DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Note
This office action is in response to applicants’ amendments to the claims and remarks filed September 30, 2025. Claims 1-16 are pending, claim 16 is new, claims 13-14 remaining withdrawn as directed to non-elected subject matter.
Claim Objections
Applicants’ amendments to the claims have overcome the objections to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicants’ amendments to the claims have overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112.
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.
Claims 1-12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shishido et al. (PGPub US 20150354044).
Regarding applicants’ claims 1 and 16, Shishido et al. disclose an 6000-series aluminum alloy sheet (considered a strip), comprising in % by weight, 0.3 to 2.0% silicon, 0.2 to 2.0% magnesium, 0.01 to 1.0% manganese, 0.01 to 0.5% copper, where iron is present at 1.0% or less, chromium at 0.3% or less, zirconium at 0.3% or less, vanadium at 0.3% or less, titanium at 0.05% or less, zinc at 1.0% or less, and silver at 0.02% or less, with elements not listed being basically impurities or within allowable amounts under AA, JIS standards, or the like (paragraphs 0080-0091). With nickel not listed, the nickel content is understood to be within or at least overlapping applicants’ claimed range of 0.15 or less.
While applicants do not appear to disclose the exact proportions claimed, the disclosed proportions overlap those disclosed thereby establishing a prima facia case of obviousness MPEP 2144.05. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to select form the proportions disclosed by Shishido et al. including values which fall within the claimed ranges.
Applicants’ claims 2-10 further limit the elemental proportions of the claimed aluminum alloy strip where the proportions disclosed by Shishido et al. overlap applicants’ claimed proportions. 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 by Shishido et al. including values which fall within the claimed ranges.
Regarding applicants’ claims 11 and 12, Shishido et al. do not appear to explicitly limit the thickness of the aluminum sheets, however it is within the ordinary level of skill in the art to determine a workable range of thickness for an aluminum sheet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the aluminum sheets of Shishido et al. within a workable range depending on the desired end use of the sheet. There is a reasonable expectation that the workable range would fall within or at least overlap applicants’ claimed range where Shishido et al. exemplify the steel sheets having a final thickness of 1.0mm (paragraph 0120).
With regards to a sheet of the specified thickness with a T4 temper having an LDH in the claimed range (claim 11) and possessing filiform corrosion filaments under the standards and condition of (claim 12), one of ordinary skill in the art would expect substantially identical materials treated in a substantially identical manner to produce substantially identical products.
In addition to the overlapping compositions discussed above, applicants disclose the process of forming an aluminum strip comprising casting, homogenizing, cooling to 350 to 550ºC, hot rolling, cold rolling, solution heat treating, quenching, pre-aging, and natural aging at room temperature (present specification 0054-0069).
Shishido et al. disclose casting, homogenizing, cooling to 300 to 500 ºC, hot rolling, cold rolling, solution heat treating, quenching, reheating (pre-aging), and cooling to room temperature (natural aging) (paragraphs 0095-0116).
Given that both applicants and Shishido disclose the manufacture of aluminum stirps of substantially identical compositions by substantially identical processes, the aluminum strips would be expected to have substantially identical structures and properties including a minimum LDH and filiform corrosion filaments as claimed.
Regarding applicants claim 15, Shishido et al. do not appear to explicitly limit the thickness of the aluminum sheets, however it is within the ordinary level of skill in the art to determine a workable range of thickness for an aluminum sheet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the aluminum sheets of Shishido et al. within a workable range depending on the desired end use of the sheet. There is a reasonable expectation that the workable range would fall within or at least overlap applicants’ claimed range where Shishido et al. exemplify the steel sheets having a final thickness of 1.0mm (paragraph 0120).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed September 30, 2025 have been considered but have not been found to be persuasive.
Applicants argue that the ranges disclosed by Shishido are very broad and that no guidance is provided with regards to selecting values which fall within applicants’ claimed ranges. 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). However as argued by applicants “Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range…generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range” (MPEP 2144.05 III A). Applicants argue that the claimed ranges for the proportion of silicon, magnesium, manganese, and copper are critical in obtaining advantageous results. Applicants cite data in the present specification with respect to the LDH values for Exemplarily alloys E and F and Comparative examples A and G. However there are insufficient data points to conclude that the limits established by the specifically claimed ranges are critical in obtaining s specific critical LDH threshold.
Further the evidence relied upon should establish that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance (MPEP 716.02(b)). Applicants argue that the claimed values provide for advantageous results of improved LHD value (a measure of formability), however the effect of Si, Mg, Mn, and Cu on the formability of aluminum alloys is known and consistent with applicants observations such that the results are not found to be unexpected. For example, Shishido discloses “…when the Si content is excessively high, coarse metallic compounds and precipitates are formed and bending processability, total elongation, and the like extremely deteriorate” (paragraph 0084). The effect of elements including magnesium, manganese, and copper are also known and described in Shishito at paragraphs 0087-0090. Given that the effect of formability as observed by applicants is constant with the known effect of the additive elements, applicants’ observed effect of these elements on the LDH results of aluminum alloy strips are not unexpected.
For these reasons, and for those reasons as discussed in the rejections above, applicants’ arguments are not found to be persuasive and the rejections of record are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ADAM C KRUPICKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7086. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5pm EST.
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.
/Adam Krupicka/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784