DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4 are pending, and claims 1-3 are currently under review.
Claim 4 is withdrawn.
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
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-3, in the reply filed on 7/01/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 4 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/01/2026.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 7/01/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4 remain(s) pending in the application.
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.
Claims 1-3 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. Claims 1-3 recite the term “high intensity”, which is indefinite because it is unclear as to what particular structure or property this term refers to. This term is not defined by the claims or specification and further is not recognized in the art to pertain to a particular feature or property. The examiner interprets the aforementioned term to be met by any aluminum alloy having a similar composition.
Claims 1-3 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. Claims 1-3 recite the term “excellent in resistance to stress corrosion cracking”, which is indefinite because “excellent” is a relative term of degree that is not further defined or explained by the instant specification or claims. It is unclear whether this term requires some specific, quantitative value of corrosion resistance, or whether this term merely pertains to a broad category of corrosion resistance, or something else entirely. The examiner interprets the aforementioned term to be met by any degree of stress corrosion cracking resistance.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (US 2019/0360083).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshida et al. discloses a method of producing aluminum alloy extruded products having excellent stress corrosion cracking resistance and having a composition as seen in table 1 below [abstract, 0002, 0011-0012]. Yoshida et al. is silent regarding the requirement of non-recited elements, which is considered to meet the claimed limitation of “consisting of…” Yoshida et al. further teaches method steps of providing an aluminum alloy having the below composition with an average crystal grain size after casting of 300 micrometers or less [0019-0020], extruding such that a temperature immediately after extrusion is 500 to 585 degrees C [0034-0036], air cooling to a temperature of 200 degrees C or less at a speed of 70 to 500 degrees C per minute [0038-0039], followed by subsequent aging [0041]. The examiner notes that the overlap between the composition and processing parameters of Yoshida et al. is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Specifically, the examiner notes that the broad cooling speed of 70 to 500 degrees C per minute overlaps with the claimed cooling parameters and durations.
Table 1.
Element (wt.%)
Claim 1 (wt.%)
Yoshida et al. (wt.%)
Zn
6 – 10
6 – 8
Mg
1.5 – 3.5
1 – 3.5
Cu
0.2 – 2.5
0.2 – 1.5
Zr
0.1 – 0.25
0.1 – 0.25
Ti
0.005 – 0.05
0.005 – 0.05
Mn
0 – 0.3
0 – 0.5
Cr
0 – 0.25
0
Mn+Cr+Zr
0.1 – 0.5
0.1 – 0.6
Al
Balance
Balance
Regarding claim 2, Yoshida et al. discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Yoshida et al. further teaches achieving a tensile strength of 400 MPa or higher and a 0.2% proof stress of 380 MPa or higher, which overlaps with the claimed ranges [0043]. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshida et al. discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the aforementioned disclosure of Yoshida et al. further overlaps with the claimed ranges. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Conclusion
The examiner notes that amending to recite cooling in still air (ie. furnace cooling) as the first cooling prior to forced cooling would appear to overcome the aforementioned 103 rejections over Yoshida et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights