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 Claims
Claims 5-6 are amended in view of applicant’s preliminary amendment filed 11/3/2023. Therefore, claims 1-8 are currently under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “an average of degrees of orientation of a 111 plane determined by X-ray diffraction of a whole area of a section in a state of having been subjected to solution treatment and ageing treatment is 50% or more” and “a variance of the degrees of orientation of the 111 plane is 45% or less”. However, the instant specification does not provide clear definite for the meaning of degrees of orientation and variance of the degrees of orientation”. Additionally, claimed X-ray diffraction of a whole area of a section is also confusing because it is not clear if the X-ray diffraction is applied to a whole area or a section, which seems to be part of a whole piece. Therefore, claim 1 is vague and indefinite.
Claim 2 recites “a content ratio of iron”, “a content ratio of chromium”, “a content ratio of zinc”, “a content ratio of titanium”, and “a content ratio of zirconium”. The term “ratio” implies comparison of two components and should be unitless. However, instant claim 2 uses “mass%” to quantify the claimed content ratios, which contradicts with the meaning of “ratio”. The instant specification also does not provide a clear definition for the claimed “ratio”. Therefore, claim 2 is vague and indefinite.
Claims 3-6 are also rejected because they depend on vague and indefinite claims 1-2.
Claim 7 recites “performing plastic working on a cast product of an aluminum alloy”. However, the scope plastic working is not clearly defined in the instant specification, with references to cold working, hot working, warm working, rolling in the first plastic working step, as well as drawing, rolling, extrusion, in the second plastic working step. See para. [0057-0063]. Therefore, it is unclear if claimed plastic working is limited to broader working types characterized by temperature such as cold working, hot working and/or warm working, or is limited to more specific working techniques such as rolling, drawing and/or extrusions. Therefore, the instant claim 7 is vague and indefinite.
Additionally, claim 7 recites “cold conditions” in the first and second drawing steps. The term “cold” is a relative term. The instant specification does not provide any disclosure to clearly definite the scope of claimed “cold conditions”. It is unclear what temperature range should be considered cold and whether the claimed “cold conditions” additionally includes other criteria such as cooling techniques to maintain coldness. Therefore, instant claim 7 is vague and indefinite.
Furthermore, claim 7 recites “a degree of working in the second drawing is 20% or more and is also higher than a degree of working in the first drawing”. According para. [0063] on page 18 of the instant specification, “the degree of working is a ratio obtained by dividing the difference between the sectional area before the second plastic working and the sectional area after the second plastic working by the sectional area before the second plastic working”, which indicates that the claimed degree of working Is only related to the second plastic working, and therefore, cannot be also related to the first or second drawing as recited in the instant claim. Therefore, claim 7 is vague and indefinite.
Claim 8 recites “a content ratio of iron”, “a content ratio of chromium”, “a content ratio of zinc”, “a content ratio of titanium”, and “a content ratio of zirconium”. The term “ratio” implies comparison of two components and should be unitless. However, instant claim 2 uses “mass%” to quantify the claimed content ratios, which contradicts with the meaning of “ratio”. The instant specification also does not provide a clear definition for the claimed “ratio”. Therefore, claim 8 is vague and indefinite.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over JP 2015-124409(JP409).
JP409 teaches an aluminum alloy wire that applies to the claimed aluminum alloy wire in mass% as follows:
Al Alloy
Claims 1-2
Claim 3
Claims 4
JP409 (Sample No 1, Table 1)
Si
0.6-1.5
1.0-1.3
0.6-1.5
1.0
Mg
0.5-1.3
0.5-1.2
0.7-1.3
0.9
Cu
0.1-1.2
0.1-0.4
0.5-1.2
0.7
Mn
0.2-1.15
0.2-0.5
0.5-1.1
0.6
Fe
>0 & ≤ 0.8
0.3-0.8
0.02-0.4
0.2
Cr
>0 & ≤ 0.35
>0 & ≤ 0.3
>0 & ≤ 0.3
0.02
Zn
>0 & ≤ 0.5
-
0.005-0.5
0.17
Ti
>0 & ≤ 0.2
0.001-0.01
0.01-0.2
0.03
Zr
>0 & ≤ 0.2
-
0.05-0.2
0.12
Balance
Al & inevitable impurities
Al & inevitable impurities
Al & inevitable impurities
Al & inevitable impurities
Regarding claim 1-2, 4 and 6, Sample No. 1 of JP409 represent an Al alloy wire with the same chemical composition as claimed. JP409 further teaches that the Al alloy wire was solution treated and aged[0090], and the degree of orientation of 111 plane is 0.5 or more(i.e. 50% or more)[0065-0066, 0072].
Additionally, since JP409 discloses an Al alloy wire that is compositionally the same as claimed Al alloy and has also undergone plastic work(i.e. rolling [0081-0082]), solution treatment and aging as claimed and resulting in an Al alloy wiring having the same average of degree of orientation, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that the Al alloy to have the same variance of the degrees of orientation of the 111 plane as claimed. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have expected significantly similar variance of the degrees of orientation of the 111 plane of the Al alloy of JP409, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary.
Claim(s) 3, 5 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP409.
The teachings of JP409 are discussed in section 7 above.
Regarding claim 3, broader scope of JP409 includes a Cu amount of more than 0.65 and less than 1.1 mass%[0056], a Mn amount of more than 0.55 and less than 1.15 mass%[0057], and an Fe amount of more than 0 and less than 0.4 mass%[0055]. The amount of Cu and Fe in the Al alloy wire of JP409 overlap the claimed amounts of Cu and Fe. The lower limit of Mn at 0.55 mass% in the Al alloy wire of JP409 is very close to the claimed upper limit of Mn. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The selection of claimed amounts of Cu, Mn and Fe from the disclosed Cu, Mn Fe amounts in the Al alloy of JP409 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since JP409 teaches the same utilities in its disclosed Cu, Mn and Fe amounts.
Regarding claim 5, JP409 further teaches that the tensile strength of the Al alloy wire is preferably 390MPa or more[0065], which encompasses the claimed tensile strength of more than 425MPa. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The selection of claimed tensile strength from the disclosed tensile strength of the Al alloy of JP409 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since JP409 teaches the same utilities in its disclosed tensile strength.
Regarding claim 7, JP409 further teaches a method of manufacturing an aluminum alloy wire comprising the steps of rolling a cast product of an aluminum alloy having the claimed alloy composition[0081-0082](i.e. plastic working), performing a first drawing on the Al alloy under cold conditions[0083-0084], performing an intermediate softening treatment[0087-0088] and performing a second drawing step under cold conditions[0083-0084,0095]. Additionally, JP409 further teaches wire drawing is performed until a predetermined wire diameter is obtained[0083] and the degree of processing(i.e. degree of work) in the second drawing step is determined based on the wire diameter after intermediate softening[0088]. Therefore, the degree of work is a result effective variable that affects the size of the final Al alloy wire product. It would have been well within the skills of an ordinary artisan to have arrived at the claimed degree of working in the second drawing step of JP409 via routine optimization depending on the wire diameter after intermediate softening in order to achieve designed final Al alloy wire diameter. Additionally, the degree of work in the second drawing would also depend on the wire diameter produced by the first drawing and the final desired wire diameter. It would have been well within the skills of an ordinary artisan to have applied a greater degree of working in the second drawing than the first drawing via routine optimization, if bigger diameter reduction is needed to reach the desired final wire diameter.
Regarding claim 8, Sample No. 1 in Table 1 of JP409 discloses an Al alloy wire composition that reads on the claimed Al alloy wire, as set forth in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
WO 2013/147270 teaches an Al alloy wire produced by first wire drawing, intermediate annealing and second wire drawing. WO 2013/147270 further teaches that degree of work in the wire drawing steps affects the grain size, tensile strength and elongation of the Al alloy wire.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOIS L ZHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-1248. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45.
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.
LOIS ZHENG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/LOIS L ZHENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights