DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-5, in the reply filed on February 3, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 6-11 are withdrawn as directed to non-elected subject matter.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (PGPub US 2004/0137218) in view of The Aluminum Association (The Aluminum Association, International Alloy Designations and Chemical Composition Limits for Wrought Aluminum and Wrought Aluminum Alloys, 2015, 8 pages (front matter, pages 2-4, and footnotes).
Regarding applicants’ claim 1, Liu et al. disclose particulate reinforced aluminum composites comprising aluminum matrix alloys including 2xxx, series aluminum alloys, and reinforcing particles selected from materials including silicon carbide (SiC) included at 10 to 40 volume % (paragraphs 0011 and 0021). Liu et al. do not appear to explicitly disclose aluminum alloys having the exact compositional ranges claimed, however 2xxx series aluminum alloys included alloys having compositional proportions overlapping those claimed, including at least 2016, 2029, 2039, 2055, 2060, 2064, 2065, 2071, 2073, 2075, 2081, 2094, 2095, 2195, 2295, and 2395. Given that Liu et al. disclose the use of 2xxx series aluminum alloys for the matrix material, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention would have found it obvious to select from the known commercially designated 2xxx series aluminum alloys including those which have a composition at least overlapping applicants’ claimed ranges (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding applicants’ claims 2-4, Liu et al. do not appear to explicitly disclose aluminum alloys having the exact compositional ranges claimed, however 2xxx aluminum alloys including at least 2016, 2039, 2060, 2065, 2075, 2094, 2095, and 2295, have compositional proportions at least overlapping applicants’ claimed ranges. Given that Liu et al. disclose the use of 2xxx series aluminum alloys for the matrix material, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention would have found it obvious to select from the known commercially designated 2xxx series aluminum alloys including alloys which have a composition overlapping applicants’ claimed ranges (MPEP 2144.05).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Liu et al. disclose particulate reinforced aluminum composites comprising aluminum matrix alloys including 2xxx series aluminum alloys and reinforcing particles selected from materials including silicon carbide (SiC) (paragraphs 0011 and 0021). Liu et al. further disclose an average particles size for the reinforcement particles of 0.1 to 1.0µm (paragraph 0025) which falls outside applicants’ claimed range. Further there is no reasonable expectation of success in modifying the particles to within applicants’ claimed range where Liu et al. disclose that particles greater than 3.5µm reduce plasticity significantly (paragraph 0025).
Conclusion
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