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
Applicants’ election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 25 June 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the prior art does not teach a claim limitation wherein the sheet is in a o temper which is fully recrystallized. Therefore, applicant argues, the shared technical feature is a special technical feature and unity of invention is present. This is not found persuasive because the prior art is still considered to anticipate the claimed sheet as detailed below. In addition, even assuming arguendo that the prior art did not teach such a feature, the feature now added to claim 1 is not presented in the method claims, and therefore applicant’s argument that unity is present fails because the feature relied upon is not a shared feature among different inventions. Unity of invention is lacking for at least these reasons.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Status of Claims
Responsive to the amendment filed 25 June 2026, claims 1 and 7-11 are amended and claim 6 is cancelled. Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are currently under examination. Claims 12-15 are withdrawn.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. PCT/EP2022/060445, filed on 20 April 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 18 October 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed.
No copy of cited document 1, JP 2022212661 has been provided by applicant and as such this listing has been crossed off of the IDS. Only an abstract was provided in the file by applicant. Since this document anticipates claim 1, the Examiner has herein cited JP 2022212661 and provided a copy, for completeness of the record.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 18 October 2023. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The following is a quotation of 37 C.F.R. 1.74:
37 C.F.R. 1.74 Reference to drawings.
When there are drawings, there shall be a brief description of the several views of the drawings and the detailed description of the invention shall refer to the different views by specifying the numbers of the figures, and to the different parts by use of reference letters or numerals (preferably the latter).
The disclosure is objected to because it is not in compliance with 37 CFR 1.74. No brief description of the drawings is included.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 7-10 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation at least 0.605, and the claim also recites at least 0.610 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 8-10 each similarly includes multiple ranges describing the same measure, raising a question as to what scope is intended.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP2002212661A (machine translation provided; hereinafter “Sekida”).
Regarding claim 1, Sekida teaches a aluminum alloy sheet (see Abstract, [0001], or [0010]). Sekida teaches that the sheet includes overlapping amounts of Mg, Mn, Fe, Si, Cu and Cr (see claims or DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS). Sekida teaches examples of the alloy composition at Table 1, Such as Example No. 4. Sekida teaches that the examples are melted, hot rolled, annealed, cold rolled, and annealed to form sheet of 0.4 mm (see EXAMPLE), meeting the limitation of a monolithic sheet. The composition of Sekida is compared with the claimed composition in the chart below (all values in mass percent).
Element
Claim 1
Sekida (broad alloy)
Sekida No. 4 (Table 1)
Mg
Mn
Fe
Si
Cu
Cr
Zn
Zr
Ti
Impurities
Al
1.7-2.1
0.1-0.5
0.1-0.22
0.05-0.25
0.01-0.20
Up to 0.1
Up to 0.15
Up to 0.1
Up to 0.05
Up to 0.05 each/ 0.15 total
rest
1.3-2.3
0.06-0.3
0.3 or less
0.3 or less
0.06-0.3
0.06-0.3
--
--
0.2 or less
--
rest
1.70
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.20
--
--
--
--
--
rest
Sekida does not teach any amounts of Zn or Zr, reading on essentially zero of these elements. Sekida does not teach any amount of Ti or Cr in Example No 4. Sekida does not specify the amounts of impurities, also reading on essentially zero of these elements. Sekida discloses an alloy falling entirely inside the ranges as claimed, which is considered to be a 5xxx series alloy inherently. MPEP 2112.01. Additionally, the skilled artisan recognizes that the 5xxx series alloy includes Mg as the major alloying element, and therefore the limitation of a 5xxx series alloy is also met by a plain meaning of that term.
The composition of Aluminum No. 4 of Sekida falls completely within the claimed rages, anticipating the entire ranges. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2131.03.
Sekida teaches that the sheet material is processed as by hot rolling, intermediate annealing, cold rolling, and final annealing (see EXAMPLE starting at [0033]). Sekida teaches that the aluminum is final annealed at 350 C for 2 hours (see Table 2). Sekida teaches that the final annealing is performed to recrystallize the aluminum to form an “o material” (see third page of translation). The recrystallization anneal meets the limitation of an o temper with recrystallization.
Regarding claim 2, Sekida teaches 0.15% Fe in No. 4 (Table 1).
Regarding claim 5, Sekida teaches 0.2% Mn in No. 4 (Table 1).
Regarding claim 7, Sekida does not teach any value for a Lankford coefficient. Sekida teaches that the material is fully recrystallized (p. 3 of translation, Table 2). The properties not disclosed by the prior art would have been inherently present in the prior art aluminum sheet. The sheet with the same composition as claimed, processed exactly as described by applicant, and described as having the same microstructure, would have also had the same textures as claimed. MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claims 8-9, Sekida does not teach any values for the cube textures or R textures in the aluminum sheet. The sheet with the same composition as claimed, processed exactly as described by applicant, and described as having the same microstructure, would have also had the same textures as claimed. MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 10, Sekida does not describe a TYS(LT)o value for the aluminum Sekida teaches that a proof stress is 55 MPa (N/mm2) or more ([0038]-[0043]). While this is not the same as a TYS(LT)o value, it is considered to be analogous. However, the sheet with the same composition as claimed, processed exactly as described by applicant, and described as having the same microstructure, would have also had the same mechanical properties as claimed. MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 11, Sekida teaches 0.15% Fe in No. 4 (Table 1). Sekida does not teach any value for a Lankford coefficient. Sekida teaches that the material is fully recrystallized (p. 3 of translation, Table 2). The properties not disclosed by the prior art would have been inherently present in the prior art aluminum sheet. The sheet with the same composition as claimed, processed exactly as described by applicant, and described as having the same microstructure, would have also had the same textures as claimed. MPEP 2112.01.
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, and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 5050: General-Purpose Alloy, Properties and Selection of Aluminum Alloys, Vol 2B, ASM Handbook, Edited By Kevin Anderson, John Weritz, J. Gilbert Kaufman, ASM International, 2019, p 350–351, https://doi.org/10.31399/asm.hb.v02b.a0006694 (hereinafter “5050”).
Regarding claim 1, 5050 is an aluminum alloy datasheet published as a part of the ASM Handbook, a reference handbook for metallurgy. 5050 teaches a general purpose alloy designated “5050,” by definition being a 5xxx alloy. 5050 teaches that the alloy includes a composition which overlaps the claim composition (see Table 1).
The composition of 5050 is compared with the claimed composition in the chart below (all values in mass percent).
Element
Claim 1
5050
Mg
Mn
Fe
Si
Cu
Cr
Zn
Zr
Ti
Impurities
Al
1.7-2.1
0.1-0.5
0.1-0.22
0.05-0.25
0.01-0.20
Up to 0.1
Up to 0.15
Up to 0.1
Up to 0.05
Up to 0.05 each/ 0.15 total
rest
1.1-1.8
0.10 max
0.70 max
0.40 max
0.20 max
0.10 max
0.25 max
--
--
Up to 0.05 each/0.15 total
rest
The composition of 5050 overlaps the claimed composition, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to have selected a composition in the ranges as claimed because 5050 teaches the same utility over an overlapping range. Applicant is further directed to MPEP 2144.05. The adjustment of the alloying elements within the known alloy composition would have required no more than a routine investigation of the prior art.
5050 teaches that the alloy is available as sheet (see third sentence) 5050 teaches that an o-temper sheet is mechanically tested to provide mechanical properties (see Table 3). Thus 5050 describes a monolithic sheet in o temper (recrystallized) in Table 3.
Regarding claim 2, 5050 teaches an overlapping amount of Fe, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 3, 5050 teaches an overlapping amount of Cr, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 5, 5050 teaches an overlapping amount of Mn, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 7, 5050 does not describe any value of a Lankford coefficient. 5050 teaches o temper sheet with overlapping composition. The sheet having the claimed properties would have flowed naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Regarding claim 8-9, 5050 does not teach the texture properties as claimed. The sheet having the claimed properties would have flowed naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Regarding claim 10, 5050 does not describe a TYS(LT)o value for the aluminum 5050 teaches that a yield strength is 55 MPa in the o temper (Tabel 3). While this is not the same as a TYS(LT)o value, it is considered to be analogous. However, the sheet having the claimed properties would have flowed naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Regarding claim 11, 5050 does not describe any value of a Lankford coefficient. 5050 teaches o temper sheet with overlapping composition. The sheet having the claimed properties would have flowed naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekida.
Sekida is applied to the claims as stated in the anticipation rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Sekida does not teach that a Cr content is from 0.01-0.03%, Sekida teaches a value of 0.06-0.3 is a suitable amount of Cr (claims). However a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 4, Sekida does not teach wherein an amount of Ti is 0.005-0.04%. Sekida teaches that Ti may be added at 0.2% maximum in order to refine the ingot (claims, or p. 3 of translation), but does not add this to example No 4. The amount taught by Sekida overlaps the claimed amount. It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan to have added Ti in the range as claimed because Sekida teaches that the Ti addition refines the ingot (p. 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20120103476 A1 teaches an aluminum 5xxx series alloy with a close composition. .
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6510. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 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.
CHRISTOPHER S. KESSLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights