DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Note
This office action is in response to applicants’ amendments to the claims and remarks filed June 30, 2026. Claims 1-15 are pending, with claims 6-11 being withdrawn as directed to non-elected subject matter, and claims 12-15 being new.
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 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker et al. (US Patent 5,106,702) in view of Cameron et al. (US Patent 4,713,111).
Walker et al. disclose a reinforced aluminum matrix composite which may include 5 to 40 volume % of the reinforcement with silicon carbide particles listed as a preferred reinforcement. The aluminum matrix comprising (in weight percent): 2.0-4.5% copper, 0.3-1.8% magnesium, and 0.4% soluble elements including silver (col. 4 lines 4-14, col. 7 lines 28-35, claims 12-14). While Walker et al. do not appear to explicitly disclose the exact compositional ranges as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention would have found it obvious to form composites having proportions of elements selected from those disclosed, including proportions which fall within applicants’ claimed ranges.
Walker et al. do not appear to explicitly limit the size of the silicon carbide particles, however the discovery of a workable range of particles sizes for the reinforcement is within the ordinary skill through routine experimentation. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention would have found it obvious to discover a workable range for the size of the silicon carbide reinforcing particles of Walker et al. Further there is a reasonable expectation that the range of workable particle sizes falls within, or at least overlap applicants, the claimed size range.
Cameron et al. disclose an aluminum composite containing a silicon carbide particle reinforcement where the silicon carbide particles have a size range of less than 50 microns (col 2 lines 1-4). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ invention would have found it obvious to select a particle size of less than 50 microns where such silicon carbide particle sizes have been demonstrated in the art to be effective for reinforcements in aluminum composites.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker et al. (US Patent 5,106,702) in view of Cameron et al. (US Patent 4,713,111) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of DasGupta (PGPub US 2005/0161128).
Walker et al. in view of Cameron disclose a reinforced aluminum matrix composite as discussed above with respect to claim 1 which may further include zirconium and manganese in amounts of up to 0.2% (col. 5 lines 20-25 and claims 15-16), but do not appear to explicitly disclose the addition of titanium. DasGupta disclose an aluminum alloy where titanium is added in amounts of 0.11 to 0.2% as a grin refining element which contributes to increased mechanical properties (paragraph 0031). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention would have found it obvious to include titanium in amounts of 0.11 to 0.2% in the aluminum of Walker et al. in order to provide the composite with improved mechanical properties. With respect to the overlapping proportions, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention would have found it obvious to select proportions from within the disclosed ranges including amounts which fall within applicants’ claimed ranges.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-15 are 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.
Walker et al. disclose a reinforced aluminum matrix composite which may include 5 to 40 volume % of the reinforcement with silicon carbide particles as discussed above with respect to claim 1, but do not appear to disclose the exact or obvious proportions of claims 12 and 14. Further there is no motivation such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the compositional proportions of Walker et al. in order to achieve the specific proportions claimed.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicants’ amendments to the claims and supporting arguments filed June 30, 2026 have been found to be persuasive. Following further search and consideration, new grounds of rejection have been identified and have been set forth above. The new grounds of rejection were not necessitated by applicants’ amendments to the claims. This action is NON-FINAL.
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
Prosecution Insights