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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-3 are pending wherein claim 1 is amended and claims 2-3 are new.
Status of Previous Rejections
The previous rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Teeriniemi et al. (Modeling of complex ternary structures: Cu-Ni-Pd alloys via first principles) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ichikawa (A Study of Dental Casting Ni-Pd-Cu System Alloys).
In regard to claim 1, Ichikawa discloses an alloy having 50 weight percent nickel, 30 weight percent palladium and 20 weight percent copper (Alloy No. 6 of Table 1).
With respect to the recitation “for probe pins” in claim 1, 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 “consisting of” in claim 1, the sum of nickel, palladium and copper in Alloy 6 of Table 1 adds to 100 weight percent; there is no room for additional elements; and therefore Alloy 6 of Table 1 meets the claim.
Claim 3 is 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 and 3 to 14 mass percent copper (English abstract and lass 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 weight percent platinum, 46 weight percent palladium and 14 weight percent copper with no additional elements and such composition is one of several that anticipates 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 “consisting of” in claim 3, it does not appear that another element is required and Ishii et al. (JP ‘226) would read on this transitional language. MPEP 2111.03.
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 1-2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta “The Cu-Ni-Pd (copper-nickel-palladium) system”.
In regard to claim 1-2, Gupta teaches 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. The Examiner notes that the amounts of copper, nickel and palladium would be close enough to the claimed amounts of copper, nickel and palladium to establish prima facie obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I.
With respect to the recitation “for probe pins” in claim 1-2, 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 “consisting of” in claim 1-2, the atomic percentages disclosed by Gupta add to 100 atomic percent and there is no room for additional elements. MPEP 2111.03.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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