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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (Claims 1-6 and 8-16) in the reply filed on 07/06/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 7 and 17-20 are withdrawn. Claims 1-6 and 8-16 are examined herein.
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 1-6 and 8-16 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.
The term “stress corrosion cracking resistant” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “stress corrosion cracking resistant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Please also define the meaning of “LT” and “ST”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites a formula. It’s unclear why
PNG
media_image1.png
33
66
media_image1.png
Greyscale
needs to be determined because it’s not an actual aging time. Claim 4 has already recites the first aging time and temperature, which are actual aging time and temperature that determine the alloy properties. The relevance of
PNG
media_image1.png
33
66
media_image1.png
Greyscale
to the first aging conditions needs to be clarified. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 recites 2x39 alloy. Please define the meaning of “2x39” to improve claim clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6 and 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ollat (US 2024/0035137).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 15-16, Ollat discloses a method of making an aluminum alloy, comprising: first aging a AA2139 aluminum alloy at a first temperature of 160 ºC (i.e. 320 ºF) for 36 hours and second aging the AA2139 aluminum alloy at a second temperature of 120 ºC (i.e. 248 ºF) for 20 hours ([0109]; Table 9, B6), wherein the second temperature is 72°F lower than the first temperature. The aging temperature and time disclosed by Ollat meets the processing temperature and time recited in claim 1.
Table 7 of Ollat shows that the alloy contains 0.05 wt.% Si, 0.09 wt.% Fe, 4.9 wt.% Cu, 0.3 wt.% Mn, 0.5 wt.% Mg, 0.09 wt.% Ti, 0.32 wt.% Ag, <0.05 wt.% Zr and the alloy does not contain Li, Zn and Cr ([0109]). Ollat discloses that the content of impurities for each element is ≤0.05 wt. % (Abstract), which meets the limitation that the aluminum alloy comprises less than 0.05 wt. % Li as recited in claim 1. The alloy disclosed by Ollat meets the composition limitation recited in claims 15 and 16.
Ollat discloses that the alloy has improved resistance to corrosion under stress ([0111]), which meets the limitation recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Ollat discloses after the first aging step, cooling the aluminum alloy to room temperature; and reheating the aluminum alloy from room temperature to the second temperature of the second aging step ([0095]; Fig. 2), which meets the limitation recited in claim 6.
Regarding claim 8, Ollat discloses a method of making the alloy, comprising: preparing a wrought 2139 aluminum alloy by hot rolling; and then solution heat treating and then quenching the aluminum alloy; and then completing the first aging step and the second aging step ([0109] to [0111]), which meets the limitation recited in claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Ollat discloses casting the 2139 aluminum alloy as a billet, hot rolling the billet to a final thickness of 120 mm ([0063]; [0064]; [0109]), which meets the limitation recited in claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Ollat discloses the working further comprises cold working ([0067]), which meets the limitation recited in claim 10.
Regarding claims 11-14, Ollat does not disclose the property limitations recited in claims 11-14. However, the corrosion resistant properties under stress are determined by the alloy composition and a method of making the alloy. In view of the fact that Ollat teaches an alloy having composition that meets the recited composition in claim 15 and a method of making the alloy that meets the recited method in claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the alloy disclosed by Ollat to have the recited properties in claim 11-14. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ollat (US 2024,0035137).
Regarding claim 3, Ollat discloses a method of making an aluminum alloy, comprising: first aging a AA2139 aluminum alloy at a first temperature of 160 ºC (i.e. 320 ºF) for 36 hours and second aging the AA2139 aluminum alloy at a second temperature of 120 ºC (i.e. 248 ºF) for 20 hours ([0109]; Table 9, B6), which is close to the recited temperature in claim 3. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 I. Thus, claim 3 is obvious over Ollat.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Ollat discloses a method of making an aluminum alloy, comprising: first aging a AA2139 aluminum alloy at a first temperature of 160 ºC (i.e. 320 ºF) for 36 hours and second aging the AA2139 aluminum alloy at a second temperature of 120 ºC (i.e. 248 ºF) for 20 hours ([0109]; Table 9, B6), which meets the recited temperature and time in claim 4. Ollat discloses the recited formula in claim 4 but 160 ºC (i.e. 320 ºF) (see [0071]). Note °C = (°F − 32) x 5/9. Since Ollat teaches the recited temperature and time for the first aging that meet the recited temperature and time in claim 4, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the calculated
PNG
media_image1.png
33
66
media_image1.png
Greyscale
based on the formula would meet the recited range in claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xiaowei Su whose telephone number is (571)272-3239. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00.
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 at 5712721401. 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.
/XIAOWEI SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights