DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 1-5 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.
Regarding Claim 1, starting at line 9 through line 11, it is unclear whether each of Mn, Cr, and Zr is to be present in view of “not including 0 mass%” parentheticals or whether this language in each case is superfluous.
Regarding Claim 3, it is unclear what is to be treated. Previous Claim 1 refers to “a surface of the bonding portion” as having content of Mg/Al less than or equal to 10, whereas this claim refers to treating such a surface so as to obtain such a surface. It does not make sense, particularly, since dependent claims 4 and 5 refers to removing material of said surface to obtain said surface.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto WO 2020/195690 (as translated by Shikama USPA 2022/0154313) in view of Hashimura JP 2007-302104 in view of Nomura JP 06-256881. Yamamoto teaches aluminum door beam (Claim 1) made of extruded series 7000 aluminum alloy having compositions in the claimed range (Table 1; paragraph 53). Yamamoto does not specify presence of mastic bonding portion. Hashimura teaches that extruded aluminum alloy door beam may be mastically bonded (Figure 7; top of page 3). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to designate portion of extruded alloy door beam of Yamamoto as that to be mastically bonded when such configuration is to be utilized. Yamamoto in view of Hashimura does not specify Mg/Al ratio. However, the base composition has this ratio. Nomura teaches that aluminum alloy to be mastically bonded should have its external surface removed to eliminate oxides and the like and to prevent oils (paragraph 11) in order to improve adhesiveness (paragraphs 12-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to chemically clean the surface of the beam of Yamamoto in view of Hashimura, as taught by Nomura, in order to remove oxides and the like and prevent oils and to thereby achieve surface having Mg/Al comparable to that of the base material which achieves the claimed ratio (e.g., ca. 1.6/90=0.02). Regarding Claim 2, these relationships are achieved (Table 1, No. 1: (2) is -0.4; (3) is 0.07). Regarding Claim 3, the chemical treatment is a “treating” step. Regarding Claim 5, Nomura teaches that Mg concentrated oxides are to be expected to be present (paragraphs 12-16).
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto WO 2020/195690 (as translated by Shikama USPA 2022/0154313) in view of Hashimura JP 2007-302104 in view of Unal et al. USPA 2019/0330750. Yamamoto teaches aluminum door beam (Claim 1) made of extruded series 7000 aluminum alloy having compositions in the claimed range (Table 1; paragraph 53). Yamamoto does not specify presence of mastic bonding portion. Hashimura teaches that extruded aluminum alloy door beam may be mastically bonded (Figure 7; top of page 3). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to designate portion of extruded alloy door beam of Yamamoto as that to be mastically bonded when such configuration is to be utilized. Yamamoto in view of Hashimura does not specify Mg/Al ratio. However, the base composition has this ratio. Unal teaches that series 7000 aluminum alloy (paragraph 2) to be adhesively bonded should have its external surface removed to eliminate oxides (paragraphs 3-6) in order to improve adhesiveness (paragraph 8). Unal teaches this can be achieved by using chemical treatments (paragraph 11-19) and mechanical treatments (paragraphs 20 and 21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to clean the surface of the beam of Yamamoto in view of Hashimura by any of the suggested methods in Unal in order to remove oxides and the like and to thereby achieve surface having Mg/Al comparable to that of the base material which achieves the claimed ratio (e.g., ca. 1.6/90=0.02). Regarding Claim 2, these relationships are achieved (Table 1, No. 1: (2) is -0.4; (3) is 0.07). Regarding Claim 3, the chemical treatments and mechanical treatments constitute a “treating” step. Regarding Claims 4 and 5, Unal teaches Mg concentrated oxides (paragraph 4) as being what is removed. Regarding Claim 4, Unal suggests “sanding” (paragraph 20) which can be considered a type of polishing, rendering obvious this treatment method. Regarding Claim 5, Unal teaches chemical and acid treatments (paragraph 11-19), rendering obvious claimed “chemical treatment”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL E. LA VILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-1539. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. from 9:00 a.m. ET to 5:30 p.m. ET.
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 N. 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.
/MICHAEL E. LA VILLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
19 August 2026
Prosecution Insights