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 .
Status
A preliminary amendment, filed 10/24/2024, is acknowledged. Claim 7 is amended claims 16-20 are newly added. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because according to 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1), when there is more than one figure, each figure should be labeled with the abbreviation “FIG.” with a consecutive Arabic numeral (e.g. FIG. 1, FIG. 2, etc.) or an Arabic numeral and capital letter in the English alphabet (e.g. FIG. 1A, FIG. 1B, etc.). MPEP 507.
The instant application includes multiple figures improperly labeled as “Figure 1” and “Figure 2.” Therefore, Applicant should provide replacement drawings using the proper labeling (e.g., “FIG. 1,” “FIG. 2,” etc.).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-11 and 16-20 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.
The term “first temperature is greater than an aging hardening temperature” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “an aging hardening temperature” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that “an alloy” does not have definitive or singular “aging hardening temperature” but instead, may have a range of temperatures capable of achieving a level of age hardening. As a result, it is unclear how to determine the scope of a first temperature greater than such an age hardening temperature, rendering the claim indefinite. Claims 2-11 and 16-20 are indefinite based on their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10, 12-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yan (US 9249487).
With respect to Claims 1 and 12, Yan teaches a method of subjecting an aluminum alloy to solution heat treating, quenching, then subjecting the alloy to a first temperature for a first time duration, specifically, a heat treatment referred to as “artificial aging” at a temperature of about 330-530°F (approx. 165.6 to 276.7 °C) for 1 minute to 6 hours, then subjecting the alloy to a second temperature for a second time duration, specifically, a heat treatment referred to as “second aging” at a temperature lower than the first temperature for a duration of at least 30 minutes. (col. 1, ln. 17-51).
Yan teaches a specific example wherein the alloy is subjected to first temperature of 400°F (approx. 204.4°C) for 10 minutes then subjected to a second temperature of 360°F (approx. 182.2°C) for 4 hours. (Table 2). Thus, Yan teaches a method comprising a first temperature heat treatment for a time falling within the claimed range of claim 12 and below a solution heat treatment temperature and greater than a second aging temperature (i.e. aging hardening temperature) for a second time duration. Accordingly, Yan is deemed to teach a method comprising subjecting an alloy to a first temperature for a first time duration wherein “the first temperature is greater than an aging hardening temperature of the alloy and below a solution heat treatment temperature.” See also MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore, Yan is deemed to teach a method with sufficient specificity to anticipate the respectively claimed methods of claims 1 and 12.
With respect to Claim 2, Yan teaches subjecting the alloy to a solution heat treatment at the solution heat treatment temperature, prior to subjecting the alloy to the first temperature. (col. 1, ln. 17-51; rejection of claim 1 above).
With respect to Claim 3, Yan teaches wherein the second temperature is an aging temperature, deemed to constitute an aging hardening temperature. (see rejection of claim 1 above). See also MPEP 2112.01.
With respect to Claim 4, Yan teaches subjecting the alloy to a solution heat treatment at the solution heat treatment temperature followed by quenching, prior to subjecting the alloy to the first temperature. (col. 1, ln. 17-51; rejection of claim 1 above).
With respect to Claims 7 and 16-18, Yan teaches a method of making an alloy having improved stress corrosion cracking resistance (SCC) as compared to non-invention alloys (col. 5, ln. 65 to col. 6, ln. 6; col. 6, ln. 59-67); however, the reference does not specifically address intergranular corrosion resistance. As Yan teaches a method comprising the same steps, temperatures, an aluminum alloy (see rejections of claims 1-4 above), and resulting in an alloy with improved corrosion resistance, it would necessarily be expected to result in the same properties, including improved intergranular corrosion resistance. See MPEP 2112.01.
With respect to Claims 8-10 and 13-14, as detailed above Yan teaches a specific example wherein the alloy is subjected to a first temperature of 400°F (approx. 204.4°C) for 10 minutes then subjected to a second temperature of 360°F (approx. 182.2°C) for 4 hours (Table 2), thus, falling within the respectively recited temperature and duration ranges of claims 8-10 and 13-14 and sufficiently specific to anticipate the claims.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yan (US 9765419).
With respect to Claims 1 and 12, Yan teaches a method of subjecting an aluminum alloy to solution heat treating, quenching, then subjecting the alloy to a first temperature for a first time duration, specifically, a heat treatment referred to as “artificial aging” at a temperature of about 310-530°F (approx. 154.4 to 276.7 °C) for 1 minute to 6 hours, then subjecting the alloy to a second temperature for a second time duration, specifically, a heat treatment referred to as “second aging” at a temperature lower than the first temperature for a duration of at least 30 minutes. (col. 1, ln. 17-52).
Yan teaches specific embodiments, for example, wherein the alloy is subjected to first temperature of 400°F (approx. 204.4°C) for 10 minutes then subjected to a second temperature of 330°F (approx. 165.6°C) for 2 hours. (Ex. 1980-2, Table 29). Thus, Yan teaches a method comprising a first temperature heat treatment for a time falling within the claimed range of claim 12 and below a solution heat treatment temperature and greater than a second aging temperature (i.e. aging hardening temperature) for a second time duration. Accordingly, Yan is deemed to teach a method comprising subjecting an alloy to a first temperature for a first time duration wherein “the first temperature is greater than an aging hardening temperature of the alloy and below a solution heat treatment temperature.” See also MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore, Yan is deemed to teach a method with sufficient specificity to anticipate the respectively claimed methods of claims 1 and 12.
With respect to Claim 2, Yan teaches subjecting the alloy to a solution heat treatment at the solution heat treatment temperature, prior to subjecting the alloy to the first temperature. (col. 1, ln. 35-49; rejection of claim 1 above).
With respect to Claim 3, Yan teaches wherein the second temperature is an aging temperature, deemed to constitute an aging hardening temperature. (see rejection of claim 1 above). See also MPEP 2112.01.
With respect to Claim 4, Yan teaches subjecting the alloy to a solution heat treatment at the solution heat treatment temperature followed by quenching, prior to subjecting the alloy to the first temperature. (col. 1, ln. 35-49; rejection of claim 1 above).
With respect to Claims 7 and 16-18, Yan teaches a method of making an alloy having improved stress corrosion cracking resistance (SCC) as compared to non-invention alloys (col. 10, ln. 18-26); however, the reference does not specifically address intergranular corrosion resistance. As Yan teaches a method comprising the same steps, temperatures, an aluminum alloy (see rejections of claims 1-4 above), and resulting in an alloy with improved corrosion resistance, it would necessarily be expected to result in the same properties, including improved intergranular corrosion resistance. See MPEP 2112.01.
With respect to Claims 8-15, as detailed above Yan teaches a specific example wherein the alloy is subjected to a first temperature of 400°F (approx. 204.4°C) for 10 minutes then subjected to a second temperature of 330°F (approx. 165.6°C) for 2 hours. (Ex. 1980-2, Table 29), thus, falling within the respectively recited temperature and duration ranges of claims 8-15 and sufficiently specific to anticipate the claims.
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:
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-11, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Despois et al. (US 2019/0352759).
With respect to Claim 1, Despois teaches a method of subjecting an aluminum alloy to a first temperature for a first time duration, specifically, a heat treatment referred to as “under-ageing” at a temperature of about 90°C to about 200°C for about 1 to about 72 hours, then subjecting the alloy to a second temperature for a second time duration, specifically, a heat treatment referred to as “re-ageing” at a temperature from 90°C to about 200°C for about 1 to about 72 hours. (para. 7-13, 118). Despois teaches solution heat treatment conducted at about 450-600°C and exemplary embodiments wherein, in each example, the under-ageing (first temperature) is conducted at a higher temperature than the re-ageing (second temperature) and below a solution heat treatment temperature. (para. 113; Table 21). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a first temperature from the range of Despois at a temperature “greater than an aging hardening temperature of the alloy and below a solution heat treatment temperature.” See also MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to Claim 2, Despois teaches subjecting the alloy to a solution heat treatment at the solution heat treatment temperature, prior to subjecting the alloy to the first temperature. (para. 12, 113; Fig. 1).
With respect to Claim 3, Despois teaches wherein the second temperature is an aging temperature, deemed to constitute an aging hardening temperature. Moreover, as Despois teaches a second temperature meeting the preferred temperature range instantly disclosed (see, e.g., claim 10) and an alloy having the same standardized 6xxx composition (see Despois para. 13-17, 112-114; instant claim 5), it would necessarily result in the same properties. See MPEP 2112.01.
With respect to Claim 4, Despois teaches subjecting the alloy to a solution heat treatment at the solution heat treatment temperature followed by quenching, prior to subjecting the alloy to the first temperature. (para. 12, 113; Fig. 1).
With respect to Claims 5-6, Despois teaches wherein the alloy may be a 6xxx alloy, a standardized alloy composition and thus comprising a 6xxx Al-Si-Mg-Cu aluminum alloy. (see para. 5, teaching the compositional ranges allowed for a 6xxx aluminum alloy and including Si, Mg, and Cu).
With respect to Claims 7 and 16-20, Despois teaches a method of making an alloy having “good corrosion resistance compared to conventional 6xxx and 7xxx series aluminum alloys” (para. 106); however, the reference does not specifically address intergranular corrosion resistance. As Despois teaches a method comprising the same steps, temperatures, an alloy having the same standardized 6xxx composition (see rejections of claims 1-6 above), and resulting in an alloy with improved corrosion resistance, it would necessarily be expected to result in the same properties, including improved intergranular corrosion resistance. See MPEP 2112.01.
With respect to Claims 8 and 10, Despois teaches wherein the first temperature is from about 90°C to about 200°C and the second temperature is from about 90°C to about 200°C (see rejection of claim 1 above), overlapping the instantly claimed ranges of 8 and 10, respectively. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portions of the overlapping ranges. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claimed composition overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to Claim 11 Despois teaches wherein second time duration is from about 1 hour to about 72 hours (see rejection of claim 1 above), overlapping the instantly claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portions of the overlapping ranges. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claimed composition overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen et al. (US 2017/0175240) alone or in the alternative, in view of Zheng (US 2023/0203633).
With respect to Claims 1 and 5-11, Wen teaches a method of making a 6xxx-type aluminum alloy exhibiting an intergranular corrosion depth of 200 microns or less, wherein the 6xxx-type aluminum alloy comprises Cu, Si and Mg, and thus, constitutes a “6xxx Al-Si-Mg-Cu aluminum alloy.” (para. 6-12, 136). Wen teaches wherein the method may comprise steps of hot rolling, solution treatment, quenching, followed by natural or artificial aging treatment. (see, e.g., para. 138-154, 169-173). In particular, Wen teaches examples of artificial aging at a temperature of 180-225°C for a period of about 15 minutes to about 8 hours (para. 154, 173) wherein such examples resulted in an intergranular corrosion depth of 150 microns or less. (Table 17). Thus, Wen teaches a method of subjecting a 6xxx Al-Si-Mg-Cu aluminum alloy to an aging temperature below a solution heat treatment temperature, for a period of time overlapping the first time duration and also overlapping the subsequently claimed ranges of second temperature and second time duration (individually or combined), and resulting in an alloy comprising improved intergranular corrosion (IGC) resistance.
Claim 1 places no limitations on the first and second temperatures nor the first and second time durations and does not require them to differ. As the instantly claimed first temperature and the second temperature may be the same temperature, (including a temperature of 200°C with respect to claims 8, 10, 13, and 14 overlapping the temperature range of Wen), and may comprise individual and combined time durations encompassed by time period of Wen (see also claims 9 and 11), a single aging heat treatment of Wen falling overlapping the claimed ranges is deemed to meet the instantly claimed limitations of Claims 1 and 8-11. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portions of the respective overlapping ranges. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claimed composition overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
In the alternative with respect to claims 1 and 5-11 and also with respect to Claim 12, Wen teaches an aging heat treatment overlapping the respective first and second temperatures and first and second time durations and resulting in an aluminum alloy having an intergranular corrosion depth falling within the claimed ranges; however, the reference is silent as to breaking up to the aging heat treatment into first and second heating steps as instantly claimed and wherein the first temperature is higher than the second temperature as required by claim 12.
Zheng teaches a method of heat treating an aluminum alloy, such as a 6xxx-type aluminum alloy, the method comprising subjecting an aluminum alloy to a first aging step at a temperature of 180-270° C for 0-30 minutes, followed by a second aging step at a second temperature of 150-180° C for 1-6 hours. (para. 11-19, 64). The reference teaches examples, such as a first aging step at 220° C for 5 minutes followed by a second aging step at 175° C for 4 hours. (para. 77). Zheng teaches that a solution treatment temperature for a 6xxx alloy should occur at a temperature of 500-580° C. (para. 64). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that 6xxx series aluminum alloy is a standardized alloy composition and thus comprising a 6xxx Al-Si-Mg-Cu aluminum alloy. (as evidenced by the instant specification para. 5, teaching the compositional ranges allowed for a 6xxx aluminum alloy and including Si, Mg, and Cu and also evidenced by Wen, see above).
Accordingly, Zheng teaches a method comprising steps of subjecting an aluminum alloy to a first temperature for a first time duration of 0-30 minutes overlapping the claimed range, wherein the first temperature is below a solution heat treatment temperature, subjecting the alloy to a second temperature for a second time duration of 1-6 hours, and thus, wherein the first temperature is higher than the second temperature, thereby obtaining a resulting alloy and wherein the aluminum alloy may be a variety of alloys such as 2xxx, 6xxx, or 7xxx series aluminum alloys. (para. 64).
Zheng also teaches “In the two-step aging temperature range, the stress relaxation occurs while strengthening phases are rapidly precipitated, thereby improving the strength and dimensional accuracy of the formed part. In accordance with the hot forming method for the large-size aircraft thin-walled part of high-strength aluminum alloy, when the die-clamping pressure is maintained in the forming die, the dimensional accuracy of the formed part is improved while the stress relaxation occurs. On the premise of guaranteeing the quality of the formed part, a mode of the stepped aging treatment shortens the aging cycle and reduces energy consumption in the production and manufacturing process of the part.” (para. 28).
Thus, Wen and Zheng are both drawn to heat treatment of 6xxx-type aluminum alloys with overlapping temperatures and times. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to split the aging heat treatment of Wen to first and second aging heat treatment steps and first and second time durations, wherein the first temperature is higher than the second temperature, as taught by Zheng, in order to reduce energy consumption and improve the accuracy of part forming. (see, Zheng, para. 10, 28). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the respective portions of the overlapping ranges. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claim overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to Claim 2, Wen teaches subjecting the 6xxx Al-Si-Mg-Cu aluminum alloy to a solution heat treatment at the solution heat treatment temperature, prior to subjecting the alloy to the first aging step at the first temperature. (see rejection of claim 1 above; para. 138-154, 169-173).
With respect to Claim 3, Wen and in the alternative, Wen in view of Zheng teach a second temperature that is an aging hardening temperature. (see rejection of claim 1 above).
With respect to Claim 4, Wen teaches wherein the 6xxx aluminum alloy may comprise a solution heat treated and quenched alloy. (see rejection of claim 1 above; para. 138-154, 169-173).
With respect to Claims 13-15, Wen in view of Zheng teach a first temperature, a second temperature, and a second time duration overlapping the instantly claimed ranges. (see rejection of claims 1 and 12 above). Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claim overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to Claims 16-20, Wen teaches a method of making an alloy having an intergranular corrosion depth of 200 microns or less, and thus, teaches wherein the resulting alloy has an improved intergranular corrosion (IGC) resistance. (see rejection of claims 1-7 above).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 and 7-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9, 14-22, and 24-32 of U.S. Patent No. 9765419. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant and related claims are both drawn to methods of subjecting an alloy to a first temperature for a first time duration and a second temperature for a second time duration, wherein the first temperature is below a solution treatment temperature and above the second temperature, the methods comprising solution treatment followed by quenching prior to subjecting the alloy to said first and second temperatures, and wherein the respective temperatures and times overlap. (see more detailed discussion in 103 rejection above over the same U.S. Patent. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claimed composition overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05. With respect to the instant claims 7 and 16-18, while the related claims are silent as to IGC, as the claims are drawn to a method of treating an aluminum alloy with the same steps and substantially overlapping processing parameters, it would necessarily be expected to result in the same properties, including improved IGC. See MPEP 2112.01.
Claims 1-4 and 7-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 and 16-19 of U.S. Patent No. 9249487. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant and related claims are both drawn to methods of subjecting an alloy to a first temperature for a first time duration and a second temperature for a second time duration, wherein the first temperature is below a solution treatment temperature and above the second temperature, the methods comprising solution treatment followed by quenching prior to subjecting the alloy to said first and second temperatures, and wherein the respective temperatures and times overlap. (see more detailed discussion in 103 rejection above over the same U.S. Patent. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claimed composition overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05. With respect to the instant claims 7 and 16-18, while the related claims are silent as to IGC, as the claims are drawn to a method of treating an aluminum alloy with the same steps and substantially overlapping processing parameters, it would necessarily be expected to result in the same properties, including improved IGC. See MPEP 2112.01.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-4, 8, and 10-15 of copending Application No. 18/139465 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: the related claims are a continuation of the instant application. The originally filed claims of related application are identical or nearly identical to the originally filed claims of the instant application. The claims differ in that the related claims have been amended to include an intergranular corrosion depth measurement and to combine limitations of certain claims. As the related claims include all of the instantly claimed subject matter and include additional narrowing limitations, they meet each limitation of the instant claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A HEVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0361. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/JOHN A HEVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
