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 .
Priority
Applicant’s priority claim to US Provisional Application 63/416,757 filed October 17, 2022 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed August 20, 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
A copy of Non-Patent Literature Document Cite No. 3. UNITED ALIMINUM. Aluminum Alloy Data Sheet, 24 October 2021 has not been received.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Claim Amendments and Remarks filed July 27, 2026.
Independent claim 1 is directed to a “solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product”. Independent claim 11 is also directed to a “solid state additive manufactured aluminum alloy”. Claims 1 and 11 recite the same product composition and grain structure. Claim 11 includes additional product-by-process limitations. MPEP 2113. The claims under examination are directed to a “solid state additive manufactured aluminum alloy” product.
Claims Filing Date
July 27, 2026
Amended
1-20
Cancelled
21-35
Under Examination
1-20
The applicant argues claims 1-20 are amended to recite “7x50” aluminum alloy, which refers to a 7050-type aluminum alloy as described throughout the specification, including in [056] (p. 6 para. 3). The applicant also argues claim 5 is supported by [015], [024], [086], [096] (p. 6 para. 5), claims 6 and 16 are supported by [021], [026], [029], and [096] (p. 6 para. 6), claim 11 is supported by [013], [015], [018], [020], [062], [066]-[076] (p. 6 para. 10), and claim 18 is supported by [062] (p. 6 para. 12).
According to applicant’s [056] a “7x50 aluminum alloy” refers to “a 7050-type aluminum alloy.
Withdrawn Claim Objections
The following objections are withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 1 lines 3-5 “the additive manufactured aluminum alloy product” and lines 5-6 “the solid-state additive manufactured aluminum product”.
Claim 11 lines 1, 3, 8 “solid state” not having a dash.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following 112(b) rejections are withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 8 lines 1-2 “The solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product of claim 1, further comprising a substrate that receives the solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product”.
Claim 11 lines 1-5 “The solid state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product by adding an aluminum alloy to a surface of a substrate…, wherein the aluminum alloy is added in a solid state as a first aluminum alloy layer to the surface of the substrate…”.
Claim 18 lines 1-2 “The solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product of claim 1, further comprising a substrate that receives the solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product”.
The following 112(b) rejection is withdrawn due to argument:
Claim 1 line 4 “minimal void space”.
The applicant persuasively argues “minimal void space” refers to internal cavities or unoccupied space within the material, where voids can result from vacancies, grain boundaries, and dislocations, where “minimal void space” refers to virtually no vacancies or unoccupied state with the understanding there will always be some unwanted space in the atomic structure which cannot be avoided (p. 7 para. 5).
The following 112(d) rejection is withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 18 line 2 “a substrate that receives the solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy”.
Withdrawn Claim Rejection - 35 USC § 102/103
The following 35 USC § 102/103 rejection is withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claims 1-20 over Yoder (Yoder et al. Deformation-based additive manufacturing of 7075 aluminum with wrought-like mechanical properties. Materials and Design 198 (2021) 109288.) as evidenced by Teal Sheets (Teal Sheets. International Alloy Designations and Chemical Composition Limits for Wrought Aluminum and Wrought Aluminum Alloys. The Aluminum Association. January 2015.) in view of Fang (CN 114107760 machine translation).
The applicant persuasively argues Yoder is directed to AA7075 compositions (p. 11 paras. 7-8, para. spanning pp. 12-13).
Amended claims 1 and 11 in line 1 recite a “7x50 aluminum alloy product”. Yoder discloses an AA7075 (Graphical Abstract, para. spanning cols. 1-2). 7x50 alloys, such as 7050 and 7150, do not overlap in composition for Cr and Zr contents with 7x75 alloys, such as 7075 and 7175 (Teal Sheets p. 12).
Withdrawn Double Patenting Rejection
The following nonstatutory double patenting rejection is withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claims 1-20 rejected over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/380,565 (App ‘565) in view of Fang (CN 114107760 machine translation).
The applicant persuasively argues the instant claims are directed to a 7x50-type aluminum alloy and that the US 18/350,565 claims are amended to a 7075-type alloy (p. 13 para. 7), where these two alloys have different properties, microstructures, and compositions (p. 13 para. 8).
The double patenting rejection is over US 18/380,565. The pending amended claims are directed to a “7x50 aluminum alloy product” (claim 1 line 1). In US 18/380,565 the September 8, 2026 pending amended claims recite a “7x75 aluminum alloy product” (claim 1 line 1). As evidenced by Teal Sheets and presented in the following table, 7x50 alloys 7050 and 7150 do not overlap in Cr and Zr contents with 7x75 alloys 7075 and 7175 (Teal Sheets p. 12).
Element
AA7050
AA7150
AA7075
AA7175
Si
0.12 max
0.12 max
0.40 max
0.15 max
Fe
0.15 max
0.15 max
0.50 max
0.20 max
Cu
2.0 to 2.6
1.9 to 2.5
1.2 to 2.0
1.2 to 2.0
Mn
0.10 max
0.10 max
0.30 max
0.10 max
Mg
1.9 to 2.6
2.0 to 2.7
2.1 to 2.9
2.1 to 2.9
Cr
0.04 max
0.04 max
0.18 to 0.28
0.18 to 0.28
Zn
5.7 to 6.7
5.9 to 6.9
5.1 to 6.1
5.1 to 6.1
Ti
0.06 max
0.06 max
0.20 max
0.10 max
Zr
0.0 to 0.15
0.08 to 0.15
-
-
Response to Remarks filed July 27, 2026
de Salvo (de Salvo and Afonso. Fatigue strength and microstructure evaluation of AI 7050 alloy wires recycled by spray forming, extrusion and rotary swaging. Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 30 (2020) 3195-3209.)
Applicant's arguments filed July 27, 2026 with respect to de Salvo have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues de Salvo forms the recycled product by melting with a “fully recrystallized and equiaxed grains”, but de Salvo but does not disclose the additional microstructure and composition of claims 1 and 11 and melting would not result in the same composition as specified in the solid-state additive processes of the amended claims (p. 8 paras. 7-9, p. 9 paras. 2, 5, para. spanning pp. 9-10).
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination pf patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” MPEP 2113(I).
The pending claims are directed to a solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product. (Emphasis added.) Pending claims 1 and 11 require the following product features, which are all disclosed by de Salvo:
at least 60% by volume equiaxed grains (solution treatment produces (100%) “Fully recrystallized and equiaxed grains”) (de Salvo 3.1 Microstructure paras. 6-9, Fig. 7);
equiaxed grains with aspect ratios less than 2:1 (“equiaxed grains” have approximately equal dimensions in all directions, such that the aspect ratio is approximately 1:1) (de Salvo 3.1 Microstructure paras. 6-9, Fig. 7);
minimal void space between metal atoms (as supported by the Fig. 7 SEM image of a wire of 7050 alloy after aging) (de Salvo 3.1 Microstructure paras. 6-9, Fig. 7); and
the composition as presented in the following table (de Salvo 2.1 Material).
Element
Claims 1, 11
AA7x50
de Salvo 2.1 Material
Cu
2.0 to 2.6
2.15
Mg
1.9 to 2.6
1.93
Zn
5.7 to 6.7
6.07
Zr
0.08 to 0.15
0.08
Si, Ti, Cr, Fe, or Mn
No more than 0.7
Fe: 0.08
Si: 0.05
Al
Remainder
Balance
Therefore, for the above cited reasons, despite the alleged differences between the melting process of de Salvo and the solid state process of claims 1 and 11, the claimed product and its associated claimed features are disclosed in the solution treated product of de Salvo.
de Salvo as evidenced by Chalco (Calco Aluminum. 7075 O/T6/T7351/F Aerospace Aluminum Wire.)
Applicant's arguments filed July 27, 2026 with respect to de Salvo as evidenced by Chalco have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 recite directly or indirectly the presence of “a plurality of overlapping tracks” of solid-state additive manufacture 7x50 aluminum alloy (p. 10 para. 9), but Chalco describes a 7075 aluminum alloy wire with no indication of any overlapping tracks as seen in Applicant’s Figs. 21 and 22 (para. spanning pp. 10-11).
As previously stated, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. MPEP 2113(I).
Claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 recite “overlapping tracks”. Interpreting the wire in de Salvo as a track (de Salvo 2.1 Material), then, as evidenced by the aluminum wire coil in Chalco, the tracks (wire) of a coil necessarily overlap (Chalco p. 3).
Applicant’s Figs. 21 and 22 depict layers of the claimed 7x50 aluminum alloy product on top of each other. Since the wire of de Salvo reads on the claimed product features (de Salvo 2.1 Material, 3.1 Microstructure paras. 6-9, Fig. 7), then the wire coil with wire (tracks) that satisfy the claimed product are overlapping.
New Grounds
In light of claim amendment and upon further consideration a new grounds of rejection is made over Mason (Mason et al. Process-structure-property relations for as-deposited solid-state additively manufactured high-strength aluminum alloy. Additive Manufacturing 40 (2021) 101879).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
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 1-5, 9-15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over de Salvo (de Salvo and Afonso. Fatigue strength and microstructure evaluation of Al 7050 alloy wires recycled by spray forming, extrusion and rotary swaging. Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 30 (2020) 3195-3209.).
Regarding claim 1, de Salvo discloses a solid-state aluminum alloy 7x50 (AA7050) product (wire) (2.1 Material),
wherein at least 60% percent by volume of aluminum in the 7x50 aluminum alloy product are present as equiaxed grains (solution treatment produces fully recrystallized and equiaxed grains), with aspect ratios less than 2:1, after heat treatment (solution treatment and aging) of the 7x50 aluminum alloy product (equiaxed grains have approximately equal dimensions in all directions, such that the aspect ratio is approximately 1:1) (3.1 Microstructure paras. 6-9, Fig. 7),
wherein there is minimal void space between metal atoms of the 7x50 aluminum alloy product (3.1 Microstructure paras. 6-9, Fig. 7), and
wherein the solid-state 7x50 aluminum product comprises a composition that falls within the scope of that claimed (2.1 Material).
Element
Claim 1
de Salvo 2.1 Material
Cu
2.0 to 2.6
2.15
Mg
1.9 to 2.6
1.93
Zn
5.7 to 6.7
6.07
Zr
0.08 to 0.15
0.08
Si, Ti, Cr, Fe, or Mn
No more than 0.7
Fe: 0.08
Si: 0.05
Al
Remainder
Balance
The 7x50 aluminum alloy product being solid-state additive manufactured and produced using temperature control has been considered and determined to recite a product-by-process claim limitation that does not further limit the structure of the claimed aluminum alloy product. The 7x50 aluminum alloy product of the prior art (de Salvo abstract, 2.1 Material, 3.1 Microstructure paras. 6-9, Fig. 7) reads on the claim grain structure, void space, and composition. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113(I).
When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 is eminently fair and acceptable. MPEP 2113(III).
Regarding claim 2, de Salvo discloses an ultimate tensile strength (Ftu) of at least 515 MPa (7050 aged 586 +/- 7 MPa) (Table 2).
Regarding claim 3, de Salvo discloses a tensile yield strength (Fty) of at least 455 MPa (7050 aged 465 +/- 6 MPa) (Table 2).
Regarding claim 4, de Salvo discloses an elongation to fracture or ductility (e) of at least 11 % (7050 aged 16 +/- 1 %) (Table 2).
Regarding claim 5, a single track of deposited solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product, and wherein the single track is added at a first tool temperature between 360 degrees Celsius to 485 degrees Celsius has been considered and determined to recite a product-by-process limitation that further limits the structure of the claimed “solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product” to being a single layer. de Salvo discloses a solid-state aluminum alloy product in the form of a wire (2.1 Material), such that it satisfies the structure of being a single layer of the claimed deposited single track.
Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113(I).
When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 is eminently fair and acceptable. MPEP 2113(III).
Regarding claim 9, de Salvo discloses at least 75% percent by volume of the aluminum in the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product are present as equiaxed grains (solution treatment produces fully recrystallized and equiaxed grains) (3.1 Microstructure paras. 6-9, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 10, de Salvo discloses at least 90% percent by volume of the aluminum in the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product are present as equiaxed grains (solution treatment produces fully recrystallized and equiaxed grains) (3.1 Microstructure paras. 6-9, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 11, de Salvo discloses a solid-state 7x50 (AA7050) aluminum alloy product (wire) (2.1 Material), wherein
at least 60% percent by volume of aluminum in the heat treated (solution treatment and aging) 7x50 aluminum alloy layer are present as equiaxed grains (solution treatment produces fully recrystallized and equiaxed grains), with aspect ratios less than 2:1 (equiaxed grains have approximately equal dimensions in all directions, such that the aspect ratio is approximately 1:1) (3.1 Microstructure paras. 6-9, Fig. 7), and wherein
there is minimal void space between metal atoms in the heat treated 7x50 aluminum alloy layer (3.1 Microstructure paras. 6-9, Fig. 7), and wherein
the solid state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy comprises a composition that falls within the scope of that claimed (2.1 Material).
Element
Claim 11
de Salvo 2.1 Material
Cu
2.0 to 2.6
2.15
Mg
1.9 to 2.6
1.93
Zn
5.7 to 6.7
6.07
Zr
0.08 to 0.15
0.08
Si, Ti, Cr, Fe, or Mn
No more than 0.7
Fe: 0.08
Si: 0.05
Al
Remainder
Balance
The solid state aluminum alloy being additive manufactured and produced by adding a solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy layer to a surface of a substrate using a solid-state additive manufacturing process that controls temperature during addition of the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy layer to the substrate, wherein the solid-state additive manufacturing 7x50 aluminum alloy layer is added in a solid state at a first tool temperature between 360 degrees Celsius to 485 degrees Celsius and then heat treated has been considered and determined to recite a product-by-process claim limitation that does not further limit the structure of the claimed aluminum alloy product layer. The 7x50 aluminum alloy product of the prior art (de Salvo abstract, 2.1 Material, 3.1 Microstructure paras. 6-9, Fig. 7) reads on the claimed 7x50 aluminum alloy product layer grain structure, void space, and composition. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113(I).
When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 is eminently fair and acceptable. MPEP 2113(III).
Regarding claim 12, de Salvo discloses an ultimate tensile strength (Ftu) of at least 515 MPa (7050 aged 586 +/- 7 MPa) (Table 2).
Regarding claim 13, de Salvo discloses a tensile yield strength (Fty) of at least 455 MPa (7050 aged 465 +/- 6 MPa) (Table 2).
Regarding claim 14, de Salvo discloses an elongation to fracture or ductility (e) of at least 11 % (7050 aged 16 +/- 1 %) (Table 2).
Regarding claim 15, a single track of deposited solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product has been considered and determined to recite a product-by-process limitation that further limits the structure of the claimed “solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product” to being a single layer. De Salvo discloses a solid-state aluminum alloy product in the form of a wire (2.1 Material), such that it satisfies the structure of being a single layer of the claimed deposited single track.
Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113(I).
When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 is eminently fair and acceptable. MPEP 2113(III).
Regarding claim 19, de Salvo discloses at least 75% percent by volume of the aluminum in the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product are present as equiaxed grains (solution treatment produces fully recrystallized and equiaxed grains) (3.1 Microstructure paras. 6-9, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 20, de Salvo discloses at least 90% percent by volume of the aluminum in the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product are present as equiaxed grains (solution treatment produces fully recrystallized and equiaxed grains) (3.1 Microstructure paras. 6-9, Fig. 7).
Claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over de Salvo (de Salvo and Afonso. Fatigue strength and microstructure evaluation of Al 7050 alloy wires recycled by spray forming, extrusion and rotary swaging. Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 30 (2020) 3195-3209.) as applied to claim 1 above and as evidenced by Chalco (Chalco Aluminum. 7075 O/T6/T7351/F Aerospace Aluminum Wire.).
Regarding claim 6, de Salvo as evidenced by Chalo discloses a plurality of overlapping tracks of solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product (wire) (de Salvo 2.1 Material; Chalco p. 3 aluminum wire in a coil, such that the wire of the coil is necessarily overlapping).
The limitation of a plurality of overlapping tracks of deposited solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product, wherein a second tool temperature used to deposit the overlapping tracks by twenty degrees Celsius higher than the first tool temperature has been considered and determined to recite a product-by-process limitation that does not further limit the structure of the claimed “solid-state additive manufactured product”. (See above associated 112(b) rejection.) The 7x50 aluminum alloy product of the prior art (de Salvo abstract, 2.1 Material, 3.1 Microstructure paras. 6-9, Fig. 7; Chalco p. 3) reads on the claimed overlapping tracks of grain structure, void space, and composition. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113(I).
Regarding claim 7, de Salvo as evidenced by Chalco discloses overlapping tracks overlap by at least 10% (de Salvo 2.1 Material; Chalco p. 3 aluminum wire coil).
Regarding claim 16, de Salvo as evidenced by Chalco discloses a plurality of overlapping tracks of solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product (wire) (de Salvo 2.1 Material; Chalco p. 3 aluminum wire in a coil, such that the wire of the coil is necessarily overlapping).
The limitation of a plurality of overlapping tracks of deposited solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product, and wherein a second tool temperature used to deposit the overlapping tracks is increased by twenty degrees Celsius higher than the first tool temperature has been considered and determined to recite a product-by-process limitation that does not further limit the structure of the claimed “solid-state additive manufactured product”. (See above associated 112(b) rejection.) The aluminum alloy product of the prior art (de Salvo abstract, 2.1 Material, 3.1 Microstructure paras. 6-9, Fig. 7; Chalo p. 3) reads on the claimed overlapping tracks of grain structure, void space, and composition. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113(I).
Regarding claim 17, de Salvo as evidenced by Chalco discloses overlapping tracks overlap by at least 10% (de Salvo 2.1 Material; Chalco p. 3 aluminum wire coil).
Claims 1, 5-11, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mason (Mason et al. Process-structure-property relations for as-deposited solid-state additively manufactured high-strength aluminum alloy. Additive Manufacturing 40 (2021) 101879.) as evidenced by Teal Sheets (Teal Sheets. International Alloy Designations and Chemical Composition Limits for Wrought Aluminum and Wrought Aluminum Alloys. The Aluminum Association. January 2015.).
Regarding claim 1, Mason discloses a solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 (AA7050) aluminum alloy product produced using temperature control (AFS-D, Additive Friction Stir-Deposition) (1. Introduction para. 3, 2. Materials and methods),
wherein at least 60% percent by volume of the aluminum in the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product are present as equiaxed grains, with aspect ratios less than 2:1 (AFS-D process material exhibits an equiaxed microstructure, where equiaxed grains have approximately equal dimensions in all directions, such that the aspect ratio is approximately 1:1) (1. Introduction para. 3, 3.1. Microstructure para. 7, Fig. 10, 4. Conclusions),
wherein there is minimal void space between metal atoms of the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product (3.1. Microstructure, Figs. 6-10, 12), and
wherein the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product comprises an overlapping composition (AA7050) (2. Materials and methods) (No. 7050 Teal Sheets p. 12).
Element
Claim 1
AA 7050 Teal Sheets
Cu
2.0 to 2.6
2.0 to 2.6
Mg
1.9 to 2.6
1.9 to 2.6
Zn
5.7 to 6.7
5.7 to 6.7
Zr
0.08 to 1.5
0.08 to 0.15
Si, Ti, Cr, Fe, or Mn
0.7 max
Si: 0.12 max
Ti: 0.06 max
Cr: 0.04 max
Fe: 0.15 max
Mn: 0.10 max
Al
Remainder
Balance
The 7x50 aluminum alloy product grains being after heat treatment of the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product has been considered and determined to recite a product-by-process claim limitation that does not further limit the structure of the claimed aluminum alloy product. The 7x50 aluminum alloy product of the prior art (Mason 1. Introduction para. 3, 2. Materials and methods, 3.1. Microstructure, Figs. 6-10, 12, 4. Conclusions) reads on the claimed grain structure, void space, and composition. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113(I).
When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 is eminently fair and acceptable. MPEP 2113(III).
Regarding claim 5, Mason discloses the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product of claim 1 as cited above, wherein the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product comprises a single track (first, 1st, layer) of deposited solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product (2. Materials and methods, Fig. 1).
Mason discloses deposition has frictional heat (2. Materials and methods).
The single track being added at a first tool temperature between 360 degrees Celsius to 485 degrees Celsius has been considered and determined to recite a product-by-process limitation that does not further limit the structure of the claimed solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product. The prior art reads on the claimed product (Mason 1. Introduction para. 3, 2. Materials and methods, 3.1 Microstructure, Figs. 1, 6-10, 12; Teal Sheets p. 12).
Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113(I).
When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 is eminently fair and acceptable. MPEP 2113(III).
Regarding claim 6, Mason discloses the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product of claim 1 as cited above, wherein the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product comprises a plurality of overlapping tracks of deposited solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product (crossover section) (2. Materials and methods, Fig. 1).
A second tool temperature used to deposit the overlapping tracks being increased by twenty degrees Celsius higher than the first tool temperature has been considered and determined to recite a product-by-process limitation that does not further limit the structure of the claimed solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product. The prior art reads on the claimed product (Mason 1. Introduction para. 3, 2. Materials and methods, 3.1 Microstructure, Figs. 1, 6-10, 12; Teal Sheets p. 12).
Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113(I).
When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 is eminently fair and acceptable. MPEP 2113(III).
Regarding claim 7, Mason discloses the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product of claim 6 as cited above, wherein overlapping adjacent tracks overlap by at least 10% (cross over section) (2.1 Materials and methods, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Mason discloses the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product of claim 1 as cited above, wherein the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product further comprises a substrate with a solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy on the substrate (2.1 Materials and methods, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Mason discloses the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product of claim 1 as cited above, wherein at least 75% percent by volume of the aluminum in the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product are present as equiaxed grains (AFS-D process material exhibits an equiaxed microstructure throughout the build) (1. Introduction para. 3, 3.1. Microstructure para. 7, Fig. 10, 4. Conclusions).
Regarding claim 10, Mason discloses the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product of claim 1 as cited above, wherein at least 90% percent by volume of the aluminum in the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product are present as equiaxed grains (AFS-D process material exhibits an equiaxed microstructure throughout the build) (1. Introduction para. 3, 3.1. Microstructure para. 7, Fig. 10, 4. Conclusions).
Regarding claim 11, Mason discloses a solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 (AA7050) aluminum alloy product produced by adding a solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy layer to a surface of a substrate using a solid-state additive manufacturing process (AFS-D, Additive Friction Stir-Deposition) that controls temperature during addition of the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy layer to the substrate (frictional heat from tool deposition and part cooling during layer by layer process) (1. Introduction para. 3, 2. Materials and methods, Fig. 1),
wherein the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy layer is added in a solid state as a first aluminum alloy layer to the surface of the substrate (2. Materials and methods, Fig. 1),
wherein at least 60% percent by volume of aluminum in the added, heat treated first solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy layer are present as equiaxed grains, with aspect ratios less than 2:1 (AFS-D process material exhibits an equiaxed microstructure, where equiaxed grains have approximately equal dimensions in all directions, such that the aspect ratio is approximately 1:1) (1. Introduction para. 3, 3.1. Microstructure para. 7, Fig. 10, 4. Conclusions), and
wherein there is minimal void space between metal atoms in the added, heat treated, solid-state additive manufactured first 7x50 aluminum alloy layer (3.1. Microstructure, Figs. 6-10, 12), and
wherein the heat-treated, solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy layer comprises an overlapping composition (AA7050) (2. Materials and methods) (No. 7050 Teal Sheets p. 12).
Element
Claim 1
AA 7050 Teal Sheets
Cu
2.0 to 2.6
2.0 to 2.6
Mg
1.9 to 2.6
1.9 to 2.6
Zn
5.7 to 6.7
5.7 to 6.7
Zr
0.08 to 1.5
0.08 to 0.15
Si, Ti, Cr, Fe, or Mn
0.7 max
Si: 0.12 max
Ti: 0.06 max
Cr: 0.04 max
Fe: 0.15 max
Mn: 0.10 max
Al
Remainder
Balance
A solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy layer being added at a first tool temperature between 360 degrees Celsius to 485 degrees Celsius and then heat treated has been considered and determined to recite a product-by-process limitation that does not further limit the structure of the claimed solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product. The prior art reads on the claimed product (Mason 1. Introduction para. 3, 2. Materials and methods, 3.1 Microstructure, Figs. 1, 6-10, 12; Teal Sheets p. 12).
Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113(I).
When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 is eminently fair and acceptable. MPEP 2113(III).
Regarding claim 15, Mason discloses the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product of claim 11 as cited above, wherein the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy layer comprises a single track (first, 1st, layer) of deposited solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy (2. Materials and methods, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Mason discloses the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product of claim 11 as cited above, wherein the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy layer comprises a plurality of overlapping tracks of deposited solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy (crossover section) (2. Materials and methods, Fig. 1).
A second tool temperature used to deposit the overlapping tracks being increased by twenty degrees Celsius higher than the first tool temperature has been considered and determined to recite a product-by-process limitation that does not further limit the structure of the claimed solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product. The prior art reads on the claimed product (Mason 1. Introduction para. 3, 2. Materials and methods, 3.1 Microstructure, Figs. 1, 6-10, 12; Teal Sheets p. 12).
Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113(I).
When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 is eminently fair and acceptable. MPEP 2113(III).
Regarding claim 17, Mason discloses the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product of claim 16 as cited above, wherein overlapping adjacent tracks overlap by at least 10% (cross over section) (2.1 Materials and methods, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Mason discloses the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product of claim 11 as cited above, further comprising a substrate that receives wherein the substrate of the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product is plate substrate, an extrusion substrate or a forging substrate (2.1 Materials and methods, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Mason discloses the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product of claim 11 as cited above, wherein at least 75% percent by volume of the aluminum in the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product are present as equiaxed grains (AFS-D process material exhibits an equiaxed microstructure throughout the build) (1. Introduction para. 3, 3.1. Microstructure para. 7, Fig. 10, 4. Conclusions).
Regarding claim 20, Mason discloses the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product of claim 11 as cited above, wherein at least 90% percent by volume of the aluminum in the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product are present as equiaxed grains (AFS-D process material exhibits an equiaxed microstructure throughout the build) (1. Introduction para. 3, 3.1. Microstructure para. 7, Fig. 10, 4. Conclusions).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason (Mason et al. Process-structure-property relations for as-deposited solid-state additively manufactured high-strength aluminum alloy. Additive Manufacturing 40 (2021) 101879.) as evidenced by Teal Sheets (Teal Sheets. International Alloy Designations and Chemical Composition Limits for Wrought Aluminum and Wrought Aluminum Alloys. The Aluminum Association. January 2015.) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of de Salvo (de Salvo et al. Fatigue strength and microstructure evaluation of Al 7050 alloy wires recycled by spray forming, extrusion and rotary swaging. Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 30 (2020) 3195-3209.).
Regarding claim 2, Mason discloses the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product of claim 1 as cited above.
Mason is silent to the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product comprises an ultimate tensile strength (Ftu) of at least 515 MPa.
de Salvo discloses a solid-state 7x50 aluminum alloy product (Abstract, 2.1 Material) that comprises an ultimate tensile strength (Ftu) of at least 515 MPa (UTS 586 +/- 7 MPa, 7050 aged) (Table 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to age the 7050 aluminum alloy product of Mason to a UTS of 586 +/- 7 MPa to comply with the original AA 7050 specification for the aircraft manufacturer supplier (de Salvo 3.4 Mechanical behavior para. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Mason in view of de Salvo discloses the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product of claim 2 as cited above, wherein the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product comprises a tensile yield strength (Fty) of at least 455 MPa (YS 465 +/- 6 MPa, 7050 aged) (de Salvo 3.4 Mechanical behavior para. 2, Table 2).
Regarding claim 4, Mason in view of de Salvo discloses the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product of claim 3 as cited above, wherein the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product comprises an elongation to fracture or ductility (e) of at least 11% (16 +/- 1, 7050 aged) (de Salvo 3.4 Mechanical behavior para. 2, Table 2).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason (Mason et al. Process-structure-property relations for as-deposited solid-state additively manufactured high-strength aluminum alloy. Additive Manufacturing 40 (2021) 101879.) as evidenced by Teal Sheets (Teal Sheets. International Alloy Designations and Chemical Composition Limits for Wrought Aluminum and Wrought Aluminum Alloys. The Aluminum Association. January 2015.) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoder (Yoder et al. Materials and Design. 198 (2021) 109288.) as evidenced by ASM (ASM Aerospace Specification Metals Inc. Aluminum 7050-T7451 (7050-T73651). Accessed 09/25/2026.).
Regarding claim 2, Mason discloses the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product of claim 1 as cited above.
Mason is silent to the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product comprises an ultimate tensile strength (Ftu) of at least 515 MPa.
Yoder discloses a solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product (graphical abstract) processed by solution treatment and aging to achieve mechanical properties which are similar to the typical wrought properties (para. spanning cols. 1-2).
ASM discloses mechanical properties of typical wrought AA 7050 include an ultimate tensile strength of 524 MPa (p. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to heat treat the solid-state additive manufactured AA7050 product of Mason to achieve a tensile strength of 524 MPa because this a typical ultimate tensile strength for this material (Yoder para. spanning cols. 1-2; ASM).
Regarding claim 3, Mason in view of Yoder as evidenced by ASM discloses the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product of claim 2 as cited above, wherein the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product comprises a tensile yield strength (Fty) of at least 455 MPa (469 MPa) (Yoder para. spanning cols. 1-2; ASM p. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Mason in view of Yoder as evidenced by ASM discloses the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product of claim 3 as cited above, wherein the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product comprises an elongation to fracture or ductility (e) of at least 11% (11%) (Yoder para. spanning cols. 1-2; ASM p. 2).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason (Mason et al. Process-structure-property relations for as-deposited solid-state additively manufactured high-strength aluminum alloy. Additive Manufacturing 40 (2021) 101879.) as evidenced by Teal Sheets (Teal Sheets. International Alloy Designations and Chemical Composition Limits for Wrought Aluminum and Wrought Aluminum Alloys. The Aluminum Association. January 2015.) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of de Salvo (de Salvo et al. Fatigue strength and microstructure evaluation of Al 7050 alloy wires recycled by spray forming, extrusion and rotary swaging. Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 30 (2020) 3195-3209.).
Regarding claim 12, Mason discloses the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product of claim 11 as cited above.
Mason is silent to the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product comprises an ultimate tensile strength (Ftu) of at least 515 MPa.
de Salvo discloses a solid-state 7x50 aluminum alloy product (Abstract, 2.1 Material) that comprises an ultimate tensile strength (Ftu) of at least 515 MPa (UTS 586 +/- 7 MPa, 7050 aged) (Table 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to age the 7050 aluminum alloy product of Mason to a UTS of 586 +/- 7 MPa to comply with the original AA 7050 specification for the aircraft manufacturer supplier (de Salvo 3.4 Mechanical behavior para. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Mason in view of de Salvo discloses the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product of claim 12 as cited above, wherein the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product comprises a tensile yield strength (Fty) of at least 455 MPa (YS 465 +/- 6 MPa, 7050 aged) (de Salvo 3.4 Mechanical behavior para. 2, Table 2).
Regarding claim 14, Mason in view of de Salvo discloses the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product of claim 13 as cited above, wherein the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product comprises an elongation to fracture or ductility (e) of at least 11% (16 +/- 1, 7050 aged) (de Salvo 3.4 Mechanical behavior para. 2, Table 2).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason (Mason et al. Process-structure-property relations for as-deposited solid-state additively manufactured high-strength aluminum alloy. Additive Manufacturing 40 (2021) 101879.) as evidenced by Teal Sheets (Teal Sheets. International Alloy Designations and Chemical Composition Limits for Wrought Aluminum and Wrought Aluminum Alloys. The Aluminum Association. January 2015.) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Yoder (Yoder et al. Materials and Design. 198 (2021) 109288.) as evidenced by ASM (ASM Aerospace Specification Metals Inc. Aluminum 7050-T7451 (7050-T73651). Accessed 09/25/2026.).
Regarding claim 12, Mason discloses the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product of claim 11 as cited above.
Mason is silent to the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product comprises an ultimate tensile strength (Ftu) of at least 515 MPa.
Yoder discloses a solid-state additive manufactured aluminum alloy product (graphical abstract) processed by solution treatment and aging to achieve mechanical properties which are similar to the typical wrought properties (para. spanning cols. 1-2).
ASM discloses mechanical properties of typical wrought AA 7050 include an ultimate tensile strength of 524 MPa (p. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to heat treat the solid-state additive manufactured AA7050 product of Mason to achieve a tensile strength of 524 MPa because this a typical ultimate tensile strength for this material (Yoder para. spanning cols. 1-2; ASM).
Regarding claim 13, Mason in view of Yoder as evidenced by ASM discloses the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product of claim 12 as cited above, wherein the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product comprises a tensile yield strength (Fty) of at least 455 MPa (469 MPa) (Yoder para. spanning cols. 1-2; ASM p. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Mason in view of Yoder as evidenced by ASM discloses the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product of claim 13 as cited above, wherein the solid-state additive manufactured 7x50 aluminum alloy product comprises an elongation to fracture or ductility (e) of at least 11% (11%) (Yoder para. spanning cols. 1-2; ASM p. 2).
Related Art
The following US Applications are applicant’s related work and disclose substantially similar solid-state manufactured aluminum alloy product structures, but different compositions:
18/380,574 directed to a 5000-type aluminum alloy.
18/380,572 directed to a 6000-type aluminum alloy.
18/385,720 direction to an aluminum lithium alloy, aluminum copper alloy, or an aluminum lithium copper alloy.
Mallon (Mallon et al. On the effect of microstructure on the torsional response of AA7050-T7651 at elevated strain rates. Materials Science & Engineering A 639 (2015) 280-287.)
Mallon discloses an aluminum alloy 7050 plate processed by friction stir welding (2. Material and specimen geometry) to form small, equiaxed grains (4.1. Microstructural observations) with a similar tensile strength (Fig. 7).
Fang (CN 114107760 machine translation)
Fang discloses a 7XXX aluminum alloy ([n0001]) with overlapping composition ([n0009], [n0011]-[n0021]) and mechanical properties ([n0010]) and a fine equiaxed crystal matrix ([n0007], [n0022], [n0053]).
Element
Claims 1-4, 11-14
Fang Disclosure
Fang Citation
Cu
2.0 to 2.6
1.6 to 2.5
[n0014]
Mg
1.9 to 2.6
1.6 to 2.5
[n0013]
Zn
5.7 to 6.7
4.8 to 6.3
[n0012]
Zr
0.08 to 0.15
0.1 to 0.15
[n0015]
Si, Ti, Cr, Fe, or Mn
No more than 0.7
Ti: 0.01 to 0.08
[n0016]
Al
Remainder
Remainder
UTS
At least 515 MPa
610 to 710 MPa
[n0010]
TYS
At least 455 MPa
535 to 625 MPa
[n0010]
Elongation
At least 11%
13 to 16%
[n0010]
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANI HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday-Friday 7am-12pm.
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 WALKER can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
