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 of Claims
Claims 1, 4 and 16 are amended. Claims 17-20 are withdrawn. Claims 21-22 are new. Claims 1-16 and 21-22 are examined herein.
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 5-6, 15, 21 and 22 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.
Claims 5, 15 and 22 recite “a multiples of random distribution value of no more than 15”. Multiples of random distribution values are not commonly used in characterizing alloy texture. Instant Specification discloses that when the structure exhibits no strong texture, mrd≤15. Since “strong” is a relative term, one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the scope of a multiple of random distribution value being no more than 15. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 6 and 21 recite “a multiples of random distribution value of no more than 10”. Multiples of random distribution values are not commonly used in characterizing alloy texture. Instant Specification discloses that when the structure exhibits no more than weak texture, mrd≤10. Since “week” is a relative term, one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the scope of a multiple of random distribution value being no more than 10. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 11-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (Materials Science & Engineering A, 743(2019)372-381, IDS dated 09/30/2022).
Regarding claims 1 and 13-14, Zhang teaches shape memory alloy wire comprising: an elongated wire body including a longitudinal-axis length of iron alloy material and having a size of 20 mmx1mm x 0.2-0.3 mm (Page 373, Experimental procedures). Zhang discloses that the iron alloy has an oligocrystalline crystallographic morphology along said longitudinal-axis length (Page 373, left column, 1st paragraph) and the iron alloy has fcc crystallographic matrix and including a volume fraction of γ′-L12 crystallographic precipitates in the γ-fcc crystallographic matrix (Page 374, right column, 1st paragraph), which meets the recited structure in claim 1.
Zhang discloses that the wire has a cross-section of a rectangular, not circular as recited in claim 1 and Zhang does not teach the recited sized limitation in claims 13-14. However, change in shape and size is a prima facie case of obviousness over Zhang. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A&B.
Regarding the amended feature in claim 1, Zhang discloses that the grain size is 340-640 µm (Fig. 6(b1)) and the alloy has a size of 20 mmx1mmx0.2-0.3mm (Page 373, right column). Thus, there is only 1 grain in thickness direction and there are 2-3 grains in width direction. Since the definition of oligocrystalline structure is that the microstructure contains smaller number of larger grains compared to conventional polycrystalline structure, the alloy disclosed by Zhang meets the oligocrystalline structure in two dimensions limitation recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang discloses that the sample has oligo-crystal structure with relative grain size larger than 1 (Page 373, left column, 1st paragraph), which meets the limitation recited in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang does not explicitly disclose the limitation recited in claim 3. However, in view of the fact that Zhang teaches an alloy having the recited oligo-crystalline structure, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the alloy wire disclosed by Zhang to meet the recited limitation in claim 3. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claims 7-9, Zhang discloses that the iron alloy has composition of Fe-28Ni-17Co-11.5Al-2.5Ta-0.05B (Page 373, Experimental procedures), which meets the limitation recited in claims 7-9.
Regarding claims 11-12, Zhang does not explicitly disclose the volume fraction of the precipitates. However, the volume fraction of the precipitates depends on the alloy composition and the heat treatment conditions. Zhang discloses that the iron alloy has composition of Fe-28Ni-17Co-11.5Al-2.5Ta-0.05B, solution heat treatment was performed at 30 minutes or 3h at 1300 ºC and the aging heat treatment was performed at 600 ºC and 700 ºC for 1-96 h (Page 373, Experimental procedures), which meets the discloses solution heat treatment temperature and time and the aging heat treatment temperature and time disclosed in instant Specification.
In view of the fact that Zhang teaches an alloy composition that meets the recited composition in claims 7-9 and a method of making the alloy wire that meets the heat treatment conditions disclosed in instant Specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the alloy wire disclosed by Zhang to meet the recited volume fraction of the precipitates in claims 11-12. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claim 16, Zhang teaches shape memory alloy wire comprising: an elongated wire body including a longitudinal-axis length of iron alloy material and having a size of 20 mmx1mm x 0.2-0.3 mm (Page 373, Experimental procedures). Zhang discloses that the iron alloy has composition of Fe-28Ni-17Co-11.5Al-2.5Ta-0.05B (Page 373, Experimental procedures). Zhang discloses that the iron alloy has fcc crystallographic matrix and including a volume fraction of γ′-L12 crystallographic precipitates in the γ-fcc crystallographic matrix (Page 374, right column, 1st paragraph), which meets the recited structure in claim 16.
Zhang does not teach the recited length limitation in claim 16. However, change in shape and size is a prima facie case of obviousness over Zhang. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A&B.
Zhang does not explicitly disclose the volume fraction of the γ′-L12 crystallographic precipitates in the γ-fcc crystallographic matrix. However, the volume fraction of the precipitates depends on the alloy composition and the heat treatment conditions. Zhang discloses that the iron alloy has composition of Fe-28Ni-17Co-11.5Al-2.5Ta-0.05B, solution heat treatment was performed at 30 minutes or 3h at 1300 ºC and the aging heat treatment was performed at 600 ºC and 700 ºC for 1-96 h (Page 373, Experimental procedures), which meets the discloses solution heat treatment temperature and time and the aging heat treatment temperature and time disclosed in instant Specification.
In view of the fact that Zhang teaches an alloy composition that meets the recited composition in claims 7-9 and a method of making the alloy wire that meets the heat treatment conditions disclosed in instant Specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the alloy wire disclosed by Zhang to meet the recited volume fraction of the precipitates in claim 16. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-14, 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borza (Journal of Applied Physics, 117, 17E512(2015), IDS dated 09/30/2022), and further in view of Schuh (US 8,282,746).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 13-14, Borza teaches shape memory alloy wire comprising: an elongated wire body including a longitudinal-axis length of iron alloy material and having a diameter of 50 µm and a length of 6cm (Page 2, Experimental Details), which meets the recited diameter in claims 1 and 14. Borza discloses that the iron alloy has fcc crystallographic matrix and including a volume fraction of γ′-L12 crystallographic precipitates in the γ-fcc crystallographic matrix (Page 3, right column, 1st paragraph), which meets the recited structure in claim 1.
Borza does not teach the recited length limitation in claim 13. However, change in length is a prima facie case of obviousness over Borza. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A&B.
Borza does not teach that that the iron alloy has an oligo-crystalline structure along said longitudinal-axis length. Schuh teaches a Fe-based shape memory alloy wire and discloses that when the alloy wire has a bamboo structure in which grain size is greater than the diameter of the wire along the length of the wire, the alloy wire has excellent mechanical damping property (Col 4, Ln 1-12; Col 7, Ln 3 to Col 8, Ln 26). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a wire having bamboo structure with grain size being greater than the wire diameter as taught by Schuh in the process of Borza in order to make an alloy wire having excellent mechanical damping property as disclosed by Schuh. The bamboo structure disclosed by Schuh meets the oligocrystalline structure in two dimensions limitation recited in claims 1 and 2.
Regarding claim 3, Borza in view of Schuh does not explicitly disclose the limitation recited in claim 3. However, in view of the fact that Borza in view of Schuh teaches an alloy having the recited structure, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the alloy wire disclosed by Borza in view of Schuh to meet the recited limitation in claim 3. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claims 5-6, and 21, Borza teaches shape memory alloy wire comprising: an elongated wire body including a longitudinal-axis length of iron alloy material and having a diameter of 50 µm and a length of 6cm (Page 2, Experimental Details), which meets the recited diameter in claims 21 and 22. Borza discloses that the iron alloy has fcc crystallographic matrix and including a volume fraction of γ′-L12 crystallographic precipitates in the γ-fcc crystallographic matrix (Page 3, right column, 1st paragraph), which meets the recited structure in claim 21 and 22.
Borza in view of Schuh does not explicitly disclose multiples of random distribution value. However, in view of the fact that Borza discloses that the wire is made by rotating water spinning followed by cold drawing (Page 2, left column, 2nd paragraph), which meets the processing conditions disclosed in instant Specification (Paragraphs [0046] to [0048]), one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the wire disclosed by Borza in view of Schuh to meet the recited multiples of random distribution value in claims 5-6 and 21. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claims 7-9, Borza discloses that the iron alloy has composition of Fe-28Ni-17Co-11.5Al-2.5Ta-0.05B (Page 2, Experimental Details), which meets the limitation recited in claims 7-9.
Regarding claims 11-12, Borza does not explicitly disclose the volume fraction of the precipitates. However, the volume fraction of the precipitates depends on the alloy composition and the aging heat treatment conditions. Borza discloses that the iron alloy has composition of Fe-28Ni-17Co-11.5Al-2.5Ta-0.05B, the aging heat treatment was performed at 800 ºC for 1 h (Page 3, right column, 2nd paragraph), which meets the discloses solution heat treatment temperature and time and the aging heat treatment temperature and time disclosed in instant Specification.
In view of the fact that Borza teaches an alloy composition that meets the recited composition in claims 7-9 and a method of making the alloy wire that meets the heat treatment conditions disclosed in instant Specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the alloy wire disclosed by Borza in view of Schuh to meet the recited volume fraction of the precipitates in claims 11-12. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claim 16, Borza teaches shape memory alloy wire comprising: an elongated wire body including a longitudinal-axis length of iron alloy material and having a diameter of 50 µm and a length of 6cm (Page 2, Experimental Details. Borza discloses that the iron alloy has fcc crystallographic matrix and including a volume fraction of γ′-L12 crystallographic precipitates in the γ-fcc crystallographic matrix (Page 3, right column, 1st paragraph), which meets the recited structure in claim 16. Borza discloses that the iron alloy has composition of Fe-28Ni-17Co-11.5Al-2.5Ta-0.05B (Page 3, Experimental Details).
Borza does not teach the recited length in claim 16. However, change in size is a prima facie case of obviousness over Borza. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A&B.
Borza does not explicitly disclose the volume fraction of the precipitates. However, the volume fraction of the precipitates depends on the alloy composition and the aging heat treatment conditions. Borza discloses that the iron alloy has composition of Fe-28Ni-17Co-11.5Al-2.5Ta-0.05B, the aging heat treatment was performed at 800 ºC for 1 h (Page 3, right column, 2nd paragraph), which meets the discloses solution heat treatment temperature and time and the aging heat treatment temperature and time disclosed in instant Specification.
In view of the fact that Borza teaches an alloy composition that meets the recited composition in claim 16 and a method of making the alloy wire that meets the aging heat treatment conditions disclosed in instant Specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the alloy wire disclosed by Borza in view of Schuh to meet the recited volume fraction of the precipitates in claim 16. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borza (Journal of Applied Physics, 117, 17E512(2015)) in view of Schuh (US 8,282,746), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chumlyakov (Russian Physics Journal, Vol 58, No. 11, 2016).
Regarding claim 10, Borza discloses that the iron alloy has composition of Fe-28Ni-17Co-11.5Al-2.5Nb-0.05B or Fe-28Ni-17Co-11.5Al-2.5Ta-0.05B (Page 3, Experimental Details), not Fe-28Ni-17Co-11.5Al-2.5Ti-0.05B as recited in claim 10.
Chumlyakov teaches shape memory alloy having composition of Fe-28Ni-17Co-11.5Al-2.5X-0.05B, wherein X can be Ti or Nb (Abstract). Chumlyakov discloses that the alloys have superelasticity (Abstract). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make Fe-28Ni-17Co-11.5Al-2.5Ti-0.05B wire in the process of Borza in view of Schuh in order to make an alloy having superelasticity as disclosed by Chumlyakov.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 11-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (Materials Science & Engineering A, 743(2019)372-381, IDS dated 09/30/2022), and further in view of Schuh (US 8,282,746).
Regarding claims 1 and 13-14, Zhang teaches shape memory alloy wire comprising: an elongated wire body including a longitudinal-axis length of iron alloy material and having a size of 20 mmx1mm x 0.2-0.3 mm (Page 373, Experimental procedures). Zhang discloses that the iron alloy has an oligocrystalline crystallographic morphology along said longitudinal-axis length (Page 373, left column, 1st paragraph) and the iron alloy has fcc crystallographic matrix and including a volume fraction of γ′-L12 crystallographic precipitates in the γ-fcc crystallographic matrix (Page 374, right column, 1st paragraph), which meets the recited structure in claim 1.
Zhang discloses that the wire has a cross-section of a rectangular, not circular as recited in claim 1. Schuh teaches a Fe-based shape memory alloy wire and discloses that when the alloy wire has a bamboo structure in which grain size is greater than the diameter of the wire along the length of the wire, the alloy wire has excellent mechanical damping property (Col 4, Ln 1-12; Col 7, Ln 3 to Col 8, Ln 26). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a wire having bamboo structure with grain size being greater than the wire diameter as taught by Shuh in the process of Borza in order to make an alloy wire having excellent mechanical damping property as disclosed by Schuh. Schuh discloses that the wire has a diameter of not more than 200 µm (Col 9, Ln 60-67), which meets the diameter recited in claim 1 and 14.
Zhang in view of Schuh does not teach the recited length limitation in claim 14. However, change in size is a prima facie case of obviousness over Zhang in view of Schuh. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A&B.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang discloses that the sample has oligo-crystal structure with relative grain size larger than 1 (Page 373, left column, 1st paragraph). Schuh teaches a Fe-based shape memory alloy wire and discloses that when the alloy wire has a bamboo structure in which grain size is greater than the diameter of the wire along the length of the wire, the alloy wire has excellent mechanical damping property (Col 4, Ln 1-12; Col 7, Ln 3 to Col 8, Ln 26). Thus, claim 2 is obvious over Zhang in view of Schuh.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang does not explicitly disclose the limitation recited in claim 3. However, in view of the fact that Zhang in view of Schuh teaches an alloy having the recited oligo-crystalline structure, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the alloy wire disclosed by Zhang in view of Schuh to meet the recited limitation in claim 3. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claims 7-9, Zhang discloses that the iron alloy has composition of Fe-28Ni-17Co-11.5Al-2.5Ta-0.05B (Page 373, Experimental procedures), which meets the limitation recited in claims 7-9.
Regarding claims 11-12, Zhang does not explicitly disclose the volume fraction of the precipitates. However, the volume fraction of the precipitates depends on the alloy composition and the heat treatment conditions. Zhang discloses that the iron alloy has composition of Fe-28Ni-17Co-11.5Al-2.5Ta-0.05B, solution heat treatment was performed at 30 minutes or 3h at 1300 ºC and the aging heat treatment was performed at 600 ºC and 700 ºC for 1-96 h (Page 373, Experimental procedures), which meets the discloses solution heat treatment temperature and time and the aging heat treatment temperature and time disclosed in instant Specification.
In view of the fact that Zhang teaches an alloy composition that meets the recited composition in claims 7-9 and a method of making the alloy wire that meets the heat treatment conditions disclosed in instant Specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the alloy wire disclosed by Zhang in view of Schuh to meet the recited volume fraction of the precipitates in claims 11-12. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claim 16, Zhang teaches shape memory alloy wire comprising: an elongated wire body including a longitudinal-axis length of iron alloy material and having a size of 20 mmx1mm x 0.2-0.3 mm (Page 373, Experimental procedures). Zhang discloses that the iron alloy has composition of Fe-28Ni-17Co-11.5Al-2.5Ta-0.05B (Page 373, Experimental procedures).
Zhang does not teach the recited length limitation in claim 16. However, change in shape and size is a prima facie case of obviousness over Zhang. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A&B.
Zhang discloses that the iron alloy has fcc crystallographic matrix and including a volume fraction of γ′-L12 crystallographic precipitates in the γ-fcc crystallographic matrix (Page 374, right column, 1st paragraph). Zhang does not explicitly disclose the volume fraction of the γ′-L12 crystallographic precipitates in the γ-fcc crystallographic matrix. However, the volume fraction of the precipitates depends on the alloy composition and the heat treatment conditions. Zhang discloses that the iron alloy has composition of Fe-28Ni-17Co-11.5Al-2.5Ta-0.05B, solution heat treatment was performed at 30 minutes or 3h at 1300 ºC and the aging heat treatment was performed at 600 ºC and 700 ºC for 1-96 h (Page 373, Experimental procedures), which meets the discloses solution heat treatment temperature and time and the aging heat treatment temperature and time disclosed in instant Specification.
In view of the fact that Zhang teaches an alloy composition that meets the recited composition in claim 16 and a method of making the alloy wire that meets the heat treatment conditions disclosed in instant Specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the alloy wire disclosed by Zhang in view of Schuh to meet the recited volume fraction of the precipitates in claim 16. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, the applicants argued that the term "multiples of random distribution" is defined in paragraph [0036] of the published application, which provides a method for measuring and calculating this value. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to understand this feature.
In response, Multiples of random distribution values are not commonly used in characterizing alloy texture. Instant Specification discloses that when the structure exhibits no strong texture, mrd≤15. Instant Specification also discloses that when the structure exhibits no more than weak texture, mrd≤10. Since “strong” and “week” are relative terms, one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the scope of a multiple of random distribution value being no more than 15 or 10.
Second, the applicants argued that as seen in FIG. 2 of Zhang, the grain size of the crystallographic structure of the Zhang material was approximately 300-400 micrometers, and strips having dimensions of 20mm X 1 mm X 0.2-0.3 mm were then cut out of this material to form the alleged oligocrystalline material referred to in the Office Action. Because the average grain size is greater than about half the length of only one of these dimensions (the dimension having a length of 0.2-0.3 mm), the Zhang material is only oligocrystalline in one dimension per the definition provided in paragraph [0029] of the published application. The claimed material, which has an oligocrystalline morphology in two dimensions, is not obvious in view of Zhang and leads to significant improvements in superelasticity and other material properties, as demonstrated by the Example provided in the present application.
In response, claim 1 does not recite that the definition of oligocrystalline is that the average size of the grains in the material composing the structure is greater than about at least half of the extent of a dimension of the structure.
Instant Specification discloses:
‘In one embodiment, the term “oligocrystalline structure” as used herein refers to a structure having a polycrystalline morphology in which the average size of the grains in the material composing the structure is greater than about at least half of the extent of a dimension of the structure’. Thus, such definition is only applied to one embodiment. The broad definition of oligocrystalline structure is that the microstructure contains smaller number of larger grains compared to conventional polycrystalline structure. Zhang discloses that the grain size is 340-640 µm (Fig. 6(b1)) and the alloy has a size of 20 mmx1mmx0.2-0.3mm (Page 373, right column). Thus, there is only 1 grain in thickness direction and there are 2-3 grains in width direction and the alloy disclosed by Zhang meets the oligocrystalline structure in two dimensions limitation recited in claim 1.
Third, the applicants argued that the cold-drawing process described in Borza would lead to a fundamentally different crystallographic morphology than recited in claim 1. In Borza, the cold-drawing process results in the formation of non- oligocrystalline grains.
In response, as set forth above, Borza in view of Schuh discloses forming oligocrystalline structure.
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 Xiaowei Su whose telephone number is (571)272-3239. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00.
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 Hendricks can be reached at 5712721401. 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.
/XIAOWEI SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights