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 .
Claim Status
Applicants’ August 06, 2026 response to the February 2026 Non Final Rejection is acknowledged. Claims 1-6, 13-16 and 18 are pending, claim 1 is independent. Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1-6, 13-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das et al. (US 2018/0274072 A1), hereinafter Das (of record in the application).
Regarding claims 1-6 and 13-16, as teaches an aluminum alloy of the composition in the below table ([0087]-[0088]) that can be processed into a sheet ([0112]), a yield strength of at least 100 MPa ([0009]) and can have cladding layers ([0109]; coating). Regarding “5xxx series” this describes a composition range, and as Das meets the claimed composition range, it is a 5xxx series aluminum alloy.
Table (weight%)
Instant claim 1
Instant cl 18
Instant cls. 2-5, 13-16
Das [0088]
Mg
2.50-3.85
3.10-3.65 (claim 2)
3.30-3.60 (claim 13)
0.5-7.0
Mn
0.91-1.20
0.92-1.10
0.91-1.10 (claim 3)
0.01-1.2
Fe
0.25-0.55
0.30-0.40
0.30-0.40 (claim 14)
0.15-0.8
Si
0.20-0.50
0.22-0.35
0.22-0.35 (claim 15)
0-1.5
Cu
0.10-0.25
0.10-0.20
0.10-0.20 (claim 16)
0.01-1.0
Cr
Up to 0.10
0.01-0.03
0.01-0.03 (claim 4)
0-0.3
Zn
Up to 0.25
0-6.0
Ti
Up to 0.10
0-0.2
Zr
0-0.15
Aluminum
rest
Remainder
Unavoidable impurities
Up to 0.05 each
Up to 0.15 total
Others up to 0.15 in total, 0.05 each*
Mg+7.9Mn
Meets all Fe ranges from claim 5 as calculated from Das
Calculates to
0.579 to 16.48
*Note, these “others” are “referred to as impurities” ([0099]), and impurities are understood to one of ordinary skill in the art to be “unavoidable”.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions including calculated values that overlap the claimed equations and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Regarding claim 18, Das teaches each limitation of claim 1, as discussed above and further teaches the composition shown above in the table, including the note ([0087]-[0088]; [0099]).
The composition of Das is considered limited to those elements listed above in the Table, as no other elements are listed in the entirety of the document, including examples (Das Table 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to use the closed composition of Das (Table 4) with the compositional amounts shown above in the Table ([0087]-[0088]) all taught by Das. Examiner notes that Zr is an optional element in the above citations and can optionally be 0% (meeting the limitations as presently claimed). The motivation for doing so is to produce metal products with suitable mechanical properties ([0068]).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ claim 7 cancellation obviates the February 24, 2026 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections.
Applicant's arguments filed August 06 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections. Applicants’ argument to the optimum balance of their claimed composition is not persuasive. Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpected improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support (MPEP 716.02(d)). To establish the unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed ranges to show the criticality of the claimed range (MPEP 716.02(d),II).
In the instant situation Applicant failed to demonstrate the criticality of the claimed ranges, there is insufficient data inside and outside the claimed ranges. For example, for Mg, we have no certainty that 3.85% produces an “optimum” balance, we know that 4.00 (example I) produces a “poor” result and that 3.62 produces a “good” result but there is no evidence for 3.85. Another point is that for Mn, there is evidence that the lower limit is critical, but no evidence of criticality of the upper limit.
Regarding Das teaching large ranges “without motivation to optimize”, this is not persuasive, as optimization is not used in the rejection. The overlap itself is the prima facie case of obviousness. Further, the prior art is prior art for all it teaches, including the overlapping proportions. Das teaches overlapping proportions for composition and yield strength. This overlaps applicants claimed limitations, which establishes a prima facie case of obviousness; where one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by Das, including those proportions satisfying the presently claimed requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). Further, examiner notes that formability and recyclability are not claimed.
Applicant argues that the Das does not teach the claimed yield strength. The examiner specifically cites [0009], which teaches “a yield strength of at least 100 MPa”, which overlaps the claimed range. Applicant relies on embodiments that teach an upper limit of the strength. However, [0009] of the prior art specifically recites “a yield strength of at least 100 MPa” ([0009]), with no upper limit. According to MPEP 2123 I, a reference maybe relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. The range taught by the abstract of the prior art overlaps that of applicant claimed proportions, which establishes a prima facie case of obviousness; where one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions satisfying the presently claimed requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). Therefore, arguments to the contrary are not persuasive.
Further, additionally, examiner notes that in a different embodiment Das teaches a yield strength of from about 100 MPa to about 300 MPa ([0116]), and the difference between “about 300 MPa” and 320 MPa is negligible, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality. At such a close difference, no change in properties is expected. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05 I).
For these reasons, and for those reasons as advanced in the rejections above, the present claims are not found to distinguish over the prior art and this action is made FINAL.
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 KATHERINE CHRISTY whose telephone number is (303)297-4363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-4pm MT.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/KATHERINE A CHRISTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights