automobile body parts (abstract).
Concerning claims 19-20, De Smet teaches a method of producing said Al-Si-Mg alloy sheet product by: casting, homogenizing 540-580°C [0031-0032], hot rolling, cold rolling, and solution heat treating [0021-0027], which meets the instantly claimed process steps and overlaps the claimed homogenization temperature range.
Claims 1, 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshino (US 2017/0283913, cited on IDS filed 7/3/23) in view of Steins (2008/0318081, cited on PTO-892 12/9/24).
Koshino is drawn to an aluminum alloy comprising (in wt%): 0.3-2.0% Si, 0.2-1.5% Mg, >0-0.5% Fe, 0.05-1.0% Cu, >0-1.0% Mn, 0-0.3% Cr, balance aluminum and impurities (Koshino at [0034-0052]), which broadly overlaps the claimed alloying ranges of Si, Fe, Cu, Mn, Mn, Cr, Ti, and Zn in independent claim 1. Koshino broadly teaches said alloy product exhibits an average grain size of ≤40 microns [0017], and teaches examples with an average grain size 28-38 microns (Table 3), which overlaps the claimed average grain size and therefore meets said limitation. Koshino does not teach the addition of 0.06-0.10% Sr (claim 1).
However, Steins, also drawn to Al-Si-Mg alloys for sheet products, teaches 0.005-0.1% Sr is added to enhance mechanical and physical properties (wherein Steins teaches Sr decreases the coarseness of Zr, Cr, V, Fe phases, thereby eliminating visible clouding and improving malleability- abstract, Table 5, [0007]) of said Al-Si-Mg alloys. Based on the disclosure of Steins, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added 0.005-0.1% Sr to the Al-Si-Mg alloy of Koshino, in order to decrease the coarseness of Zr, Cr, V, Fe phases, and improve malleability.
Because Koshino together with Steins teaches an overlapping Al-Si-Mg-Mn-Cr-Sr alloy, together with an average grain size that overlaps the claimed range of 25-35 microns, it is held that Koshino and Steins have create a prima facie case of obviousness of the presently claimed invention.
Overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the range, including the claimed range, from the broader range disclosed in the prior art, because the prior art finds that said composition in the entire disclosed range has a suitable utility. Additionally, "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages," In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d at 1379 (CAFC 2003).
Concerning claims 8-16, neither Koshino nor Steins specify the type and shape of the intermetallics as recited said claims 8-15, or the texture (cl. 16). However, because Koshino and Steins teach an overlapping alloy processed substantially identically (casting, homogenizing typically 550°C, hot rolling, cold rolling, solution treatment, and quench [0141-0144]) to the instant invention (instant specification at [0081-0097]), then the same microstructure, texture, and properties would be reasonably expected in the alloy product of Koshino and Steins, as for the instant invention. Therefore, because the prior art teaches an overlapping Al-Si-Mg-Mn-Cr alloy, and because the same properties and microstructure are expected for the prior art’s product by virtue of said overlapping alloy processed by substantially identical heat treatment and working steps compared to the present invention, it is held that Koshino and Steins have created a prima facie case of obviousness of the presently claimed invention.
Concerning claim 18, Koshino teaches forming said Al-Mg-Si alloy into a sheet for automobile body parts (abstract).
Concerning claim 17, Koshino teaches an elongation of ≥26% [0105], which overlaps the claimed minimum
Concerning claims 19 and 20, Koshino and Steins teach an overlapping Al-Si-Mg alloy processed by steps of casting, homogenizing typically 550°C [0142], hot rolling, cold rolling, solution treatment, and quenching, see Koshino at [0141-0144], which meets the instantly claimed process steps and overlaps the claimed homogenization temperature range.
Response to Arguments
In the response filed on 12/11/25, applicant amended claims 1 and 8, and submitted various arguments traversing the rejections of record. The examiner agrees that no new matter has been added.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previously applied 112(b) rejections.
Applicant’s argument that the previously applied reference of Kuramoto (US 2019/0330716) does not teach or suggest the amended combination of 0.06-0.08% Mn+0.03-0.04% Cr, by virtue of teaching Mn+Cr≤0.080% (Kuramoto at [0047], see Arguments filed 12/11/25 at p 4) has been found persuasive. The closest prior art to the amended claims is held to be De Smet in view of Steins, or Koshino in view of Steins, as set forth above.
Conclusion
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 JANELL COMBS MORILLO whose telephone number is (571)272-1240. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 7am-3pm.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/J.C.M/Examiner, Art Unit 1733 1/4/26
Prosecution Insights