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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US9570207B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Park teaches an electrical contact material comprising:
A mixture of Ni and Ag, and an Ag/C composite material of carbon nanotubes (a carbon-based nanofiller) coated with Ag particles (See Claim 1)
Regarding Claim 4, the product is formed by sintering (Col. 9, Lines 5-20)
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) 2-3 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US9570207B2).
Regarding Claims 2-3, the mixed composite is considered to read on the limitation of incorporating and dispersing the nanofiller in the Ag powder; the mixture of Ag powder (density of 10.48 g/cm3); Ni (8.9 g/cm3) and CNT powder (around 1.3 g/cm3) in a weight ratio of 55-65% Ag powder overlapping with the claimed range of 60-70% Ag powder: 35-45% Ni powder and 0.1-5% nAgCNT (See claim 1) yields a calculated density of 9.3-9.9, overlapping with the claimed range of 8.4-9.5 g/cm3. In the case where a claimed range overlaps with a range taught by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05(I))
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, Park teaches a Vickers hardness of 85-152 (Table 1); encompassing the claimed range of 91-95 HV; an IACS of 50% or greater (Table 1) overlapping with the claimed range of 46-52%; and a density 9.3-9.9, overlapping with the claimed range of 9.55-9.84 (See Table 1) In the case where a claimed range overlaps with or lies inside of a range taught by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05(I))
Regarding Claim 6, the prior art is silent regarding the claimed thermal conductivity, however since the prior art product is substantially identical the claimed product of claim 4, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the prior art property to be similar under the expectation that similar products have similar properties. (See MPEP 2112.01(I))
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US9570207B2) in view of Hoon et al. (KR20150103569A)
Regarding Claims 7, Park teaches an electrical contact material comprising:
A mixture of Ni and Ag, and an Ag/C composite material of carbon nanotubes (a carbon-based nanofiller) coated with Ag particles (See Claim 1);
Where the material is made by sintering (Col. 9, Lines 5-20);
the mixture of Ag powder (density of 10.48 g/cm3); Ni (8.9 g/cm3) and CNT powder (around 1.3 g/cm3) in a weight ratio of 55-65% Ag powder overlapping with the claimed range of 60-70% Ag powder: 35-45% Ni powder and 0.1-5% nAgCNT (See claim 1) yields a calculated density of 9.3-9.9, overlapping with the claimed range of 8.4-9.5 g/cm3. In the case where a claimed range overlaps with a range taught by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05(I));
Park is silent regarding heat treatment; however, Hoon teaches a method of making an electrical contact of Ag/C composite [0013] where heat treatment is performed [0019] for the purpose of removing defects from the part surface [0034]; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method of Park to include a heat treatment step for the purpose of removing surface defects and impurities from sintering.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 are 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Park et al. (US9570207B2) in view of Hoon et al. (KR20150103569A) as used above; while Hoon teaches ball milling may be used, the prior art does not teach or suggest low energy ball milling followed by high energy ball milling as required by claim 8.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICARDO D MORALES whose telephone number is (571)272-6691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9 am- 4 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 5712726297. 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.
/RICARDO D MORALES/Examiner, Art Unit 1738