DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In view of the amendments to claims 1 and 7, the prior art rejection rationales have been modified. These changes were necessitated by these amendments.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015-108163 (JP ‘163).
In regards to independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2 and 4-6, JP ‘163 is directed to an aluminum alloy clad plate. (Lines 13-14) The aluminum alloy clad plate has a thickness of 1 to 5 mm. (Lines 79-80) The thickness is within the range taught within the specification and set forth within the instant claims. Accordingly, this structure can be considered to be a foil.
The clad plate has a plurality of aluminum alloy layers that are laminated. (Lines 68-70) The layers contain one or two or more kinds of 1.5 to 14% magnesium, 2 to 30% zinc, 1.5 to 6% copper. (Lines 70-72) The aluminum layers have different contents of at least either magnesium, zinc, or copper. (Lines 72-73) The ingots may contain 0.5% or less iron, 0.5% or less silicon, 1.0% or less manganese, 0.3% or less chromium, 0.1% or less titanium. (Lines 373-378) The plates are stacked with 3 to 7 sheets. (Lines 159-160)
The ranges of the composition overlap the claimed ranges or are close such that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. (See MPEP 2144.05,I) For example, the ranges of magnesium in the prior art is infinitesimally small difference with the claimed range. Additionally, the differences between the layers in regards to the content of zinc or copper allow for the differences to exists as set forth within the instant claims. One of the layers can be considered to be a core while the other is considered the cladding. An additional layer can be considered to be a third layer.
As to claim 3, the aluminum alloy clad plate has a thickness of 1 to 5 mm. (Lines 79-80) The plates are stacked with 3 to 7 sheets. (Lines 159-160) Therefore, the thickness of the respective layers overlap the claimed ranges.
In regards to independent claim 7 and dependent claims 8-12, JP ‘163 is directed to an aluminum alloy clad plate. (Lines 13-14) The aluminum alloy clad plate has a thickness of 1 to 5 mm. (Lines 79-80) The thickness is within the range taught within the specification and set forth within the instant claims. Accordingly, this structure can be considered to be a foil.
The clad plate has a plurality of aluminum alloy layers that are laminated. (Lines 68-70) The layers contain one or two or more kinds of 1.5 to 14% magnesium, 2 to 30% zinc, 1.5 to 6% copper. (Lines 70-72) The aluminum layers have different contents of at least either magnesium, zinc, or copper. (Lines 72-73) The ingots may contain 0.5% or less iron, 0.5% or less silicon, 1.0% or less manganese, 0.3% or less chromium, 0.1% or less titanium. (Lines 373-378) The plates are stacked with 3 to 7 sheets. (Lines 159-160)
The ranges of the composition overlap the claimed ranges or are close such that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. (See MPEP 2144.05,I) For example, the ranges of magnesium in the prior art is infinitesimally small difference with the claimed range. Additionally, the differences between the layers in regards to the content of zinc or copper allow for the differences to exists as set forth within the instant claims. One of the layers can be considered to be a core while the other is considered the cladding. An additional layer can be considered to be a third layer.
The aluminum alloy clad plate has a thickness of 1 to 5 mm. (Lines 79-80) The plates are stacked with 3 to 7 sheets. (Lines 159-160) Therefore, the thickness of the respective layers overlap the claimed ranges. Since the aluminum alloy clad plate has layers having compositions that overlap the claimed ranges and having thicknesses that also overlap the claimed ranges, it would be expected that when the layers are homogenized that they would also yield a 2000-series aluminum alloy.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kobe Steel teaches aluminum alloy layers having magnesium content exceeding 1.5% mass. Applicant amended the claims to the range that has less than 1.5% weight magnesium. Applicant asserts that this distinguishes the instant claims from the prior art.
This argument is not found to be persuasive.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. MPEP 2144.05,I. This is due to the proportions being so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. MPEP 2144.05,I.
In the instant case, the prior art sets forth a range of 1.5 to 14% magnesium. (Lines 70-72) The difference between less than 1.5% and 1.5% is infinitesimally small. Accordingly, due to the infinitesimally small difference, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
While the ranges set forth in the prior art do not overlap the claimed ranges, they are merely close such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. The components of the alloys approach so closely that there would be no noticeable difference in the qualities of the respective alloys.
Accordingly, the arguments are not found to be persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Schleis whose telephone number is (571)270-5636. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM to 4 PM Monday through Friday.
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.
Daniel J. Schleis
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/Daniel J. Schleis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784