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 with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 12/16/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that both the International Bureau and the International Searching Authority determined that original claims 1-11 are properly examined together as a single invention and in national stage cases where unity of invention has already been determined, the Office is precluded from independently revisiting the inquiry. This is not found persuasive because the MPEP states: “If the examiner finds that a national stage application lacks unity of invention under § 1.475, the examiner may in an Office action require the applicant in the response to that action to elect the invention to which the claims shall be restricted”. See MPEP 1893.03 (d). Since there is no special technical feature among Group I to Group III as set forth in Office Action dated 11/05/2025, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9-11 are withdrawn. Claims 1-8 are examined herein.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “impurities < 0.05 each and <0.15 total, remainder aluminum.” in the last line, which should be “the balance being Al and impurities limited to less than 0.05 each and less than 0.15 in total.”
Claim 4 recites “Mg: 0,9-1.1, which should be Mg: 0.9-1.1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8 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.
Claim 1 recites “A sheet comprising an aluminum alloy, said alloy comprising, by weight %” in line 1-2, it’s unclear the recited composition is the composition of the sheet or the composition of the aluminum alloy. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7 and 8 recite “TYS” and “A%”. Please define the meaning of “TYS” and “A%” to improve claim clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merchant (US 4,526,625), and further in view of Siles (US 2019/0345586).
Regarding claims 1-6, Merchant discloses (Col. 12, Ln 19-68; Table XV, Alloy B) a sheet made of 3004 aluminum alloy having composition that meets the recited composition in claims 1-6.
Merchant is silent on the impurity content. However, the recited impurity content in claim 1 is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art in 3004 aluminum alloy as evidenced by Siles. Siles discloses that the impurity content in 3004 aluminum alloy is limited to 0.05 wt% each and 0.15 wt% in total (Table 1, AA3004). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to limit impurities to 0.05wt% each and 0.15 wt% in total as taught by Siles in the 3004 aluminum alloy of Merchant in order to make an aluminum sheet having good mechanical properties.
Element
Claim 1
(mass %)
Merchant
(mass %)
Overlap
(mass %)
Mg
0.8-1.3
0.9
0.9
Mn
0.8-1.2
0.96
0.96
Cu
0.05–0.3
0.15
0.15
Cr
0.05-0.30
0.25
0.25
Fe
0-0.4
0.35
0.35
Si
0-0.3
0.13
0.13
Zn
0-0.25
0.06
0.06
Ti
0-0.15
0
0
Fe + Impurities
Balance
Balance
Balance
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN’776 (CN102703776, IDS dated 08/21/2023), and further in view of Siles (US 2019/0345586).
Regarding claims 1-6, CN’776 discloses (Abstract; [0004] to [0012]) a sheet made of 3104 aluminum alloy with a composition that overlaps with the instant claimed composition and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected amounts of each element from the ranges disclosed in CN’776 to produce an aluminum sheet that meets the recited composition in claims 1-6. CN’776 discloses an example containing 0.35 wt% Si, 0.3 wt% Fe, 0.1 wt% Cu, 0.9 wt% Mn, 1.2 wt% Mg, 0.2 wt% Cr, 0.1 wt% Ti, 0.09 wt% Zn, and the balance being Al (Example 3), which meet the recited amount of Fe, Cu, Mn, Mg, Cr, Ti, Zn and close to the recited amount of Si. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Similarly, 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). Thus, the recited composition is a prima facie case of obviousness over CN’776. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
CN’776 is silent on the impurity content as recited in claim 1. However, the recited impurity content in claim 1 is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art in 3104 aluminum alloy as evidenced by Siles. Siles discloses that the impurity content in 3104 aluminum alloy is limited to 0.05 wt% each and 0.15 wt% in total (Table 1, AA3104). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to limit impurities to 0.05wt% each and 0.15 wt% in total as taught by Siles in the 3104 aluminum alloy of CN’776 in order to make an aluminum sheet having good mechanical properties.
Element
Claim 1
(mass %)
CN’776
(mass %)
Overlap
(mass %)
Mg
0.8-1.3
1.1-1.25
1.1-1.25
Mn
0.8-1.2
0.8-1.0
0.8-1.0
Cu
0.05–0.3
0-0.25
0.05-0.25
Cr
0.05-0.30
0.12-0.30
0.12-0.30
Fe
0-0.4
0.3-0.7
0.3-0.4
Si
0-0.3
0.2-0.5
0.2-0.3
Zn
0-0.25
<0.1
<0.1
Ti
0-0.15
0-0.25
0-0.15
Fe + Impurities
Balance
Balance
Balance
Regarding claims 7 and 8, CN’776 does not explicitly disclose yield strength and elongation of the aluminum alloy as recited in claims 7 and 8. However, these property limitations are determined by the alloy composition and a method of making the alloy sheet.
CN’776 discloses a method to make an aluminum sheet, comprising casting a slab, homogenizing the slab at a temperature of at least 560-610 °C, hot rolling the homogenized slab to an intermediate rolled product having a thickness from 3 to 6 mm, cold rolling the intermediate rolled product into a sheet, annealing the cold-rolled sheet at a temperature from 300° C to 360° C and tension leveling the sheet with a stretching of 0-1% (Claim 2), which meets the processing temperatures recited in claim 9 and overlaps the recited tension leveling percentage in claim 9. In view of the fact that CN’776 in view of Siles teaches an alloy composition that meets the recited composition in claim 1 and a method of making the aluminum sheet that is substantially identical to the method recited in claim 9, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the aluminum sheet disclosed by CN’776 in view of Siles to meet the recited property limitations in claims 7 and 8. “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.
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