DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Note
This office action is in response to applicants’ amendments to the claims and remarks filed September 9, 2025. Claims 1-9 are pending with claims 8 and 9 being new.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6 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 Fenton et al. (US Patent 8,813,827).
Regarding applicants’ claim 1, Fenton et al. disclose direct chill casting of aluminum ingots (col. 1 lines 15-25 and 35-39), the aluminum mass comprising a molten core and a solid outer shell (figure 3A and col. 6 lines 29-37), where the molten region is understood to solidify to be a core region and the shell region being an outer region with an outer surface. Fenton et al. do not appear to explicitly disclose a high-strength zone having a higher concentration of dispersoids than each of the core region and the outer region. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect substantially identical materials treated in a substantially identical manner to result in articles with substantially identical structures.
Applicants’ disclose a process comprising forming an embryonic ingot by supplying molten metal to a mold and extracting heat from the molten metal to form an external solid shell; solidifying an internal molten core of the embryonic ingot as the embryonic ingot is advanced, wherein solidifying the internal molten core comprises extracting heat from the internal molten core through the external solid shell; and continuously forming a high-strength zone within the external solid shell at a cross section of the embryonic ingot that is perpendicular to the direction of advancement and that intersects the internal molten core wherein forming the high-strength zone includes reheating the external solid shell at the cross section to induce dispersoid precipitation in the external solid shell. Applicants further disclose that “reheating of the embryonic ingot for in-situ homogenization may generally occur by decreasing the amount of heat extraction occurring at the surface of the embryonic ingot and allowing the latent heat of the ingot, especially that of the molten sump, to reheat the exterior of the ingot.” See present specification at paragraphs 0014 and 0055.
Fenton et al. disclose a method of casting a metal ingot, comprising supplying molten metal from at least one source to a region where the molten metal is peripherally confined and forming an embryonic ingot having an external solid shell and an internal molten core; advancing the embryonic ingot in a direction of advancement away from the region where the molten metal is peripherally confined while supplying additional molten metal to the region, thereby extending the molten core contained within the solid shell beyond the region; providing direct cooling to the embryonic ingot by directing a supply of a first coolant liquid in a first amount onto an outer surface of the embryonic ingot emerging from the region where the metal is peripherally confined at a first amount; removing the first coolant liquid from the outer surface of the embryonic ingot at a first location along the outer surface of the ingot where a cross-section of the ingot perpendicular to the direction of advancement intersects a portion of the molten core such that internal heat from the molten core reheats the solid shell adjacent to the molten core after removing the first coolant. See col. 4 lines 10-35.
Given that Fenton et al. disclose a process substantially identical to applicants’ disclosed process including the use of latent heat to reheat the exterior of the ingot, the ingot of Fenton et al. would be expected to have a structure substantially identical to applicants’ disclosed ingot, including a high strength zone having a higher concentration of dispersoids than either the core region or outer region as claimed.
Regarding applicants’ claim 2, Fenton et al. disclose a direct cooling process which includes internal heat from the molten core which is used to reheat the shell (considered retained heat from a direct chill casting process). See col. 4 lines 26-33.
Regarding applicants’ claims 3 and 4, for those reasons as provided for above with respect to claim 1, the structure of the ingot of Fenton et al. is expected to be substantially identical to the structure of applicants’ disclosed ingot, which would include the location of the high strength zone as claimed.
Regarding applicants’ claim 6, Fenton et al. depict an ingot cross section which is rectangular (figure 3A, 10B, 11B, etc…).
Claims 5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fenton et al. (US Patent 8,813,827).
Regarding applicants’ claim 5, Fenton et al. disclose an ingot as discussed above with respect to claim 1 where the ingot is depicted with a generally rectangular shape, but do not appear to explicitly limit the shape of the ingot. Fenton et al. disclose adjusting the shape of the coolant spray to produce an even distribution of coolant across the surface of the ingot (col. 10 lines 31-40). The selection of a cross-section shape of the ingot is within the ordinary level of skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to select a shape for the ingot, particularly regular shapes by which the coolant can be evenly distributed, such as circular. Further a change in shape that has no functional significance is not found to establish a patentable distinction absent a showing that the claimed shape is critical in obtaining a particular effect. MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
Regarding applicants’ claim 7, Fenton et al. disclose the process as it relates to processing aluminum alloys (col. 1 lines 15-59) but does not appear to disclose the production of ingots of specific aluminum compositions. The examiner takes official notice that 7xxx series aluminum alloys are well known commercial aluminum alloys which may contain elements such as zinc, magnesium, and copper. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select known commercially available aluminum alloys as the aluminum alloys for use in the process of Fenton et al. including the use of 7xxx series aluminum alloys, where it is within the ordinary level of skill in the art to apply known processes to known materials. Further. there is a reasonable expectation of success where the process of Fenton et al. is not limited specifically to aluminum, and with respect to aluminum, Fenton et al. does not disclose limits with regards to the types of aluminum alloys used.
Regarding applicants’ claims 8 and 9, Fenton et al. do not appear to explicitly disclose the diameter of the dispersoids or the dispersoids have a concentration in the high strength zone that is 0.5 standard deviations over the average of the entire ingot. However substantially identical materials treated in a substantially identical manner are expected to have substantially identical structures. Even where specific aluminum alloy compositions and/or reheating parameters are necessary to achieve the claimed structure, the compositions and parameters disclosed by Fenton et al. overlap those disclosed by applicants’. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select an aluminum alloy and reheating parameters within the disclosure of Fenton et al. including values which are substantially identical to those disclosed by applicants. For at least a subset of aluminum alloy products disclosed by Fenton et al. which have compositions and reheating parameters substantially to applicants, the products of Fenton et al. would be expected to be substantially identical to applicants’ products, including dispersoid diameters and concentration dispersions within, or at least overlapping, applicants’ claimed ranges.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed September 9, 2025 have been considered but have not been found to be persuasive.
Applicants argue that the treatments disclosed by Fenton and applicants are not the same and therefore the claimed dispersoid distribution would not be inherent to the products of Fenton. Applicants argue that Fenton teaches away from rebound/reheating temperatures below 425ºC and state that when in-situ precipitation is used, a later homogenization step may be performed for a reduced time. Applicants state that the record establishes that the importance of processing at lower temperatures compared to the temperatures of Fenton of at least 425ºC. However applicants’ specification and evidence do not appear to establish that temperatures below 425ºC are necessary to achieve the claimed dispersoid distribution. Once a reference teaching a product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning to show inherency, the burden of production shifts to the applicant. "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same." (MPEP 2112 V).
Applicants have not presented evidence that the process disclosed by Fenton is critically different from that disclosed by applicants or that the products of Fenton necessiailty would not possess the claimed dispersoid distribution (i.e. that the products of Fenton would not possess a high concentration dispersoid region). Even if the reheating temperatures of Fenton reach levels which are shown to result in produces with distinct dispersoid distributions, the full scope of Fenton is considered including reheating temperatures as low as 425ºC. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select reheating parameters from within those disclosed by Fenton including those that at least overlap applicants’ disclosed parameters. Therefore for at least where the temperatures disclosed by Fenton fall within those disclosed by applicants the dispersoid distribution would be expected to be substantially identical. Absent a showing that the critical parameters of Fenton fall outside the limits established by applicants’ specification, the evidence is found sufficient to shift the burden to applicants do demonstrate that the products of Fenton do not possess the claimed distribution.
Applicants argue that certain challenges arise when selecting a 7000 series aluminum alloys and point to support within the present specification. However applicants’ discussion of issues concerning 7000 series alloys does not arise to a teaching away. Further applicants’ specification is not evidence that before the filing date of applicants’ claimed invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the disclosure of Fenton to fail when employing a 7000 series alloy. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select known commercially available aluminum alloys as the aluminum alloys for use in the process of Fenton et al. including the use of 7000 series aluminum alloys, where it is within the ordinary level of skill in the art to apply known processes to known materials. Further. there is a reasonable expectation of success where the process of Fenton et al. is not limited specifically to aluminum, and where Matsumoto et al. (PGPub US 2018/0023174) suggest that before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention, direct-chill casting would be considered a common technique by which 7000 series alloys may be processed (paragraph 0092).
For these reasons, and for those reasons as provided for in the rejections above, the claims are not found to distinguish over Fenton and the rejections of record have been maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ADAM C KRUPICKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7086. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5pm 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/Adam Krupicka/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784