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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 12, 2026 has been entered.
Examiner Interpretation
With regard to claim 3, the examiner has interpreted the recitation “a total of 0.1 mass% to 75 mass% Pt and Ni” as being the sum of platinum and nickel being within a range of 0.1 to 75 mass percent, which for instance, would not only include alloys containing 20 mass percent nickel and 20 mass percent platinum with the designated contents of palladium and copper, but also alloys containing 0 mass percent nickel and 20 mass percent platinum with the designated contents of palladium and copper or alloys containing 20 mass percent nickel and 0 mass percent platinum with the designated contents of palladium and copper since the total of such combinations would be 20 mass percent and would fall within the range of 0.1 to 75 mass percent. Applicant could remedy this issue by indicating that both nickel and platinum must be present in the claim.
Status of Previous Rejections
The previous rejection of claims 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ichikawa (A Study of Dental Casting Ni-Pd-Cu System Alloys) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment to claim 1. The previous rejection of claims 1-2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta “The Cu-Ni-Pd (copper-nickel-palladium) system is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 2.
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.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishii et al. (JP 2010-084226).
In regard to claim 3, Ishii et al. (JP ‘226) discloses an alloy for an ornament containing 40 to 60 mass percent platinum, 26 to 57 mass percent palladium, 3 to 14 mass percent copper and 0 mass percent nickel (English Abstract and last page of English Translation). As such, these ranges are within the claimed ranges and therefore anticipate the claim. Alloy 4 of Table 1 presents an alloy having 40 mass percent platinum, 46 mass percent palladium, 14 mass percent copper and 0 mass percent nickel with no additional elements and such composition is one that would anticipate the claim.
With respect to the recitation “for probe pins” in claim 3, this recitation has been considered an intended use that would not further limit the structure of the alloy. MPEP 2111.02 II.
With respect to the recitation “wherein the alloy material has solder resistance such that, when the alloy material and a Sn-Bi-based solder are subjected to heat treatment under conditions of 250°C and 1 hour, a diffusion layer where both Sn and Pd coexist has a thickness of 200 µm or less” in claim 6, Ishii et al. (JP ‘226) discloses the same composition and therefore this property would be inherent. MPEP 2112.01 I.
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.
Claims 1, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta “The Cu-Ni-Pd (Copper-Nickel-Palladium) System”.
In regard to claim 1, Gupta discloses an alloy composition having 40 atomic percent copper, 40 atomic percent nickel and 20 atomic percent palladium (Table 2). The conversion to mass percent results in a composition having 36.2 mass percent copper, 33.4 mass percent nickel and 30.3 mass percent palladium. The Examiner notes that this composition would be close enough to the claimed composition to establish prima facie obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I.
With respect to the recitation “wherein the alloy material has solder resistance such that, when the alloy material and a Sn-Bi-based solder are subjected to heat treatment under conditions of 250°C and 1 hour, a diffusion layer where both Sn and Pd coexist has a thickness of 200 µm or less” in claim 4, Gupta discloses a substantially similar composition and therefore this property would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
With respect to the recitation “having a hardness of 200 HV or more” in claim 7, Gupta discloses a substantially similar composition and therefore this hardness would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5 and 8 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to disclose or adequately suggest an alloy material for probe pins consisting of 15 to 50 mass percent palladium, 45 to 79.9 mass percent copper and 5 to 30 mass percent nickel. The closest prior art to Gupta (The Cu-Ni-Pd (copper-nickel-palladium) system” discloses an alloy having 57 atomic percent copper, 1 atomic percent nickel and 42 atomic percent palladium (Table 2). When converted to weight percent, this translates to 44.44 weight percent copper, 0.72 weight percent nickel and 54.84 weight percent palladium and since there is no overlap or closeness in terms of composition, claim 2 distinguishes from Gupta.
Claim 9 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.
In regard to claim 9, Ishii et al. (JP ‘226) fails to specify a hardness of HV 200 or greater as there are no hardnesses set forth therein above HV 180 and it would only be by virtue of a metal harder than platinum, palladium and copper, such as nickel, that such a hardness would be achieved.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, the Applicant primarily argues that claim 1 has been amended by limiting the upper limit of palladium content to 50 mass percent intentionally excluding the value of Gupta and therefore the Gupta alloy cited by the Office falls outside the scope of above-amendment claim 1.
In response, the Examiner notes that Gupta discloses a couple different alloys in Table 2. One alloy has 57 atomic percent copper, 1 atomic percent nickel and 42 atomic percent palladium. The other has 40 atomic percent copper, 40 atomic percent nickel and 20 atomic percent palladium. The conversion to mass percent results in a composition having 36.2 mass percent copper, 33.4 mass percent nickel and 30.3 mass percent palladium. The amounts of palladium and copper would be within the claimed ranges and the nickel content would be close. The Examiner notes that this composition would be close enough to the claimed composition to establish prima facie obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I.
Second, the Applicant primarily argues that claim 3 has been amended to recite” a total of … of Pt and Ni” and that means that the alloy contains both Pt and Ni as essential constituent elements whereas Ishii et al. (JP ‘226) merely discloses a ternary alloy that contains no Ni at all. Therefore, claim 3 which requires Ni as an essential component is clearly distinguishable from the alloy disclosed by Ishii et al. (‘226).
In response, the Examiner’s position is that this argument is mostly addressed in the Examiner’s Interpretation supra and this issue may be remedied by amending the claim to recite that both nickel and platinum are present or by the Applicant amending claim 3 to include the higher hardness of claim 9 to suggest that an amount of nickel would invariably be present.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessee Roe whose telephone number is (571)272-5938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7:30 am to 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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights