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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2014-224283A (hereinafter JP’283, cited herein).
JP’283 teaches a high-purity Al wire with 10-200 ppm Pd (abstract), which overlaps the claimed range of 3-90 ppm Pd (cl. 1), and therefore meets the instant alloying range limitation. JP’283 further teaches a crystal grain size ranging 10-100µm (abstract), which broadly overlaps the claimed average grain size of 3-35 µm. Though JP’283 does not specify the orientation the grain size is measured (in the instant claim, “cross-section perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the Al wiring material”), the broadly taught crystal grain size of 10-100µm taught by JP’283 includes grains 10-100 µm with this configuration/limitation. Because of the overlap in alloy product composition, together with overlap in grain size, it is held that JP’283 has created a prima facie case of obviousness of the presently claimed invention.
Overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the range, including the claimed range, from the broader range disclosed in the prior art, because the prior art finds that said composition in the entire disclosed range has a suitable utility. Additionally, "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages," In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d at 1379 (CAFC 2003).
Concerning claims 6 & 7, JP’283 teaches ≥99.99% Al with balance Rh + Pd (Table 1, abstract). Though JP’283 does not specify “unavoidable impurities”, impurities in an unavoidable amount are expected to be present by one of skill in the art, and are implied by the amount of Al, Rh, and Pd taught by JP’283 (i.e. ≥99.99% Al, etc. see JP’283 at abstract).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2014-224283A (hereinafter JP’283) as applied to claims above, further in view of “ASM Handbook Vol 4E”, p 137-147 (cited herein).
JP’283 does not specify the tensile strength of the Al-Pd alloy wire. However, “ASM Handbook Vol 4E” teaches annealing strongly affects the strength and formability of aluminum alloy products (p 137, 1st column), and that a partial anneal is effective to balance properties (p142, 2nd column). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have annealed the Al-Pd alloy wire of JP’283, in order to provide the desired strength/ductility combination (such as within the claimed 25-95 MPa for tensile strength), wherein strength is identified by “ASM Handbook Vol 4E” p 137 first paragraph to be dependent on alloying ranges (which are taught by JP’283) together with temper/heat treatment (wherein “ASM Handbook Vol 4E” teaches a partial anneal is effective to balance properties, see above).
Claims 4, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2014-224283A (hereinafter JP’283) as applied to claims above, further in view of JP S5956737A (JP’737, cited herein).
JP’283 does not specify said alloying material includes: 200-6000ppm (0.02-0.6%) one or more of Mg, Mn, and Cu (cl. 4) and/or 10-2000ppm (0.001-0.2%) one or more of Fe, Si, and Ni (cl. 5). However, JP’737 teaches the addition of 0.005-0.2% Ni and/or Cu to Al alloys formed into wires enhances bonding ability and corrosion resistance of said wires (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added 0.005-0.2% Ni and/or Cu (as taught by JP’737) to the Al-Pd alloy wire taught by JP’283, in order to enhance bonding ability and corrosion resistance (as taught by JP’737 at abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the closest prior art is JP’283 in view of Sekiya (US 2013/0126051, cited herein). Sekiya is drawn to Al wires, and refers to <111> texture as a recrystallization texture. However, one of skill in the art would not be motivated to apply the teachings of Sekiya (drawn to an Al-Fe alloy, with preferably ≥40% recrystallized texture <111>, see Sekiya at abstract) together with JP’283’s Al-Pd alloy, in order to achieve the claimed invention. The prior art does not teach or suggest an aluminum alloy wiring material with added Pd or Pt as claimed, complete with an orientation ratio <111> 0.5-35%.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANELL COMBS MORILLO whose telephone number is (571)272-1240. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am-3pm.
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
/J.C.M/Examiner, Art Unit 1733 2/5/26