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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 12, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-7, 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 Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.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 § 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. Specifically, claim 7 claims a lower limit of 0 (“less than or equal to 360 MPa) and claim 1, from which it depends has a specific lower limit of 320 MPa. It is indefinite what the lower limit should be. For purposes of examination it shall be considered to be 320 MPa.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), 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. Claim 7 claims a lower limit of 0 (“less than or equal to 360 MPa) and claim 1, from which it depends has a specific lower limit of 320 MPa. Therefore, claim 7 is more broad than the claim from which it depends (claim 1). 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 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) 1-7, 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 1-7 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
2.50-4.00
2.50-3.85 (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
Applicant's arguments filed February 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections. Applicants argument that Das does not teach 0.92 Mn is not persuasive as examiner now cites an evidentiary reference for how numbers are rounded below in the Conclusion. Further, the rejection is modified in this Non-Final Rejection to a different composition citation (embodiment) of the prior art. Further, applicant alleges that no evidentiary reference supports the rules of rounding are conventional, this is not persuasive as examiner has now provided this evidence (see below additional information).
Applicant argues that the office has not addressed whether Das teaches a TYS of 320-380; however, this is not correct. 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure CalcWorkshop (“Rounding Decimals”) (provided herewith). CalcWorkshop provides evidence of the rules of rounding, that “we locate the digit we wish to round…Next we look to the number directly to its right. If it’s 0, 1, 2,3 or 4, we leave the number as is” (Pg. 1 #1 and #2; i.e. 0.92 rounds to 0.9).
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