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 and 3 are amended in view of applicant’s claim amendments filed 6/12/2026. New claims 4-5 are added. Therefore, claims 1-5 are currently under examination.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR91-0001108(KR108), and further in view of Kim et al. US 2021/0180159 A1 (Kim).
KR108 teaches an Al alloy comprising 1.30-3.00 wt% Si, 0.50-0.90 wt% Mg, up to 0.3 wt% Fe and 0.6-1.13 wt% Mn(abstract). Additionally, the claimed unavoidable impurities would have been present in the Al alloy of KR108.
Regarding claim 1, the amount of Mg in the Al alloy of KR108 reads on the amount of Mg in the claimed Al alloy. The amounts of Fe and Mn in the Al alloy of KR108 overlap the claimed amounts o Fe and Mn in the claimed Al alloy. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
However, the Si as taught by KR108 is lower than the claimed 4-12mass% as recited in claim 1.
Kim teaches an Al-Si-Mg-Fe-Mn based Al alloy, wherein the Si is present in an amount of 7.8-10.5wt% for the purpose of improving castability, abrasion resistance, thermal conductivity and strength(abstract, [0044-0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the 7.8-10.5wt% Si as taught by Kim into the Al alloy of KR108 in order to improve castability, abrasion resistance, thermal conductivity and strength as taught by Kim.
Additionally, KR108 teaches a process for producing the Al alloy, wherein main components of the Al alloy such as Si, Mg, Fe, Mn and Al are melted in a furnace to produce a molten state, which reads on the claimed raw material preparation step(i) and molten alloy preparation step (ii) as recited in claim 3. KR108 additionally teaches that the molten alloy is poured into a cast iron mold for casting(pg. 2 Example), which reads on the claimed pouring step (iii) as recited in claim 3. KR108 further teaches that the molten alloy is cooled and solidified at 500-535°C (abstract) which reads on the claimed cooling step (iv) as recited in claim 3. Additionally, KR108 further teaches artificial aging at 200-230°C for 1-3 hrs(page 1 bottom paragraph), which reads on the claimed forced aging. Since KR108 in view of Kim disclose an Al alloy that is materially significantly similar to the claimed Al alloy and undergoes a process comprising significantly similar process steps, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that the Vicker’s hardness in the produced Al alloy as taught by KR108 in view of Kim to be significantly similar to the claimed Vickers hardness and exhibits significantly similar changes as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, KR108 teaches a process for producing the Al alloy, wherein main components of the Al alloy such as Si, Mg, Fe, Mn and Al are melted in a furnace to produce a molten state, which reads on the claimed raw material preparation step(i) and molten alloy preparation step (ii). KR108 additionally teaches that the molten alloy is poured into a cast iron mold for casting(pg. 2 Example), which reads on the claimed pouring step (iii). KR108 further teaches that the molten alloy is cooled and solidified at 500-535°C (abstract) which reads on the claimed cooling step (iv). Although the cooling and solidifying time duration as taught by KR108(i.e. 1-6 hours) is higher than claimed 20-40minutes. It would have been well within the skills of an ordinary artisan to have arrived at the claimed time with routine optimization since the claimed cooling/solidifying time can be adjusted based on the size of the Al alloy product(i.e. larger product would require longer cooling/solidifying time, and vice versa). Additionally, KR108 further teaches artificial aging at 200-230°C for 1-3 hrs(page 1 bottom paragraph).
Regarding claim 2, the claimed EPMA mapping(i.e. electron probe microanalysis, aka. X-ray microanalysis) is directed to an observation method used to measure the distribution amounts of alloying elements Mg, Fe and Mn, based on the intensity of the X-ray K-α. The claimed EPMA mapping measuring method does not add any limitations to the claimed Al alloy that distinguish the Al alloy of KR108 from the claimed Al alloy. Since the Al alloy of KR108 has the same composition as claimed Al alloy and is produced by a process that is significantly similar to the claimed process, as discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 3 above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected that the Al alloy of KR108 to have significantly similar distribution of Mg, Mn and Fe, presented in terms of intensity of K-α, as claimed when being observed by EPMA mapping method as recited in claim 2, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claims 4-5, Kim further teaches that the Al alloy does not contain copper in order to ensure corrosion resistance of the Al alloy to a desired level[0057]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have removed Cu from the Al alloy of KR108 in light of the teachings of Kim in order to ensure Al alloy corrosion resistance as taught by Kim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 in the response filed 6/12/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 LOIS L ZHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-1248. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at 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.
LOIS ZHENG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/LOIS L ZHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights