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 .
The amendment filed 3/30/2026 has been entered. Claims 6 and 16 have been canceled. New claims 21-24 have been added. Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-24 are pending in the application. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Interpretation
Consistent with MPEP § 2111, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation wherein “the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” However, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 f.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993.) It is also noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is further noted that product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “Even 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 art product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed. Cir. 1985.)
Lastly, as stated in MPEP § 2112.01:
“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). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Claims were directed to a titanium alloy containing 0.2-0.4% Mo and 0.6-0.9% Ni having corrosion resistance. A Russian article disclosed a titanium alloy containing 0.25% Mo and 0.75% Ni but was silent as to corrosion resistance. The Federal Circuit held that the claim was anticipated because the percentages of Mo and Ni were squarely within the claimed ranges. The court went on to say that it was immaterial what properties the alloys had or who discovered the properties because the composition is the same and thus must necessarily exhibit the properties.)”
With the above in mind it is noted that independent claims 1, 11, and 20 now recite that the aluminum alloy composition is one “comprising” (claims 1 and 11) or that “comprises” (claim 20): “a first component comprising recycled material; and a second component comprising non-recycled material, wherein the non-recycled material comprises prime aluminum, wherein the prime aluminum comprises less than or equal to 0.16 [wt. % Si] and less than or equal to 0.25 wt. % [Fe]; wherein the aluminum alloy composition comprises a recycled content of at least 30%, wherein the recycled content is calculated by dividing an amount, by mass, of the first component by a sum of the amount, by mass, of the first component and an amount, by mass, of the second component” (emphasis added); however, as broadly discussed in the prior office action (see paragraph 4 which is incorporated herein by reference), given the open-transitional terms of “comprising” and “comprises”, the claimed “first component” is not required to consist of only recycled material nor is the claimed “second component” required to consist of only non-recycled material, and in fact, the “second component” is not required to be different from the claimed “first component” in chemical composition and/or recycled content. Hence, the claimed “first component” may also comprise non-recycled material while the claimed “second component” may also comprise recycled material such that the claimed “recycled content” as now recited in the claims with respect to an amount of the “first component” (which is not limited to recycled material) divided by a sum of the amount of the first component (which again is not limited to recycled material) and an amount of the second component (which is not limited to non-recycled material) may not necessarily be the actual “content of recycled material” in the aluminum alloy composition based upon a sum, by mass, of the first and second components. For example, an initial or first batch of 10 kilograms (kg) of aluminum alloy composition comprising 15wt% of recycled pre-consumer scrap with 85wt% of prime/virgin aluminum AA1085 is mixed with a second batch of 10 kg of the identical mixed recycled/virgin composition in order to produce a 20 kg mixture from which an aluminum alloy sheet is produced by casting and rolling an ingot of said mixture, and although the final composition and final sheet only contain 15wt% of recycled scrap material in total based upon the sum of virgin and recycled scrap material, given that the first batch is equated to the claimed “first component comprising recycled material” and the second batch is equated to the claimed “second component comprising non-recycled material, wherein the non-recycled material comprises prime aluminum [i.e., virgin AA1085], wherein the prime aluminum comprises less than or equal to 0.16 wt. % Si and less than 0.25 wt. % Fe”, and that the first batch (“component”) constitutes 50wt% based upon the sum of the first and second batches (components), said final sheet and said aluminum alloy composition would meet the instantly claimed “recycled content of at least 30%” as recited in instant claims 1, 11, and 20 although not actually containing at least 30% of recycled material.
Additionally, given that the aluminum alloy composition of instant claims 1, 11, and 20 is present as a mixture of the first and second components such that the first and second components are not in separate phases within the alloy composition and cannot be readily distinguished from one another in the claimed aluminum alloy composition, i.e., are no longer recognizable as separate materials in the alloy composition and/or alloy sheet as noted in the prior office action (see paragraph 5 which is incorporated herein by reference), the Examiner again takes the position that any portion of a final aluminum alloy composition comprising a “recycled” material and a “non-recycled” material may be attributed to the claimed “first component” and similarly, any portion thereof may be attributed to the claimed “second component”, wherein the terms “recycled” and “non-recycled” as broadly recited in the claims are again considered to be product-by-process limitations in the product claims that merely refer to the source of said materials, especially given that the claims and the specification do not define, require, or recite any specific differences in the properties of the “recycled” material versus the “non-recycled” material.
It is further noted that the specification recites, “The recycled material of the first component may include, but is not limited to: remelted scrap ingot (RSI); post-industrial scrap; pre-consumer scrap; post- consumer scrap; Class I scrap; Class II scrap; Class III scrap; Class IV scrap; used beverage cans (UBCs); and combinations thereof” (emphasis added) in Paragraph 0027, and that “[a]s used herein, ‘post-industrial scrap’ refers to aluminum and aluminum alloy waste that is generated from an industrial process. For example, post-industrial scrap may be collected from an external metal processing facility or an external metal working facility. Post-industrial scrap may include aluminum sheets, cast aluminum products, aluminum wire, and other aluminum materials. The post-industrial scrap may include RSI, Class I scrap, Class Scrap II scrap, Class III scrap, and Class IV scrap” (emphasis added) in Paragraph 0028 of the specification as filed. The specification also recites, “As used herein, ‘mill scrap’ is defined as referring to scrap aluminum and aluminum alloy materials that are generated during an internal industrial process or an internal manufacturing process, including defective or rejected products, and are subsequently internally collected. The mill scrap may comprise ingot scrap, casting scrap, RSI, hot roll processing scrap, cold roll processing scrap, uncoated coil scrap, coated coil scrap, and combinations thereof. Mill scrap is not considered part of the first component or the second component.” (emphasis added) in Paragraph 0035. However, given that the instantly claimed “recycled material” of the first component is not limited to an “external metal processing facility or an external metal working facility” (as implied by the Applicant in the response dated 3/30/2026, see Section C on page 11 of the response) in light of the “For example” recitation in Paragraph 0028, and further given that the only difference between the claimed “mill scrap” (of the third component) and the “post-industrial scrap” as the claimed “recycled material” (of the first component) is whether the scrap is sourced internally versus externally, the Examiner again takes the position that the “recycled” and “mill scrap” limitations are product-by-process limitations in the product claims that as instantly claimed and broadly defined in the specification do not provide any material, compositional, or structural differences therebetween nor with respect to the resulting aluminum alloy composition and aluminum alloy sheet, especially given that the claims are directed to a final aluminum alloy composition wherein the first, second, and third components in the composition are not in separate phases within the aluminum alloy composition and cannot be readily distinguished from one another in the claimed aluminum alloy composition, i.e., are no longer recognizable as separate materials in the final aluminum alloy composition and/or alloy sheet.
Lastly, although the Examiner has withdrawn the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as recited in the prior office action, particularly in light of Applicant’s claim amendments and arguments in the response dated 3/30/2026 (see pages 10-13), the Examiner maintains her position that the “recycled”, “non-recycled”, and “mill scrap” limitations, as broadly defined and recited by the claims and specification are process limitations or product-by-process limitations in the product claims merely directed to the source(s) of the materials where the claims do not require any specific differences in composition, impurity profiles, and/or properties of the materials from said sources, and hence, only the structure implied by such source(s) has been considered in determining patentability.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-5, 8-9, 11-15, and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Siles (US2013/0068352A1). Siles discloses aluminum alloys for use in an impact extrusion manufacturing process to create shaped containers and other articles, wherein the aluminum alloys are blends of recycled scrap aluminum and relatively pure aluminum (Abstract), particularly a blend of post-industrial or post-consumer AA 3104 or 3105 or 3004 alloy recycled scrap having compositions as shown in Table 1 (“a first component comprising recycled material” as in instant claims 1, 11, and 20, and particularly “recycled material” as in instant claims 4, 14, and 22) with relatively pure aluminum of AA 1070 alloy having a composition as recited in Table 1 which comprises 0.05wt% of silicon (Si) and 0.18wt% of iron (Fe) falling within the claimed Si and Fe ranges as recited in instant 1, 7, 11, 17, and 20, such that the “ReAl” blends have compositions as recited in Tables 2-4 when using 3104, 3105, or 3004, respectively, in a percentage of 30%, 40%, 50% or 60% (Paragraphs 0022 and 0043-0048. as in instant claims 2 and 12); and given that Siles discloses that the recycled scrap aluminum, e.g., 3104, 3105, or 3004, is melted to facilitate mixing with the molten pure aluminum, e.g., 1070, to produce a molten ReAl alloy that is then cast and rolled (Paragraphs 0052-0070) as in instant claims 20-21, Siles anticipates instant claims 1-2, 4, 7, 11-12, 14, 17, and 20-22.
With respect to instant claims 3 and 13, Siles discloses that the recycled content may be post-industrial or post-consumer content (Paragraph 0022) and that a variety of scrap aluminum sources may be used as a source for the alloying element of the ReAl (Paragraph 0050), and although Siles does not specifically recite that the ReAl composition further comprises a “third component comprising mill scrap” selected from the “mill scrap” types as instantly claimed “wherein the third component is present in the aluminum alloy composition in an amount that is not more than 40 wt. %, based on 100 wt. % of the aluminum alloy composition” as instantly claimed, the Examiner again notes that the claimed “amount” of “not more than 40 wt. %” includes 0 wt. %, and thus Siles anticipates instant claim 3 as broadly claimed. Further, if the amount is meant to be an amount greater than 0 wt. % and not more than 40 wt. %, then the Examiner takes the position that the post-industrial scrap disclosed by Siles encompasses the claimed “mill scrap” and given that there is no material, structural, purity, and/or property difference(s) therebetween such that the resulting claimed composition would be the same regardless of the source of the post-industrial scrap and/or “mill scrap” material, the Examiner takes the position that the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 3 and 13 is anticipated by Siles.
With respect to instant claims 5, 8, 15, 18, and 23, Siles discloses that in one embodiment, titanium boride is added to the melted blend of aluminum alloys just prior to casting said recycled aluminum alloy or added to the aluminum scrap alloy while it is in the furnace, reading upon the claimed “further comprises an alloying element” as in instant claims 5, 15, and 23, and particularly titanium as in instant claims 8, 18, and 23 (Paragraphs 0027 and 0057; Claims 7-8 and 12-13). Hence, Siles anticipates instant claims 5, 8, 15, 18, and 23.
With respect to instant claims 9 and 19, Siles specifically discloses example wrought alloy compositions in Table 2 falling within the claimed 5xxx series aluminum alloy designation, i.e., wherein the aluminum content is less than 99% and magnesium is the primary alloying element, formed from 30wt% or more of recycled scrap material and pure aluminum AA1070. Hence, Siles anticipates instant claims 9 and 19.
Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kurth (EP3974550A1). Kurth discloses a method for producing aluminum can material, particularly in the form of aluminum can strip or sheet, from an aluminum melt that comprises at least 40wt%, preferably at least 50wt%, and in particular at least or more than 75wt% of non-UBC (used beverage can) aluminum scrap (as in instant claims 1-2, 11-12, and 20), particularly post-consumer aluminum lithographic scrap (as in claims 4, 14, and 22), particularly of ISRI code “Tablet” and/or “Tablet”, or scrap according to ISRI code Taint/Tabor, Twitch or Zorba, such that less primary material is used for providing a target composition; wherein in one embodiment, the aluminum can material is an aluminum can end material or aluminum can tab material having a composition according to a 5xxx aluminum alloy, particularly 5182 aluminum alloy (as in new claim 24; Entire document, particularly Paragraphs 0001-0004, 0006, 0009, 0016-0017, 0021-0028, and Claims 1-7). Kurth discloses that the “rest of the melt may be provided, for example, by melting primary aluminium [i.e., “second component”] or aluminium alloys, other alloying material, e.g. alloying material containing particular alloying elements such as Mg, Mn, Ti etc. [i.e., “alloying element”], and even a certain amount of UBC scrap if desired,” wherein the “selection of materials and their respective amounts melted to provide the melt are in particular selected such that the desired composition of the melt is achieved;” for example, in order to provide a melt with a 5xxx alloy composition, in particular 5182 aluminum alloy, alloying material comprising Mg and/or Mn may be added to provide the melt (Paragraphs 0010 and 0019). Kurth discloses that the aluminum can material is produced by first melting the aluminium lithography scrap material (12), which may primarily or essentially completely consist of scrap pieces of 1xxx alloys, in a melting furnace (15), optionally with other aluminum scrap material (13) and further alloying material (14) to produce an aluminum melt (11) (as in instant claim 21) wherein the scrap material (12) preferably makes up at least 40wt%, more preferably at least 50wt%, and in particular at least or more than 75wt% of the melt (11); casting the melt (11) to form an ingot (21); and rolling the ingot (21) to form a strip (42,52) (as in instant claim 20); wherein the further alloying material (14) “may in particular comprise primary aluminium or aluminium alloys or other alloying element containing material, e.g. Mg and/or Mn containing alloying material, to match the target specification of the melt 11, which for can end material is preferably a 5xxx aluminium alloy, in particular 5182 aluminium alloy” with a target composition as recited in Paragraph 0079 (Paragraphs 0012, 0018, 0038-0039, and 0076-0081); and given that Kurth clearly discloses that the further alloying material (14) particularly comprises “primary aluminium or aluminium alloys” wherein the “primary aluminium” disclosed by Kurth (versus “aluminium alloys”) would read upon the claimed “prime aluminum” including with Si and Fe contents as instantly claimed given that said “primary aluminium” (vs. aluminium alloys) would only contain Si and Fe in impurity amounts, the Examiner takes the position that Kurth discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to anticipate instant claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-24.
With respect to instant claims 3 and 13, the Examiner first notes that the claimed range encompasses 0wt% and hence the claimed “third component” is not in the aluminum alloy composition and hence Kurth also anticipates instant claims 3 and 13. If instant claims 3 and 13 are meant to include the claimed “third component” in an amount of greater than 0wt% and not more than 40wt%, based on 100 wt% of the aluminum alloy composition, then it is again noted that the recited “mill scrap” is a product-by-process limitation in the product claim and provides no additional structural or material limitations to the claimed final product(s) to clearly differentiate the claimed final aluminum alloy sheet or final aluminum alloy composition from the aluminium alloy sheet or aluminium alloy composition disclosed by Kurth. Further, given that Kurth clearly discloses that the lithographic printing plates for use as the aluminium lithographic scrap may be before or after use, and more particularly discloses that the lithographic scrap may in particular comprise or consist of scrap according to the ISRI code “Tablet” and/or “Tabloid” wherein “Tablet” scrap in post-consumer scrap, and thus, from the standpoint of significantly reducing the waste of resources, preferably more scrap according to ISRI code “Tablet” than “Tabloid” is used to provide the melt, with preferably at least 40wt%, more preferably at least 50wt%, and particularly at least or more than 75wt% of the melt is “Tablet” scrap (Paragraphs 0020-0026), the Examiner takes the position that Kurth discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to anticipate instant claims 3 and 13.
With respect to instant claim 10, Kurth discloses that the resulting strip or aluminum can end material may comprise a coating (Paragraphs 0035, 0038-0039, and 0080), and that the aluminum can end material, in particular can end strip, has a yield strength of between 310 MPa (45 ksi) and 380 MPa (55.1 ksi) (falling within the claimed 45 ksi to 57 ksi range), which is a suitable yield strength for using the aluminum can end material for producing can ends (Paragraphs 0030-0033); or for aluminum can tab material, between 290 MPa (42 ksi) and 390 MPa (56.6 ksi) (encompassing the claimed 45 ksi to 57 ksi range) which is a suitable yield strength for using the aluminum can tab material for producing can tabs (Paragraphs 0042-0045). Hence, Kurth discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to anticipate instant claim 10.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 9, 11-12, 14, 17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peterson (Recycling of Automotive Wrought Alloys). Peterson discloses the use of scrap aluminum, particularly post-manufacturing scrap 5182, 5754, 6022, and 6111, as feedstock for producing automotive body sheet (ABS) alloys if the scrap was returned by the panel producer to an aluminum company for credit to reduce cost and used to produce new rolling ingots (thus “external” post-industrial scrap reading upon the claimed “recycled material” of instant claims 1, 11, and 20, and particularly as in instant claims 4, 14, and 22; Abstract, pp. 1024-1026). Peterson discloses that although none of the four alloys are compatible at a 100% substitution rate, “[w]ith enough dilution almost any alloy can be used in the production of another” and specifically discloses a breakdown for using one ABS alloy as a source material for production of a second ABS alloy and the amount of source alloy that could be tolerated when utilizing two different prime metal sources, P1020A or P0506A having a composition as in Table 1 (reading upon the claimed second component comprising non-recycled material, wherein the non-recycled material comprises prime aluminum, and wherein the prime aluminum comprise Si and Fe in contents as in instant claims 1, 7, 11, 17, and 20), with one example utilizing a maximum of 71.4% of scrap 6022 with P1020 as the diluent to produce 6011 (reading upon the claimed recycled content as in instant claims 1-2, 11-12, and 20), while in another example a maximum of 71.8% of scrap 5182 can be blended with P1020 or P0506 to produce 5754 (also reading upon the claimed recycled content as in instant claims 1-2, 11-12, and 20 as well as the 5xxx series alloy of instant claims 9 and 19), and given that Peterson clearly discloses that the scrap and prime feedstocks would be melted and blended as in instant claim 21, and then cast and rolled as in instant claim 20 (Entire document, particularly Abstract, pp. 1024, 1026, Fig. 4), the Examiner takes the position that Peterson discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to anticipate instant claims 1-2, 4, 7, 9, 11-12, 14, 17, and 19-22.
Further, with respect to instant claims 3 and 13, given that an amount of the third component comprising “mill scrap” may be 0wt% based on 100 wt% of the aluminum alloy composition, and that if the third component comprising the “mill scrap” is meant to be present in an amount of greater than 0wt%, then it is again noted that the claimed “mill scrap” is a process limitation in the product claim that does not provide any additional structural or material limitations to the claimed aluminum alloy sheet and aluminum alloy composition to differentiate the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 3 and 13 from the aluminum alloy sheet and aluminum alloy composition disclosed by Peterson. Hence, Peterson also anticipates instant claims 3 and 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 10 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siles (US2013/0068352A1) as applied above to claims 1-5, 8-9, 11-15, and 17-23 and further discussed below.
The teachings of Siles are discussed in detail above and incorporated herein by reference, wherein Siles teaches an aluminum alloy composition produced from a blend of approximately 10-60% of recycled scrap, particularly 3105, 3004, 3003, 3103, 3013, or 3104 aluminum alloy; with 0-90% of relatively pure aluminum alloy, particularly 1070 or 1050 alloy, with exemplified compositions comprising 20% to 60% of 3104, 3105, or 3004, mixed with pure/virgin 1070; and given that Siles specifically teaches that the (final) aluminum alloy composition comprises: at least about 97 wt. % Al; at least about 0.10 wt. % Si; at least about 0.25 wt. % Fe; at least about 0.05 wt. % Cu; at least about 0.07 wt. % Mn; and at least about 0.05 wt. % Mg (Claim 1), which reads upon the composition of the claimed AA 5182, the claimed AA 5182 as recited in instant claim 24 would have been obvious over the teachings of Siles.
Further, given that Siles also teaches that the alloy composition may be utilized for producing containers such as beverage containers, wherein the interior and/or exterior of the container may be coated, and generally teaches that the composition and working of the alloy composition may be adjusted and/or conducted to provide desired properties including yield strength and ductility (Entire document, particularly Paragraphs 0002, 0067, 0084-0088, and 0093), the Examiner takes the position that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 10 would have been obvious over the teachings of Siles, particularly given that the composition taught by Siles encompasses AA 5182 as discussed above, which is a conventional aluminum alloy for use in producing beverage can ends which typically require yield strength properties as instantly claimed (as evidenced by Kurth, discussed in detail above).
Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurth as applied above, wherein although the Examiner is of the position that the reference is anticipatory for the reasons discussed in detail above, the Examiner alternatively takes the position that the claimed invention would have been obvious over the teachings of Kurth given that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize any known “primary aluminium or aluminium alloys” of high degree of purity in the invention taught by Kurth to provide the desired target alloy composition, particularly AA 5182, when blended with the at least 40wt%, preferably at least 50wt% non-UBC aluminum scrap material, such that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-24 would have been obvious over the teachings of Kurth, given that it is prima facie obviousness to simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results and one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize routine experimentation to determine the optimum content of each scrap and/or primary aluminum or aluminum alloy to provide the desire target composition for a particular end use, including AA 5182 for beverage can ends or tabs
Double Patenting
Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 as well as new claims 21-23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 10-15, 18-19, 21, 23-26, and 28-30 of copending Application No. 18/107727 (reference application), for generally the reasons recited in the prior office action and incorporated herein by reference, wherein with respect to new claim 21, given that copending claims 1 or 18 or 19 or 21 recite first and second components as instantly claimed and that melting and blending prior to casting would have been obvious steps in the art, new claim 21 would have been obvious over copending claims 1 or 18 or 19 or 21 for the same reasons as discussed in the prior office action with respect to instant claim 20; while the limitations of new claim 22 are encompassed by copending claim 4 or 35 (which are dependent upon copending claims 1 and 18, respectively), and the limitations of new claim 23 are encompassed by copending claim 5 such that new claims 22 and 23 would have been similarly obvious over the copending claims for the same reasons as discussed in the prior office action with respect to instant claim 20 over copending claim 1 or 18.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/30/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. With respect to the obviousness-type double patenting rejection, Applicant’s deferral is acknowledged.
Any objection or rejection not restated above has been withdrawn by the Examiner in light of Applicant’s claim amendments and arguments filed 3/30/2026.
Citation of pertinent prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kang (US2025/0277294A1) discloses high-strength aluminum alloys for can end stock similar to traditional AA5182 aluminum alloys, wherein the alloys comprise at least 40wt% of recycled aluminum alloy scrap materials and less than 30wt% of primary aluminum that includes about at least 99.7wt% aluminum. Schlüter (US2025/0236932A1) discloses an aluminum alloy, an aluminum strip made from the alloy, and a method for producing such an aluminum strip, wherein the aluminum alloy has a composition containing (wt.%): 0.03≤Si≤0.6, 0.15≤Fe≤0.8, 0.02≤Cu≤0.25, 0.20≤Mn≤1.4, 3.0≤Mg≤5.0, Cr≤0.1, Zn≤0.25, Ti≤0.10, impurities individually max. 0.05, in total max. 0.15, and remainder aluminum; and is produced from an aluminum melt (114) formed by melting old scrap (115) such as UBC scrap or other market-available scrap; production scrap (116) such as trimming scrap produced during the production of the strip; primary aluminum (117) and additives (118), wherein the amount of old scrap (115) is at least 5wt%, preferably at least 30wt% of the molten aluminum (114).
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 MONIQUE R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Thursdays from 10:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/MONIQUE R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights