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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 5 February 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that inventions are to be independent and distinct for proper restriction, that examination of both groups would not constitute a serious burden, that each group has the same corresponding special technical feature that form a single general inventive concept. This is not found persuasive. The standard for appropriateness of the restriction requirement is “lack of unity”, not “independent and distinct” because this application is a national phase application of the PCT application. See MPEP 1893.03(d). The claim groups would be separately classified with Group I in C22C21/00 and Group II in B22D21/007, which constitutes prima facie evidence of serious burden. See MPEP 803(II). There is no single general inventive concept because there is no special corresponding technical feature. See 1893.03(d) (“A group of inventions is considered linked to form a single general inventive concept where there is a technical relationship among the inventions that involves at least one common or corresponding special technical feature. The expression special technical features is defined as meaning those technical features that define the contribution which each claimed invention, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.”). As was set forth in the restriction requirement, the corresponding technical feature is not special, and the claim amendment to Claim 1 does not change that conclusion.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9-15 and 18-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5 February 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, 3-6, 16 and 17 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, it is unclear how to recognize the claimed feature “a content of recycled can body material of the same series accounts for at least 50% of a total weight of the aluminum alloy sheet”. The claimed composition is specified in the immediately preceding section. Whether the atoms in the sheet originated from recycled material or not, the required atoms as specified and claimed by respective elemental mass percentages cannot be distinguished by their origin. Thus, the claimed feature seems to have no recognizable limitation on the scope of what is being claimed, and so it is unclear why this phrase is present in the claim or how it limits claim scope.
Regarding Claim 1, it is unclear how the area fractions and sizes for intermetallics and inclusions are to be assessed. It would be expected that qualitatively very different sheets could relate to having these relationships as measured one way as opposed to another. And, without specifying what is the appropriate method, one of ordinary skill in the art could be uncertain or unable to ascertain whether a particular sheet is outside of the claim scope or inside the claim scope. For example, are they to be measured in the rolling direction or transverse direction of a cross-section, on the surface, or otherwise. For example, Kudo WO 2020/045537 teaches very specific method for ascertaining intermetallic area ratio/size near the sheet surface, but it is unclear whether applicant’s method is necessarily the same, different, or otherwise. See Kudo USPA 2021/0324501 (paragraph 46) (translation of Kudo WO 202/045537). This indefiniteness applies to comparable limitations in Claim 3 and size measurement in Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 4, at line 2, it is unclear which range is claimed “75-95%” or “80-95%”. It is unclear what are the numerator and denominator of this percentage. Is it a weight ratio, an atomic ratio, or something else? Is the ratio the total atoms of Fe, Si, and Mn in the AlFeMnSi phase divided by the total atoms of Fe, Si, and Mn in the sheet? The Specification refers to area ratios at page 4, lines 8-13, but it is unclear whether the claim is limited to this type of assessment and, if so, it is unclear what are areas that are respectively included in the numerator and denominator. Is this resulting ratio equivalent to an atomic or weight ratio?
Regarding Claim 5, it is unclear whether “perforation incidence” as measured by “ppm” is necessarily number of perforation defects per million square millimeters.
Regarding Claim 5, it is unclear what are the testing methods being claimed for the claimed tensile strength, yield strength, elongation, and pre-service yield strength. Analogous rejection applies to Claim 17.
Regarding Claim 6, it is unclear what is the “second phase”. Is it necessarily alphaAlFeMnSi? What defines “second”? Is it second in that it is other than a first? Is it second in that it is second most predominant by volume as compared to the most predominant phase by volume? Is there some other meaning? Is it the total of all phase that is not primary Al matrix phase?
Regarding Claim 6, the reported second phase size measurements in Table 2 appear to relate to ingot, not sheet. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation in Claim 6 is bound by the second phase size in the cast ingot from which the sheet originated or the sheet itself.
Regarding Claim 6, it is unclear what is the claimed method of ascertaining porosity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 3-6, 16, and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claims 1, 3-6, 16, and 17, the reviewed prior art does not teach or suggest the subject matter of these claims. Particularly, the reviewed prior art does not teach or suggest aluminum alloy steel sheet having claimed ingredients, including Ce+La amounts, as well as the claimed total area fractions of intermetallic compound phase and inclusions for respective size ranges, in the claimed context. For example, Yin et al. CN113549794A in view of Satoru JP 01-119637A suggest many features. Yin et al. teaches aluminum alloy for cans (bottom page 1) wherein the alloy has ingredients overlapping those being claimed (top page 3), wherein further single elemental ingredients of 0.05% can be present, but does not teach Ce+La amount or inclusion. Yin does not teach including Zn, but Zn can be absent as claimed. Satoru teaches aluminum alloy for cans (top page 1) wherein the alloy is close to that of Yin and that being claimed (page 2) with the further proviso that La and/or Ce should be included in range from 0.005% to 1%, by mass, for achieving improved rivetability (bottom, page 2 through middle, page 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to prepare any of the suggested alloy compositions in Yin including those that are encompassed by the claimed compositions. Among those would be those with claimed Fe/Si ratio [e.g., Fe of 0.8 and Si of 0.5 leads to 1.6 for ratio]. See MPEP 2144.05. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to further include Ce+La in claimed amounts in Satoru since both alloys are tailored for can making, both alloys have comparable other ingredients, Satoru teaches range of amounts of Ce+La that is encompassed by the claimed range, and improved rivetability would be expected to result which is characteristic of can making that both alloys for can making could be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as benefiting from. However, Yin in view of Satoru fails to expressly teach or suggest the claimed total area fractions of intermetallic compound phase and inclusions for respective size ranges and fails to otherwise provide basis for establishing the inherency of this feature. Applicant’s Response points to these deficiencies. See Response filed on 5 February 2026 (bottom two paragraphs on page 6).
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
30 April 2026
Prosecution Insights