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 the Claims Claims 1-19 are pending and are currently under examination. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claims 6, 8, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. With respect to the recitation “comprises zinc in amount of at least about 0.1 wt%” in claim 6, there is no upper bound to “at least about” and claim 1 requires an upper limit of “equal to about 0.5 wt%” and therefore claim 6 fails to further limit claim 1, from which it depends. With respect to the recitation “comprises silicon in an amount greater than or equal to about 0.5%” in claim 8, there is no upper bound to “greater than” and claim 1 requires an upper limit of “equal to about 1.5 wt%” and therefore claim 8 fails to further limit claim 1, from which it depends. With respect to the recitation “comprises zinc in amount of at least about 0.1 wt%” in claim 12, there is no upper bound to “at least about” and claim 1 requires an upper limit of “equal to about 0.5 wt%” and therefore claim 12 fails to further limit claim 1, from which it indirectly depends. With respect to the recitation “comprises silicon in an amount greater than or equal to about 0.5%” in claim 14, there is no upper bound to “greater than” and claim 1 requires an upper limit of “equal to about 1.5 wt%” and therefore claim 14 fails to further limit claim 1, from which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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 1-3, 5-9, 15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tukeda et al. (US 2001/0026768). In regard to claim 1, Tukeda et al. (‘768) discloses magnesium base alloys having compositions relative to that of the instant invention as set forth below [0017]. Element Instant Claim (weight percent) Tukeda et al. (‘768) (mass percent) Overlap Al about 10 – 15 10 – 13 10 – 13 Zn greater than 0 – about 0.5 less than 0.8 greater than 0 – about 0.5 Si greater than 0 – about 1.5 0.3 – 1.5 0.3 – 1.5 Mg Balance Balance Balance The Examiner notes that the amounts of aluminum, zinc and silicon in the magnesium based alloys disclosed by Tukeda et al. (‘768) overlap the amounts of the instant invention, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to select the claimed amounts of aluminum, zinc, and silicon from the amounts disclosed by Tukeda et al. (‘768) because Tukeda et al. (‘768) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges. With respect to the recitation “for diecasting with reduced defects” in claim 1, the Examiner considers this a recitation of intended use that would not further limit the structure of the magnesium based alloys. MPEP 2111.02 II. In regard to claim 2, Tukeda et al. (‘768) discloses 10 to 13 mass percent aluminum [0017]. In regard to claim 3, Tukeda et al. (‘768) discloses 10 to 13 mass percent aluminum, which overlaps the range of the instant invention [0017]. With respect to the recitation “wherein the magnesium alloy has CSI of less than about 250” in claim 5, Tukeda et al. (‘768) discloses a substantially similar composition. Therefore, the claimed property would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I. In regard to claim 6, Tukeda et al. (‘768) discloses less than 0.8 mass percent zinc, which overlaps the range of the instant invention [0017]. MPEP 2144.05 I. In regard to claim 7, Tukeda et al. (‘768) discloses 0.3 to 1.5 mass percent silicon, which overlaps the range of the instant invention [0017]. MPEP 2144.05 I. In regard to claim 8, Tukeda et al. (‘768) discloses 0.3 to 1.5 mass percent silicon, which overlaps the range of the instant invention [0017]. MPEP 2144.05 I. In regard to claim 9, Tukeda et al. (‘768) discloses wherein the magnesium based alloys would be made by casting ([0002] and [0040]). With respect to the recitation “made by thixomolding ” in claim 9, the Examiner notes that the claims are drawn to a product and not a process. E ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, 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." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . MPEP 2113. In regard to claim 15, Tukeda et al. (‘768) discloses magnesium base alloys having compositions relative to that of the instant invention as set forth below [0017]. Element Instant Claim (weight percent) Tukeda et al. (‘768) (mass percent) Overlap Al about 10 – 15 10 – 13 10 – 13 Zn about 0.1 – 0.5 less than 0.8 about 0.1 – 0.5 Si about 0.5 – 1.0 0.3 – 1.5 about 0.5 – 1 Mg Balance Balance Balance The Examiner notes that the amounts of aluminum, zinc and silicon in the magnesium based alloys disclosed by Tukeda et al. (‘768) overlap the amounts of the instant invention, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to select the claimed amounts of aluminum, zinc, and silicon from the amounts disclosed by Tukeda et al. (‘768) because Tukeda et al. (‘768) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges. With respect to the recitation “for diecasting with reduced defects” in claim 15, the Examiner considers this a recitation of intended use that would not further limit the structure of the magnesium based alloys. MPEP 2111.02 II. With respect to the recitation “wherein the magnesium alloy has CSI of less than about 250” in claim 17, Tukeda et al. (‘768) discloses a substantially similar composition. Therefore, the claimed property would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I. In regard to claim 18, Tukeda et al. (‘768) discloses 10 to 13 mass percent aluminum [0017]. In regard to claim 19, Tukeda et al. (‘768) discloses 10 to 13 mass percent aluminum, which overlaps the range of the instant invention [0017]. Claims 1- 7 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (US 2019/0119793). In regard to claim 1, Guo et al. (‘793) discloses magnesium base alloys having compositions relative to that of the instant invention as set forth below [0012-0018]. Element Instant Claim (weight percent) Guo et al. (‘7 93 ) (weight percent) Overlap Al about 10 – 15 greater than 7.5 about 10 – 15 Zn greater than 0 – about 0.5 about 0.25 – 2.35 about 0 .25 – 0.5 Si greater than 0 – about 1.5 0 – about 0.125 greater than 0 – about 0.125 Mg Balance Balance Balance The Examiner notes that the amounts of aluminum, zinc and silicon in the magnesium based alloys disclosed by Guo et al. (‘7 93 ) overlap the amounts of the instant invention, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to select the claimed amounts of aluminum, zinc, and silicon from the amounts disclosed by Guo et al. (‘ 793 ) because Guo et al. (‘7 93 ) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges. With respect to the recitation “for diecasting with reduced defects” in claim 1, the Examiner considers this a recitation of intended use that would not further limit the structure of the magnesium based alloys. MPEP 2111.02 II. In regard to claim 2, Guo et al. (‘793) discloses at greater than 7.5 weight percent aluminum, which encompasses the range of the instant invention [0012]. In regard to claim 3, Guo et al. (‘793) discloses at greater than 7.5 weight percent aluminum, which encompasses the range of the instant invention [0012]. In regard to claim 4, Guo et al. (‘793) discloses “at most” scenarios for elements besides aluminum and magnesium (base) and as such other elements would not necessarily be required and therefore Guo et al. (‘793) would read on the claim [0012-0018]. With respect to the recitation “wherein the magnesium alloy has CSI of less than about 250” in claim 5, Guo et al. (‘793) discloses a substantially similar composition. Therefore, the claimed property would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I. In regard to claim 6, Guo et al. (‘793) discloses about 0.25 to 2.35 weight percent zinc in instances of high strength alloys [0015]. In regard to claim 7, Guo et al. (‘793) 0 to about 0.125 weight percent silicon, which is with in the range of the instant invention [0018]. In regard to claim 9, Guo et al. (‘793) discloses wherein the magnesium based alloys would be cast [0012]. With respect to the recitation “made by thixomolding ” in claim 9, the Examiner notes that the claims are drawn to a product and not a process. E ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, 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." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . MPEP 2113. In regard to claim 10, Guo et al. (‘793) discloses “at most” scenarios for elements besides aluminum and magnesium (base) and as such other elements would not necessarily be required and therefore Guo et al. (‘793) would read on the claim [0012-0018]. With respect to the recitation “wherein the magnesium alloy has CSI of less than about 250” in claim 11, Guo et al. (‘793) discloses a substantially similar composition. Therefore, the claimed property would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I. In regard to claim 12, Guo et al. (‘793) discloses about 0.25 to 2.35 weight percent zinc in instances of high strength alloys [0015]. In regard to claim 13, Guo et al. (‘793) 0 to about 0.125 weight percent silicon, which is with in the range of the instant invention [0018]. Claims 1- 2 and 4-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regazzoni et al. (US 4,997,622). In regard to claim 1, Regazzoni et al. (‘622) discloses magnesium base alloys having compositions relative to that of the instant invention as set forth below (column 2). Element Instant Claim (weight percent) Regazzoni et al. (‘ 622 ) (weight percent) Overlap Al about 10 – 15 2 – 11 about 10 – 11 Zn greater than 0 – about 0.5 0 – 12 >0 – about 0.5 Si greater than 0 – about 1.5 0.1 – 0.6 0.1 – 0.6 Mg Balance Balance Balance The Examiner notes that the amounts of aluminum, zinc and silicon in the magnesium based alloys disclosed by Regazzoni et al. (‘622) overlap the amounts of the instant invention, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to select the claimed amounts of aluminum, zinc, and silicon from the amounts disclosed by Regazzoni et al. (‘622) because Regazzoni et al. (‘622) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges. With respect to the recitation “for diecasting with reduced defects” in claim 1, the Examiner considers this a recitation of intended use that would not further limit the structure of the magnesium based alloys. MPEP 2111.02 II. In regard to claim 2, Regazzoni et al. (‘622) discloses 2 to 11 weight percent aluminum, which overlaps the range of the instant invention (column 2). In regard to claim 4, Regazzoni et al. (‘622) does not require the presence of elements in addition to those specified in the claim and therefore reads on the claim (column 2). With respect to the recitation “wherein the magnesium alloy has CSI of less than about 250” in claim 5, Regazzoni et al. (‘622) discloses a substantially similar composition. Therefore, the claimed property would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I. In regard to claim 6, Regazzoni et al. (‘622) discloses 0 to 12 weight percent zinc, which overlaps the range of the instant invention (column 2). MPEP 2144.05 I. In regard to claim 7, Regazzoni et al. (‘622) discloses 0.2 to 0.6 weight percent silicon, which is within the range of the instant invention (column 2). In regard to claim 8, Regazzoni et al. (‘622) discloses 0.2 to 0.6 weight percent silicon, which overlaps the range of the instant invention (column 2). MPEP 2144.05 I. In regard to claim 9, Regazzoni et al. (‘622) discloses rapid solidification casting (column 2). With respect to the recitation “made by thixomolding ” in claim 9, the Examiner notes that the claims are drawn to a product and not a process. E ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, 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." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . MPEP 2113. In regard to claim 10, Regazzoni et al. (‘622) does not require the presence of elements in addition to those specified in the claim and therefore reads on the claim (column 2). With respect to the recitation “wherein the magnesium alloy has CSI of less than about 250” in claim 11, Regazzoni et al. (‘622) discloses a substantially similar composition. Therefore, the claimed property would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I. In regard to claim 12, Regazzoni et al. (‘622) discloses 0 to 12 weight percent zinc, which overlaps the range of the instant invention (column 2). MPEP 2144.05 I. In regard to claim 13, Regazzoni et al. (‘622) discloses 0.2 to 0.6 weight percent silicon, which is within the range of the instant invention (column 2). In regard to claim 14, Regazzoni et al. (‘622) discloses 0.2 to 0.6 weight percent silicon, which overlaps the range of the instant invention (column 2). MPEP 2144.05 I. In regard to claim 15, Regazzoni et al. (‘622) discloses magnesium base alloys having compositions relative to that of the instant invention as set forth below (column 2). Element Instant Claim (weight percent) Regazzoni et al. (‘ 622 ) (weight percent) Overlap Al about 10 – 15 2 – 11 about 10 – 11 Zn about 0.1 – 0.5 0 – 12 about 0.1 – 0.5 Si about 0.5 – 1 0.1 – 0.6 about 0.5 – 0.6 Mg Balance Balance Balance The Examiner notes that the amounts of aluminum, zinc and silicon in the magnesium based alloys disclosed by Regazzoni et al. (‘622) overlap the amounts of the instant invention, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to select the claimed amounts of aluminum, zinc, and silicon from the amounts disclosed by Regazzoni et al. (‘622) because Regazzoni et al. (‘622) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges. With respect to the recitation “for diecasting with reduced defects” in claim 15, the Examiner considers this a recitation of intended use that would not further limit the structure of the magnesium based alloys. MPEP 2111.02 II. In regard to claim 16, Regazzoni et al. (‘622) does not require the presence of elements in addition to those specified in the claim and therefore reads on the claim (column 2). With respect to the recitation “wherein the magnesium alloy has CSI of less than about 250” in claim 17, Regazzoni et al. (‘622) discloses a substantially similar composition. Therefore, the claimed property would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I. In regard to claim 18, Regazzoni et al. (‘622) discloses 2 to 11 weight percent aluminum, which overlaps the range of the instant invention (column 2). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Patel, H. A., et al. "Microstructure and tensile properties of thixomolded magnesium alloys." Journal of alloys and Compounds 496.1-2 (2010): 140-148. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Jessee Roe whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5938 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday thru Friday 7:30 am to 4 pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Curt Mayes can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1234 . 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. /JESSEE R ROE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759