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 without traverse of claims 1-26 in the reply filed on 2/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 27 and 28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/26/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4-6, 13 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Instant claims 1, 4-6, 13 and 14 recite the limitations “Cr2Nb,” “Cu5Zr,” and “Cu51Zr14” instead of “Cr2Nb,” “Cu5Zr,” and “Cu51Zr14.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 2, 9-12, 15 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Contrasting roles of Laves_Cr2Nb precipitates on the creep properties of novel CuCrNbZr alloys” by Wang et al (hereinafter referred to as Wang 2020).
Regarding claim 1 and 9-12, Wang 2020 discloses a Cu-based alloy consisting of the following composition, which lies within the instantly claimed composition as follows:
Element
Claimed wt%
Wang 2020 wt%
Lies within?
Cr
1.0-2.0
1.77
Yes
Nb
0.5-1.5
1.23
Yes
Zr
0.1-0.5
0.18
Yes
O
<0.025
<0.006
Yes
N
<0.01
<0.001
Yes
C
<0.01
≤impurity
Yes
Sn
<0.12
<0.002
Yes
Fe
<0.1
0.0039
Yes
Cu
Balance
Balance
Yes
Wherein the alloy comprises Cr2Nb precipitates within the grain boundaries and Cr precipitates in the grain matrix, and wherein the alloy is manufactured by annealing at 970 °C (within the claimed range of 950 to 980 °C” and then aging at 475 °C (within the claimed range of 460 to 490 °C).
(Wang 2020, abstract, “2.1. Materials Preparation”)
Wang 2020 anticipates instant claims 1 and 9-12 because Wang discloses an alloy wholly within the limitations of instant claims 1 and 9-12.
Regarding claim 2, Wang 2020 discloses a measured weight percent of 0.57% of Cr phase (Wang 2020, “3.2. Microstructural characterization results”) which appears to lie within the instantly claimed range of a mole fraction of matrix Cr precipitates is from 0.005 to 0.02.
Regarding claim 15, the molar ratio of Cr to Nb of the alloy of Wang 2020 (converted from wt%) is calculated to be 2.57, lying within the instantly claimed range of 2.5 to 4.0.
Regarding claim 26, Wang 2020 discloses the crystal structure of the Cu matrix is face centered cubic (Wang 2020, “3.2. Microstructural characterization results”).
Claim(s) 1, 4, 9-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 114752807A to Wang et al (hereinafter referred to as Wang ‘807).
Regarding claim 1, 4 and 9-12, Wang ‘807 discloses a Cu-based alloy consisting of the following composition, which lies within the instantly claimed composition as follows:
Element
Claimed wt%
Wang ‘807 Ex 4 wt%
Lies within?
Cr
1.0-2.0
2.0
Yes
Nb
0.5-1.5
1.5
Yes
Zr
0.1-0.5
0.15
Yes
O
<0.025
≤impurity
Yes
N
<0.01
≤impurity
Yes
C
<0.01
≤impurity
Yes
Sn
<0.12
≤impurity
Yes
Fe
<0.1
≤impurity
Yes
Cu
Balance
Balance
Yes
Wherein the alloy comprises Cr2Nb precipitates within the grain boundaries and Cu5Zr and Cr precipitates in the grain matrix, and wherein the alloy is manufactured by annealing at 980 °C (within the claimed range of 950 to 980 °C” and then aging at 475 °C (within the claimed range of 460 to 490 °C).
(Wang ‘807, abstract, Example 4, para [0044-0050])
Wang ‘807 anticipates instant claims 1 and 9-12 because Wang discloses an alloy wholly within the limitations of instant claims 1 and 9-12.
Regarding claim 13, Wang ‘807 discloses the Cr2Nb grain boundary precipitates are from 5 to 10 µm (within the claimed range of 2 to 20 µm in diameter), the Cr matrix precipitates are from 2 to 8 nm (within the claimed range of 1 to 10 nm in diameter), and the CuZr matrix precipitates are from 20 to 30 nm in diameter (within the claimed range of 10 to 50 nm in diameter) (Wang ‘807, para [0050]).
Regarding claim 15, Example 2 of Wang ‘807 contains Cr 1.6 wt%, Nb 1.12 wt%, Zr 0.2 wt%; the remainder being Cu and unavoidable impurities (Wang ‘807, Example 2, para [0028-0034]). When converted from wt% to mole%, this results in a molar ratio of Cr to Nb of the alloy of Wang ‘807 of 2.55, within the claimed range of 2.5 to 4.0.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
Claim(s) 5-8, 13, and 17-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over “Contrasting roles of Laves_Cr2Nb precipitates on the creep properties of novel CuCrNbZr alloys” by Wang et al (hereinafter referred to as Wang 2020) as applied to claims 1, 2, 9-12, 15 and 26 above.
Wang 2020 discloses a Cu-based alloy as set forth above.
Regarding claims 5-8, 13, and 17-25, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. 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 (see MPEP 2112.01 [R-3].) In the instant case, the alloy of Wang 2020 would be expected to have the same or similar properties, microstructures and precipitates as the instantly claimed alloy because the alloy of Wang 2020 has the same or substantially the same composition, method of manufacturing and disclosed structure. Therefore, a rejection based alternatively on either 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 is eminently fair and acceptable.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5-8, 14 and 16-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over CN 114752807A to Wang et al (hereinafter referred to as Wang ‘807) as applied to claims 1, 4, 9-13 and 15 above.
Wang ‘807 discloses a Cu-based alloy as set forth above.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 5-8, 14 and 17-26, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. 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 (see MPEP 2112.01 [R-3].) In the instant case, the alloy of Wang ‘807 would be expected to have the same or similar properties, microstructures and precipitates as the instantly claimed alloy because the alloy of Wang ‘807 has the same or substantially the same composition, method of manufacturing and disclosed structure. Therefore, a rejection based alternatively on either 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 is eminently fair and acceptable.
Regarding claim 16, Example 2 of Wang ‘807 contains Cr 1.6 wt%, Nb 1.12 wt%, Zr 0.2 wt%; the remainder being Cu and unavoidable impurities (Wang ‘807, Example 2, para [0028-0034]). When converted from wt% to mole%, this results in a molar ratio of Zr to Nb of the alloy of Wang ‘807 of 0.18. The instantly claimed lower limit of molar ratio of Zr to Nb is written as “0.2” (as opposed to, for example “0.20”) and thus appears to allow for values which round to 0.2 when written with one significant figure. Thus, the molar ratio of Zr to Nb of example 2 of Wang ‘807 of 0.18 appears to lie within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the ranges of instant claim 16. In the alternative, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (See MPEP 2144.05 I). See In re Brandt, 886 F.3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018)(the court found a prima facie case of obviousness had been made in a predictable art wherein the claimed range of "less than 6 pounds per cubic feet" and the prior art range of "between 6 lbs/ft3 and 25 lbs/ft3" were so mathematically close that the difference between the claimed ranges was virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality.) In the instant case, the molar ratio of Zr to Nb of example 2 of Wang ‘807 of 0.18 is close enough to the instantly claimed range of molar ratio of Zr to Nb of 0.2 to 1 that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect them to have the same properties. Additionally in the alternative, Wang ‘807 more broadly allows for a Cr content of 1.0-2.0 wt% and a Nb content of from 0.85-1.7 wt%, which allows for a molar ratio of Zr to Nb overlapping the instantly claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select any portion of the disclosed ranges of Wang ‘807 including the instantly claimed because Wang ‘807 discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP 2021127491 to Danjo et al discloses a Cu-based alloy with a composition overlapping the instantly claimed ranges.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN D WALCK whose telephone number is (571)270-5905. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 AM - 6:30 PM.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at 571-272-6297. 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.
/BRIAN D WALCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738