DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-25 are pending, and claims 1-13, 15-23, and 25 are currently under review.
Claim 26 is cancelled.
Claims 14 and 24 are withdrawn.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 in the reply filed on 7/30/2026 is acknowledged. The examiner further notes that non-elected claim 26 has been cancelled in the amendment filed 7/30/2026.
Applicant’s election of the species of T8 temper and an alloyed base aluminum powder in the reply filed on 7/30/2026 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Claims 14 and 24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/30/2026.
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 1-13, 15-23, and 25 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. Claim 1 recites that the component is “comparable as a substitute for wrought 6013 aluminum alloy”, which is indefinite because it is unclear as to what features are required in the claim scope. It is unclear whether “comparable as a substitute” requires some particular overlap or similarity of composition, properties, structure, or something else entirely. The examiner interprets the claim to be met by any metal component that could be considered to be a substitute for wrought 6013 aluminum in any application or use.
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) 1-2, 12-13, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop et al. (US 2017/0028469) in view of Ibrahim et al. (2017, Effect of swaging and rolling post sintering treatments on the corrosion behavior of Alumix 321 PM alloy).
Regarding claim 1, Bishop et al. discloses a method for forming a sintered aluminum component [abstract]; wherein said method includes steps of providing and compacting metal compositions of a pre-alloyed aluminum powder, a master alloy of aluminum and copper, a master alloy of aluminum and silicon, and an elemental powder of magnesium [0015, 0018], followed by subsequent sintering and performing post-sintering processes such as forging [0004, 0015]. The examiner notes that the method of Bishop et al. utilizing the same steps as claimed would be expected to result in an alloy that is also comparable to wrought 6013 as claimed. Nonetheless, according to the above interpretation, Bishop et al. is expressly related to aluminum alloys and therefore is a sufficient substitution for 6013 aluminum alloy in any application wherein aluminum alloys are desired.
Bishop et al. does not expressly teach that swaging can be performed as the post-sintering forging step as claimed. Ibrahim et al. discloses that it is known to perform swaging on sintered PM aluminum alloys as a post-sintering deformation process which improves mechanical properties [abstract]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill to modify the method of Bishop et al. by performing swaging as a post-sintering deformation step to improve mechanical properties as taught by Ibrahim et al. Ibrahim et al. also further teaches that swaging serves to improve PM alloy properties to be comparable to the wrought alloy equivalent, which also meets the instant claim [abstract, p.89].
Regarding claim 2, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Bishop et al. further teaches subsequent heat treatment to a T6 temper condition, which one of ordinary skill would readily recognize to include steps of solution heat treatment, water quenching, and aging [0022].
Regarding claims 12-13, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Bishop et al. further teaches achieving a hardness range of approximately 62 to 78 HRB for specific examples, which overlaps with the claimed range [table2]. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 18-19, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Ibrahim et al. further teaches that swaging can achieve a theoretical density of approximately 99.39 percent, which meets the claimed ranges [abstract].
Claim(s) 3, 8-10, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop et al. (US 2017/0028469) and Ibrahim et al. (2017, Effect of swaging and rolling post sintering treatments on the corrosion behavior of Alumix 321 PM alloy) as applied to claim 2 above, and further evidenced by AlLinx (2016).
Regarding claims 3, 8-10, and 17, the aforementioned prior art discloses heat treating to a T6 temper as stated above; however, the aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach the claimed parameters. However, as evidenced by AlLinx, one of ordinary skill would understand that a T6 temper naturally involves heating to up to 540 degrees C, water quenching, and aging at 150 to 200 degrees C for 6 to 24 hours, which overlaps with the claimed ranges [p.2]. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 1-13 and 17-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skinner et al. (US 4,661,172) in view of Bishop et al. (US 2017/0028469) and Ibrahim et al. (2017, Effect of swaging and rolling post sintering treatments on the corrosion behavior of Alumix 321 PM alloy).
Regarding claim 1, Skinner et al. discloses a method of making a sintered aluminum alloy by consolidating and heating aluminum alloy powders wherein one of ordinary skill would understand that at least some degree of sintering occurs during said heating [abstract, col.3 ln.3-21]. Skinner et al. discloses that said alloy is useful for automobile or aircraft applications, which meets the limitation of being comparable as a substitute for 6013 wrought aluminum because 6013 wrought aluminum is also used for automobile and aircraft applications as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill [col.3 ln.50-57].
Skinner et al. does not expressly teach that the initial aluminum alloy powders include the components as claimed. Bishop et al. discloses a method for forming a sintered aluminum component [abstract]; wherein the aluminum powder components can be provided in the form of a pre-alloyed aluminum powder, a master alloy of aluminum and copper, a master alloy of aluminum and silicon, and an elemental powder of magnesium [0015, 0018]. The examiner notes that all of the claimed features are disclosed in the prior art, although not necessarily in a single reference, wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of Skinner et al. by utilizing the starting components of Bishop et al. to arrive at the predictable result of an alloy powder composition wherein addition of specific inclusions can be desirably controlled in different forms as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The examiner further notes that the instant claim merely recites a particular order of processing (ie. alloying aluminum powders separately as claimed) that would not have achieved any materially significant effects because the same aluminum alloy composition obtained by the claim is already disclosed in the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C).
The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach that swaging can be performed as the post-sintering forging step as claimed. Ibrahim et al. discloses that it is known to perform swaging on sintered PM aluminum alloys as a post-sintering deformation process which improves mechanical properties [abstract]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by performing swaging as a post-sintering deformation step to improve mechanical properties as taught by Ibrahim et al. Ibrahim et al. also further teaches that swaging serves to improve PM alloy properties to be comparable to the wrought alloy equivalent, which also meets the instant claim [abstract, p.89].
Regarding claims 2-11 and 17, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Skinner et al. further teaches subsequent steps of solutionizing at about 500 to about 550 degrees C for 0.5 to 5 hours, quenching in a fluid bath which can be water, followed by aging at 100 to 250 degrees C for 1 to 40 hours [col.5 ln.35-56, example32]. The examiner notes that the recitation of “about” of Skinner et al. allow for values outside of the disclosed ranges. Therefore, the parameters Skinner et al. are considered to overlap with the claimed ranges. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 12-13, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Skinner et al. further teaches a hardness of 70 to 90 Rb, which one of ordinary skill would have recognized to pertain to HRB values and therefore overlaps with the claimed range [col.6 ln.1-8]. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 18-19, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Ibrahim et al. further teaches that swaging can achieve a theoretical density of approximately 99.39 percent, which meets the claimed ranges [abstract].
Regarding claim 20, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Skinner et al. further teaches that the aluminum alloy includes Mg in an amount of 0.5 to 8 weight percent and a combination of Si and Cu of 0.25 to 2 weight percent, among others, which overlaps with the claimed ranges [col.3 ln.3-13]. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 21-23, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Skinner et al. further teaches that Mn can be included with Si and Cu in an amount of 0.25 to 2 weight percent, which overlaps with the claimed ranges [col.3 ln.3-13]. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skinner et al. (US 4,661,172) and others as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Starke et al. (1996, Application of modern aluminum alloys to aircraft).
Regarding claims 15-16, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 2 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach a T8 temper as claimed. Starke et al. discloses that it is known to perform T8 temper to aluminum alloys for aircraft because T8 treatment aids in precipitate nucleation and can shorten aging time [p.143]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by utilizing a T8 temper for the aforementioned benefit of Starke et al. Skinner et al. further teaches mechanical properties of a modulus of about 80 to 95 GPa, a yield strength of about 345 Mpa or higher, a tensile strength of about 450 to 600 MPa, and an elongation (ie. ductility) of about 5 to 8 percent [col.6 ln.1-9]. The examiner notes that the recitation of “about” by Skinner et al. allows for amounts outside of the disclosed ranges, which overlaps with or is substantially close to the claimed ranges such that obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skinner et al. (US 4,661,172) and others as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Bishop et al. (US 2011/0265757, herein referred to as Bishop et al. (‘757)).
Regarding claim 25, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 20 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach an inclusion of Sn as claimed. Bishop et al. (‘757) discloses that it is known to include Sn in Al-Cu-Mg alloys in an amount of up to 1.2 weight percent in order to desirably change the microstructure or mechanical properties [0040]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by including Sn in an overlapping range as taught by Bishop et al. (‘757) for the aforementioned benefit.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-11, 17-20, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN105710373, machine translation referred to herein) in view of Bishop et al. (US 2017/0028469) and Ibrahim et al. (2017, Effect of swaging and rolling post sintering treatments on the corrosion behavior of Alumix 321 PM alloy).
Regarding claim 1, Liu et al. discloses a method of making a sintered aluminum alloy by consolidating and sintering aluminum alloy powders [0001, 0009-0013]. Liu et al. discloses that said alloy is useful for automobile applications, which meets the limitation of being comparable as a substitute for 6013 wrought aluminum because 6013 wrought aluminum is also used for automobile applications as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill [0004].
Liu et al. further teaches that the aluminum alloy powders can be provided in any form of elemental powders, intermediate alloys, or pre-alloyed powders [0020]; however, Liu et al. does not expressly teach that the initial aluminum alloy powders include the components as claimed. Bishop et al. discloses a method for forming a sintered aluminum component [abstract]; wherein the aluminum powder components can be provided in the form of a pre-alloyed aluminum powder, a master alloy of aluminum and copper, a master alloy of aluminum and silicon, and an elemental powder of magnesium [0015, 0018]. The examiner notes that all of the claimed features are disclosed in the prior art, although not necessarily in a single reference, wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of Skinner et al. by utilizing the starting components of Bishop et al. to arrive at the predictable result of an alloy powder composition wherein addition of specific inclusions can be desirably controlled in different forms as expressly suggested by Liu et al. and as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The examiner further notes that the instant claim merely recites a particular order of processing (ie. alloying aluminum powders separately as claimed) that would not have achieved any materially significant effects because the same aluminum alloy composition obtained by the claim is already disclosed in the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C).
The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach that swaging can be performed as the post-sintering forging step as claimed. Ibrahim et al. discloses that it is known to perform swaging on sintered PM aluminum alloys as a post-sintering deformation process which improves mechanical properties [abstract]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by performing swaging as a post-sintering deformation step to improve mechanical properties as taught by Ibrahim et al. Ibrahim et al. also further teaches that swaging serves to improve PM alloy properties to be comparable to the wrought alloy equivalent, which also meets the instant claim [abstract, p.89].
Regarding claims 2-3, 6-11, and 17, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Liu et al. further teaches subsequent steps of solutionizing at 460 to 540 degrees C for 0.5 to 8 hours, quenching in water, followed by aging at 20 to 200 degrees C for 3 to 48 hours [0014]. The examiner notes that the overlap between the ranges of Liu et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 18-19, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Ibrahim et al. further teaches that swaging can achieve a theoretical density of approximately 99.39 percent, which meets the claimed ranges [abstract].
Regarding claim 20, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Liu et al. further teaches that the aluminum alloy includes 0.2 to 2 weight percent Si, 0.2 to 5 weight percent Cu, and 0.4 to 2 weight percent Mg, which overlaps with the claimed ranges [0019]. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 25, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 20 (see previous). Liu et al. further teaches that Sn can be included in an amount of 0.05 to 1.2 weight percent, which overlaps with the claimed ranges [0019]. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 4-5, 12-13, 15-16, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN105710373, machine translation referred to herein) and others as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Karabin et al. (US 2023/0374632).
Regarding claims 4-5, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 2 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach a solutionizing temperature as claimed. Karabin et al. discloses that it is known to perform solution heat treatment at temperatures of up to 560 degrees C as desired conditions for solutionizing [table2]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by specifying solution heat treatment at up to 560 degrees C for the benefit of Karabin et al. Alternatively, the examiner notes that all of the claimed features are disclosed in the prior art, although not necessarily in a single reference, wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by utilizing the specific solution heat treatment of Karabin et al. to arrive at the predictable result of a specific, desired solution heat treatment temperature as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The examiner notes that the overlap between the solutionizing range of Karabin et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 12-13 and 15-16, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 2 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach a T8 temper as claimed. Karabin et al. discloses that it is well known to process aluminum alloys to any desired temper designation including T8 [0019]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by selecting a T8 temper as a desirable temper designation for processing aluminum alloys as taught by Karabin et al. The examiner further notes that overlapping values of the claimed properties of hardness, modulus, yield strength, tensile strength, and ductility would naturally flow from the suggestion of the prior art of the overlapping aluminum alloy composition and processing of Liu et al. in addition to the T8 temper of Karabin et al. Specifically, mechanical properties overlapping with the claimed properties would be the natural result of the combination of elements explicitly disclosed by the prior art (ie. composition and processing of Liu et al. in addition to T8 temper of Karabin et al.), wherein said overlap is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2112 & MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 21-23, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 2 (see previous). Karabin et al. further teaches that aluminum alloys are known to include 0.02 to 0.4 weight percent Mn to achieve a desired grain structure [0009]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by including an overlapping Mn range for the aforementioned benefit as taught by Karabin et al. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Conclusion
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