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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/24/25 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Pending:
1-13
Withdrawn:
NONE
Rejected:
1-13
Amended:
1, 6
New:
9-13
Independent:
1
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-6, 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gheorghe (US 2004/0056075, cited on IDS filed 2/21/24) in view of Buerger et al (US 2007/0204937, cited on IDS filed 2/21/24), optionally in view of Yoshida et al (US 2007/0074791, cited herein).
Gheorghe at [0018] teaches a welded structure comprising a 7xxx alloy (which broadly encompasses the claimed 7xxx alloy) and a second aluminum alloy workpiece. Gheorghe teaches pre-weld aging at 200-300°F (93-149°C) for a few minutes to 24 hrs, welding, and post-weld aging at 300-4000F (149-2040C) for a few minutes to 6 hours [0023], which overlaps the claimed pre-weld aging and post-weld heat treatment time and temperature ranges.
Gheorghe does not teach: a) pre-weld aging in two steps, b) selecting the particular/narrow Al-Zn-Mg-Cu alloy according to claim 1, c) said Al-Zn-Mg-Cu alloy comprises a fibrous structure or a specific aspect ratio (cl. 1, 6), or d) preliminary steps of homogenizing and extrusion (cl. 1).
Concerning a), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have performed a 2 step pre-weld aging treatment on the Al-Zn-Mg-low Cu alloy as taught by Buerger for the pre-weld aging of Gheorghe, because i) Gheorghe teaches pre-weld aging minimizes the effect of (welding) heat on the HAZ, and because ii) Buerger teaches improvement in properties (including corrosion resistance and strength [0109]) results from applying a 2 step aging process of: 1) 105-135°C for 2-20 hrs, 2) 135-210°C for 4- 20 hrs ([0112], which overlaps the claimed first and second artificial aging step temperature and time parameters, and therefore suggests said limitations.
Concerning b), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have selected the Al-Zn-Mg-low Cu alloy of Buerger et al. for the welded structure of Gheorghe (that broadly includes 7000 series alloys), because Buerger teaches said Al-Zn-Mg-low Cu alloy (which overlaps the claimed ranges, see Buerger at abstract, see comparison set forth in Table 1 below) exhibits excellent/ improved weldability due to the low Cu content [0045].
Claim 1
Dependent cl.
Buerger et al
Zn
6.6-8.5
6.6-7.6 (cl. 4)
7.5-14
Mg
1.0-2.1
1.0-1.6 (cl. 4)
1-5
Zr
0.10-0.20
<0.3
Ti
0.001-0.05
<0.3
Cu
0.02-0.50
<0.25
Mn
≤0.40
0.16-0.40 (cl. 2)
<0.80
Cr
≤0.20
0.16-0.20 (cl. 3)
<0.40
Al & impurities
balance
balance
Table 1: alloying ranges of instant claims vs. Buerger
Overlapping ranges have been held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the range, including the claimed range, from the broader range disclosed in the prior art, because the prior art finds that said composition in the entire disclosed range has a suitable utility. Additionally, "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages," In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d at 1379 (CAFC 2003).
Concerning c), because the combination of Gheorghe together with Buerger teach a substantially identical welded structure, formed by a substantially identical process of heat treating, working, pre-weld aging, welding, and post-weld aging with overlapping parameters, then substantially the same properties are expected to result (such as fibrous structure imparted by extrusion as recited in amended cl. 1 and aspect ratio of the crystal grains in a given direction) for the extruded welded structure taught by Gheorghe combined with Buerger, as for the instant invention. Alternatively, Yoshida teaches that a stable fiber texture (analogous to the claimed fibrous texture, also sometimes termed “unrecrystallized”) forms for 7xxx alloys by adding Cr, Mn, and/or Zr ([0051] which repress recrystallization) together with homogenizing and deforming by extrusion [0060], which is advantageous to SCC resistance [0053]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have optimized the amount of fibrous texture for the Al-Zn alloy of Gheorghe and Buerger, because Yoshida teaches maximizing the fiber texture improves the SCC resistance [0053].
Concerning d), Buerger teaches preliminary steps of forming said 7xxx alloy workpiece by: casting, homogenizing about 470°C for t≤12 hrs [0107-0108], hot working by extruding, solution heating, quenching, and aging into a product that exhibits good weldability [0002, 0104-0107, claim 52]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have preliminarily formed the workpiece taught by Gheorghe by steps of homogenizing at about 470°C for t≤12 hrs, preheating to a hot working temperature (such as within the claimed 450-500°C) and extruding (taught by Buerger); followed by solution heating, quenching, pre-weld aging, welding, and post-weld aging, as set forth above; because said steps of preliminary forming taught by Buerger are held to provide a homogeneous structure with excellent strength, and because Gheorghe teaches the aluminum alloy members to be welded can be extrusions [0030]. It is held that Gheorghe and Buerger optionally in view of Yoshida have created a prima facie case of obviousness of the presently claimed invention.
Concerning claims 2-4, as set forth in Table 1 above, Buerger teaches a 7000 series aluminum alloy with improved weldability that overlaps the claimed alloying ranges. Because of the overlap in alloying ranges, it is held that Gheorghe and Buerger have created a prima facie case of obviousness of the presently claimed invention.
Concerning claim 5, neither Gheorghe nor Buerger specify a) the welded structure exhibits a difference in electrical conductivity of a mother portion and a weld affected zone of 1.2-5% IACS or b) the YS of the mother portion.
Concerning b), the YS of a mother portion would be expected by one of skill in the art to be greater than the YS of the heat affected zone (HAZ) of a given welded workpiece. Though Gheorghe does not identify his given YS of the welded assembly as belonging to either the HAZ or the mother portion, because Gheorghe teaches a YS of the welded assembly of typically 63.8 ksi (440 MPa)[0052], Gheorghe meets the instant “yield strength YS of the mother portion is 350 MPa or higher’, that is to say if the YS of Gheorghe of 63.8 ksi is representative of the HAZ, then the YS of the mother portion would be expected to be >63.8 ksi; alternatively if the YS of Gheorghe of 63.8 ksi is representative of the mother portion, then the YS of Gheorghe also meets the claimed minimum.
Concerning a), though Gheorghe does not teach a difference in electrical conductivity of a mother portion and a weld affected zone of 1.2-5% IACS, because the combination of Gheorghe together with secondary reference Buerger teach a substantially identical process of heat treating, working, welding, and aging an overlapping aluminum alloy workpiece, then substantially the same properties are expected to result (such as electrical conductivity difference between HAZ and mother portion), for the welded structure taught by Gheorghe combined with Buerger, as for the instant invention.
Concerning claim 6, see discussion of fibrous structure and aspect ratio above.
Concerning claim 10-13, Buerger teaches an overlapping Ti maximum of <0.30% Ti, and preferably <0.10% Ti [0065], which overlaps the claimed maximums of Ti (instant claims 10-13) and therefore meets the instant limitations. Because of the overlap in alloying ranges, it is held that Gheorghe and Buerger have created a prima facie case of obviousness of the presently claimed invention. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05 and Peterson, supra.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gheorghe and Buerger et al. optionally in view of Yoshida (as applied to claim 1 above), further in view of JP 5631379 B2 (JP’379, cited on IDS filed 2/23/23).
Gheorghe, Buerger et al, and Yoshida are discussed above. Gheorghe, Buerger et al, and Yoshida do not teach the cooling rate after extrusion. However, JP’379 teaches that quenching after extrusion by fan cooling at a rate of about 160°C/min (translation p 2) enables a final product with improved combination of strength and SCC resistance (translation p 1, 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have cooled the extruded product taught by the combination of Gheorghe and Buerger and optionally Yoshida by fan cooling at a rate of about 160°C/min, because JP’379 teaches said cooling rate leads to improved combination of strength and SCC resistance.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gheorghe and Buerger et al (as applied to claims above), further in view of Yoshida (US 2007/0074791, cited herein).
Gheorghe, Buerger et al, and Yoshida are discussed above. Concerning claims 7 and 8, neither Gheorghe nor Buerger specify cooling to 150°C or lower after extrusion (cl. 7) or teach the cooling rate after extrusion (cl. 8). However, Yoshida teaches cooling to temperatures <100°C after extrusion [0078] at cooling rates 29-80°C/min is effective to minimize distortion [0073] and provide a workpiece with good mechanical properties (examples). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have cooled after extrusion at rates 29-80°C/min (which overlaps the claimed cooling rate and therefore meets the instant limitation) in order to provide good mechanical properties and low distortion (examples, [0073]).
Concerning claim 9, as set forth above, Yoshida teaches that a stable fiber texture (analogous to the claimed fibrous texture) forms for 7xxx alloys by adding Cr, Mn, and/or Zr ([0051] which repress recrystallization) together with homogenizing and deforming by extrusion [0060], which is advantageous to SCC resistance [0053]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have optimized the amount of fibrous texture for the Al-Zn alloy of Gheorghe and Buerger, because Yoshida teaches maximizing the fiber texture (in particular, ≥80% unrecrystallized fiber texture, see Yoshida at [0030], [0107]), improves the SCC resistance [0053].
Response to Amendment
In the response filed on 2/24/25 applicant amended claims 1 and 6, added new claims 9-13, and submitted various arguments traversing the rejections of record. No new matter has been added.
Applicant’s argument that the instant invention is allowable because neither Gheorghe nor Buerger teach the amended limitation of “hot extrusion step imparts a fibrous structure to the 7000-series aluminum alloy material” has not been found persuasive. As set forth above, because the combination of Gheorghe together with secondary reference Buerger teach a substantially identical welded structure, formed by a substantially identical process of heat treating, working, pre-weld aging, welding, and post-weld aging with overlapping parameters, then substantially the same properties are expected to result (such as fibrous structure and aspect ratio of the crystal grains in a given direction), for the welded structure taught by Gheorghe combined with Buerger, as for the instant invention. Alternatively, as set forth above, Yoshida teaches that a stable fiber texture (analogous to the claimed fibrous texture) forms for 7xxx alloys by adding Cr, Mn, and/or Zr ([0051] which repress recrystallization) together with homogenizing and deforming by extrusion [0060], which is advantageous to SCC resistance [0053]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have optimized the amount of fibrous texture for the Al-Zn alloy of Gheorghe and Buerger (such as ≥80% unrecrystallized fibrous texture, see Yoshida at [0030]), because Yoshida teaches maximizing the fiber texture improves the SCC resistance [0053].
Applicant’s argument that the instant invention is allowable because “the claimed range for Ti of 0.001-0.05 is much more narrow than the broad range of less than 0.3 disclosed in paragraph [0016] of the Buerger et al reference” (arguments p 9) has not been found persuasive. As set forth above, Buerger teaches an overlapping Ti maximum of <0.30% Ti, and Buerger also teaches a preferable maximum of <0.10% Ti [0065], which overlaps the claimed Ti ranges (instant claims 1, 10-13) and therefore meets the instant limitations. Because of the overlap in alloying ranges, it is held that the prior art has created a prima facie case of obviousness of the presently claimed invention. Though the prior art teaches a broad overlap, applicant has not shown specific evidence of unexpected results of the claimed narrow range, compared to the teachings of the prior art.
Applicant has not clearly shown specific unexpected results with respect to the prior art of record or criticality of the instant claimed range (wherein said results must be fully commensurate in scope with the instantly claimed ranges, etc.; see MPEP 716.02 (d).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANELL COMBS MORILLO whose telephone number is (571)272-1240. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am-3pm.
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 on 571-272-1401. 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.
/GEORGE WYSZOMIERSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/J.C.M/Examiner, Art Unit 1733 9/19/25