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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 04/21/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1, 3, and 5-7 is/are pending in this application and examined herein. Claim(s) 1, 3, and 5-7 is/are amended. Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are cancelled.
The objection(s) to claim(s) 2 and 5-7 is/are withdrawn in view of the cancellation of claim 2 and the amendments to claim(s) 5-7.
The rejection(s) under 35 USC 112(b) to claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim(s) 3 and the cancellation of claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oishi et al. (US 20090260727 A1, cited in Office Action dated 12/23/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Oishi teaches a continuous cast wire rod [0056] of an alloy containing Cu, Zn, and Sn (i.e., Cu-Zn-Sn-based alloy) (Abstract). Oishi teaches the alloy in an embodiment 30 comprising 65.1 mass% Cu, 0.8 mass% Sn, 0.019 mass% Zr, and 0.05 mass% P (Table 1), which are within the claimed ranges. Oishi teaches the alloy in embodiment 30 comprises 33.94 mass% Zn (Table 1), and comprises impurities [0054], thus the alloy has a balance of Zn and impurities. Oishi teaches the alloy comprises 0.019 mass% Zr and 0.05 mass% has a mass ratio of Zr/P of 0.38 (Table 1), which is within the claimed range. When, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated' if one of them is in the prior art, thus Oishi teaches the claimed ranges. See MPEP 2131.03(I).
Oishi is silent to wherein a number density of Zr-P compounds containing Zr and P is in a range of 50 pieces/mm2 or greater and 500 pieces/mm2 or less. However, paragraph [0030] of the present specification discloses Zr and P are added together for the purpose of forming fine dendrites when coexisting in the appropriate ranges, and [0033] of the present specification discloses the number of Zr-P compounds being in the appropriate ranges achieves formation of fine dendrites (i.e., the amount of Zr and P results in the appropriate ranges of Zr-P compounds) in accord with the method as presently claimed. As Oishi suggests Zr and P coexisting in the claimed ranges that Applicant states produces this feature, one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable assumption that the features of claim 1 would also occur when practicing the method of Oishi. See MPEP 2112 § (III-V) and 2112.01 § (I).
Oishi is silent to wherein a tensile strength is 370 N/mm2 or greater and an elongation is 14% or greater. However, paragraphs [0012] and [0034] of the present specification discloses the continuous cast wire rod of Cu-Zn-Sn based alloy to have a tensile strength of 370 N/mm2 or greater and an elongation is 14% or greater, and that the wire rod is cold drawable in accord with the method as presently claimed. As Oishi discloses substantially the same process that Applicant states produces this feature, and that the alloy of embodiment 30 may be cold processed (i.e., cold drawn) (Oishi: Table 3), one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable assumption that the features of claim 1 would also occur when practicing the method of Oishi.
Claim(s) 7 remain(s) rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 12/23/2025. The amendments to claim(s) 7 are of an editorial nature and do not materially affect any statements made in the rejection in the prior Office Action, therefore the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi as applied to claim 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) above, further in view of Hori et al. (US 20110100676 A1, cited in Office Action dated 12/23/2025) and Ishida et al. (US 6406566 B1, cited in Office Action dated 12/23/2025).
Claim(s) 3 remain(s) rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 12/23/2025. The amendments to claim(s) 3 are of an editorial nature and do not materially affect any statements made in the rejection in the prior Office Action. Therefore, the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claim(s).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi.
Claim(s) 5-6 remain(s) rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 12/23/2025. The amendments to claim(s) 5-6 are of an editorial nature and do not materially affect any statements made in the rejection in the prior Office Action. Therefore, the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claim(s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the number density of Zr-P compounds in the continuous cast wire rod is dependent not only on the composition but also the casting speed in the drawing step (see pg. 5-6 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While as Applicant notes, the instant specification describes that when casting speed and the cooling rate during solidification are low, crystal growth or coalescence of crystal grains is promoted even though Zr-P compound particles are present as inoculant nuclei, the specification in the cited section discloses at best a result of the presence of Zr-P compounds. Crystal growth and coalescence of crystal grains are not a number density of Zr-P compounds, and while they may be affected by the presence of Zr-P compounds (as well as casting speed and cooling rate), nothing in the cited passage indicates that e.g., the number density of Zr-P compounds is affected by casting speed, cooling rates, crystal growth, or coalescence of crystal grains.
Therefore, paragraph [0030] of the present specification which discloses that Zr and P are added together for the purpose of forming fine dendrites when coexisting in the appropriate ranges, and paragraph [0033] which discloses the number of Zr-P compounds being in the appropriate ranges achieves formation of fine dendrites (i.e., the amount of Zr and P results in the appropriate ranges of Zr-P compounds), together disclose the elements necessary to result in a number density of Zr-P compounds, where as Oishi suggests Zr and P coexisting in the claimed ranges that Applicant states produces this feature, one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable assumption that the features of claim 1 would also occur when practicing the method of Oishi.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Oishi pours the molten alloy into a molder to manufacture cylindrical ingots having a diameter of 40 mm and a length of 280 mm, the alloy of Oishi allegedly does not comprise a continuous cast wire rod as claimed (see pg. 6 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While as Applicant notes, Oishi teaches an example where cylindrical ingots of the alloy are produced, the Examiner notes that patents are relevant as prior art for all they contain, including nonpreferred embodiments, and disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP 2123 (I-II). Therefore, even though Oishi teaches producing cylindrical ingots of the alloy as part of a best mode for carrying out the invention, Oishi still teaches that the casting product may be provided in the form of for example, wire or rods by continuous casting (i.e., a continuous cast wire rod) as a choice of the product produced, therefore Oishi anticipates each and every element of claims 1 and 7 as amended, anticipating the claims.
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 Nikolas T Pullen whose telephone number is (571)272-1995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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 (571)-272-1401. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/NIKOLAS TAKUYA PULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights