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 .
The amendment of October 9, 2025 has been received and entered. With the entry of the amendment, claims 4, 6 and 14 are canceled, claims 1-3, 5, 7-9 are withdrawn, and claims 10-13 are pending for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 10-14 in the reply filed on June 9, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 7-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 9, 2025.
Specification
The objection to the amendment filed January 26, 2024 as having new matter in paragraphs 0052, 0127 is withdrawn due to the amendments removing this material of October 9, 2025.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 203386503U (hereinafter ‘503) in view of Troup-Packman (US 5810992), Nakada et al (US 2014/0030635), Loch (US 4346128), Japan 05-275417 (hereinafter ‘417), Japan 2003-301292 (hereinafter ‘292) and Yamakawa et al (US 4970571).
Claims 10, 13: ’503 indicates that it would be desired to manufacture a wire comprising a core wire 1 of aluminum alloy and having a coating layer positioned on an outer periphery of the core wire 1, where the coating layer can include a nickel layer 2 (followed by a polyurethane paint/enamel layer 3) (note figure 1, pages 1-2, translation). For manufacturing the wire, a core wire consisting essentially of the aluminum alloy would need to be provided/prepared (since wire has to be coated, note that since wire described as simply aluminum alloy, other material understood to be not needed in the wire).
‘503 does not give the details of coating the wire.
Troup-Packman notes providing coatings on aluminum alloy, where an aluminum alloy substrate/part is prepared/provided, and the surface of the substrate is degreased to remove oils (understood to be oil content adhered on a surface of the alloy, as that surface is what would be exposed of the part) (note column 1, lines 40-50, column 1, line 65 to column 2, line 15). Thereafter an etching treatment is provided to remove aluminum oxides from the part (understood to at least include aluminum oxide as a main component of an oxide film on the surface as part/substrate is aluminum based and oxide on the surface, which can be considered a film or including a film) where use of acid etching described, where any acid etching known for removing aluminum oxide can be used (note column 2, lines 15-25). Thereafter, the parts/alloy is to be plated with nickel, where a description of nickel strike plating is described, and also of electroless nickel plating, leading to a formed nickel layer, which can be considered consisting essentially of nickel as only nickel described as plated (note column 2, lines 25-55).
Nakada also notes providing nickel plating on substrates that can be aluminum or aluminum alloys (note 0021, 0027, 0032, 0034), where the plating process including preparing/providing aluminum/ aluminum alloy coupons/parts (note 0027, where the part can be a wire, thus giving aluminum/aluminum alloy wires as a substrate), and then degreasing/cleaning (note 0031, 0059, 0086) and then etching/acid cleaning. (note 0059, 0086). Thereafter, when applying the nickel plating, it is described to first provide nickel strike plating to increase the adhesion between the plating film and base metal (note 0035, 0059). Thereafter, a coating layer with of nickel is provided on a surface of the alloy/coupon/part by electroless plating or electroplating (note 0034, 0036, 0043).
Loch further describes applying plating to an aluminum part (note column 4, lines 40-50), where it is described to provide nickel strike plating before further outer conductive metal plating, where the nickel strike plating is an electroless nickel plating process (note column 5, lines 1-20, column 18, lines 1-15)
‘417 further describes that sulfamic acid in aqueous solution is an acid treatment that can remove oxide from Al wiring (so understood to remove aluminum oxide as the oxide from Al) (note pages 8, 9, translation).
‘292 further describes providing aluminum core wires, plating with nickel, and then cold drawing with wire drawing to provide a desired diameter of the plated wire, and then an enamel coating is applied (note pages 2-3, translation), where the enamel can be polyurethane paint (note page 3, translation). It is noted that the aluminum can be high purity or alloy such as Al-Mg alloy or Al-Mg-Si alloy (note page 2, translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘503 to provide the manufacturing process as claimed for the plated/coated wire as suggested by Troup-Packman, Nakada, Loch, ‘417 and ‘292 with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, where (1) a core wire would need to be prepared of aluminum alloy since as noted by ‘503 such a wire would need to be provided/prepared for treatment/coating, (2) Troup-Packman and Nakada would suggest that is conventionally desired to degrease before a nickel plating on aluminum alloy, where Troup-Packman indicates that this would remove oil content adhered to a surface of the aluminum alloy, (3) Troup-Packman would further suggest that after degreasing it is conventionally desired to etch to remove oxides/oxide film on the surface of the aluminum alloy before nickel plating, where Troup-Packman suggests to use acid etching to remove aluminum oxide, where any acid etching known to remove aluminum oxide can be used, and where ‘417 would suggest that an aqueous sulfamic acid solution is conventionally known to remove aluminum oxide, giving a suggested etching material to use, where sulfamic acid etching solution would also meet the requirements of claim 13, and where it is would be at least predictably acceptable that the aluminum oxide is the main oxide component, as the surface is based on aluminum, (4) and (5) further as to providing a first electroless nickel plating to form a nickel coating on a surface of the core wire after etching (nickel strike plating) and then forming a coating layer consisting essentially of nickel/nickel alloy on a surface of the core wire having the nickel coating formed thereon, Troup-Packman describes after etching, both nickel strike plating and use of electroless nickel baths, and Nakada further describes specifically after etching, a first step of nickel strike plating giving a nickel coating on the aluminum alloy, and then forming a coating layer of nickel on the surface having the nickel coating formed thereon, where the strike coating gives the benefits of enhancing adhesion between the substrate (aluminum alloy) and the further nickel plating layer, so giving a suggested pattern to use, and Loch indicates that it would be well known for nickel strike plating used before a further plating over an aluminum article would be in the form of nickel electroless strike plating, and further as to the further nickel plating layer consisting essentially of a nickel or nickel alloy, ‘503 wants a nickel layer with no requirement of other metal in the layer, and Nakada indicates how nickel plating can be provided with nickel material (note 0036) and reductant, etc. (note 0037) and thus to provide the desired simply nickel coating of ‘503 it would be understood that a layer of essentially nickel can be provided by electroless plating without additional metal materials (note Nakada 0043 with Ni as matrix, and if no other metal desired, then only matrix would be applied), and also note Loch which describes how electroless nickel can be applied (for the strike plating) (note column 18, lines 1-10), and (6) further as to then subjecting the core layer with the coating layer formed thereon to wire drawing, this is suggested by ‘292, which indicates providing an aluminum/alloy core wire with a nickel coating, and then wire drawing to provide a desired diameter before applying a further enamel coating, where ‘503 is also providing a further enamel coating after the nickel coating. Further as to the wire comprising a first element such as silicon and/or magnesium, ‘503 would suggest aluminum alloys in general, and ‘292 notes using aluminum alloys with Mg or Mg/Si would be conventional for forming core wires, giving suggested alloy materials to use, where Mg or Mg/Si would be first elements as claimed. Further as to the solubility of aluminum oxide to the etching solution to be used for the etching treatment being higher than a solubility of aluminum to the etching solution, since aqueous sulfamic acid etching solution is suggested to be used as noted above, and this is the material suggested for claim 13, it is understood that the sulfamic acid solution will meet the claimed solubility requirements. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Additionally, as to further as to heat treating the coated wire at a temperature of 300-600 degrees C to form an interdiffusion layer with aluminum, nickel and oxygen between the core wire and coating layer, Nakada further describes how when the substrate is an iron base material, to provide an interdiffusion layer, mainly of Ni and Fe between the substrate and the overlayer of Ni, indicated as providing firm adhesion of the coating film to base material/substrate (note 0057, 0070), where it is noted that the thickness of the nickel/corrosion resistant coating applied can be 0.1 to 1000 microns (so 100 nm to 1000 microns), where the interdiffusion coating is a portion of this thickness (note 0065), and where it is described that the interdiffusion layer is preferably 50 nm or more in thickness with the upper limit as not particularly limited, but can be 80% of the coating film thickness (note 0070). It is also noted that Al will also interdiffuse with the Ni (note 0070). Nakada indicates heat treatment provides the interdiffusion layer (note 0057), where various times and temperatures are tested (note 0107, 0109, 0115).
Yamakawa also describes that when an electroless nickel film is formed on an Al electrode (so Al substrate), the film can be annealed at 100-500 degrees C to remarkably improve adhesion of the nickel film against the aluminum, where it is understood that the materials are diffused to each other and a layer for improving adhesion is formed at the interface of the materials (note column 3, lines 5-35). The annealing is for a controlled time (note column 5, lines 10-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘503 in view of Troup-Packman, Nakada, Loch, ‘417 and ‘292 to provide an interdiffusion heat treatment inside the claimed 300-600 degrees C to form an interdiffusion layer between the core wire and coating layer as suggested by Nakada and Yamakawa to help provide improved bonding since Yamakawa indicates that is known to provide interdiffusion heating to provide an interdiffusion zone between a plated nickel film and an aluminum substrate to improve adhesion of the plated nickel, where heating conditions can be 100-500 degrees C, and Nakada indicates how when similarly providing a plated nickel film and a base metal (here Fe), providing an interdiffusion layer by heating will improve the adhesion of the nickel coating film and the base metal, where it is indicated that the interdiffusion layer can be 50 nm in thickness of 80 % of the coating film thickness, giving suggested interdiffusion layer thicknesses to use for adhesion, and both the temperature and thickness would overlap the claimed ranges, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize from these ranges for the specific coating used, giving a value of temperature and average thickness in the claimed range. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It is indicated that the interdiffusion layer will have aluminum and nickel as shown by Yamakawa, and as to also having oxygen, Yamakawa simply describes heating in a clean oven (note column 5, lines 10-20), and there is no limitation as to vacuum, inert gas, etc., so it is understood that the heating can be performed in air, which would give at least some oxygen also present from the air/oxygen in contact with material. As well, since the heat treatment described by applicant is provided, the same oxygen providing is also expected.
Claim 12: as to the etching time, Troup-Packman gives an example of 10 seconds (with a different acid than sulfamic acid) (note column 2, lines 15-20). Nakada gives an example of 1 minute of acid treatment with a different material (note 0086). Therefore, it is understood that the etching time will vary depending on the specific material used, and it would have been obvious to optimize the time for the specific sulfamic acid solution used, giving a value in the claimed range. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 11 and optionally claims 10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘503 in view of Troup-Packman, Nakada, Loch, ‘417, ‘292, and Yamakawa as applied to claims 10, 12 and 13 above, and further in view of Kuroda et al (US 5980722).
Claim 11: As to the wire further comprising an anchor particle comprising the first element and an oxide of the first element and the anchor particle is present straddling an interface between the core wire and coating layer, as discussed for claim 10 above, ‘292 would suggest that the core wire can contain silicon.
Kuroda teaches providing nickel plated aluminum alloy containing silicon material (note column 1, lines 5-15), where it is described that before nickel plating, an anodic etching treatment using sulfamic acid can be provided, which dissolves some aluminum surface and exposing silicon, which would form anchor particles of the first element (silicon) and where after nicked plating the anchor particles would straddle an interface between the core wire and coating layer (note figure 1, column 4, line 45 to column 5,ine 35, column 5, line 55 to column 6, line 10, column 7,lines 1-5). It is also noted that before plating a further anodic oxide coating can be formed on the alloy (note column 7, lines 45-55). The use of the anchor particles gives good adhesion of the coating (column 4,lines 60-68).
Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘503 in view of Troup-Packman, Nakada, Loch, ‘417, ‘292, and Yamakawa to further provide that the wire is further comprising an anchor particle comprising the first element and an oxide of the first element and the anchor particle is present straddling an interface between the core wire and coating layer as suggested by Kuroda with an expectation of providing desirable adhesion of coating, since ‘292 would suggest the presence of silicon in the wire, and ‘417 suggests etching with sulfamic acid, and Kuroda indicates etching aluminum with silicon with sulfamic acid to expose silicon anchor particles before plating is understood to provide improved adhesion and straddling anchor particles, and furthermore as to an oxide of the first element, it is indicated that oxide coating can be provided on the alloy before plating and there would be an interdiffusion heat treatment as suggested by Nakada and Yamakawa and with the oxygen from the oxide present during the heat treatment, it is understood that the silicon would have at least some oxidation.
Optionally, further for claim 10, 12 and 13, as discussed for claim 11 above, Kuroda would also suggest the presence of oxygen/oxides in the area between the nickel plating and substrate, and thus when heat treating as claimed, the presence of Ni, Al and also oxygen would be suggested in the diffusion zone.
Optionally, additionally, further for claim 12, as to etching time, Kuroda describes about 2-5 minutes (note column 6, lines 60-65), and as it describes sulfamic acid, it is understood that this would also etch aluminum oxide present (noting ‘417). This time at least overlaps that claimed, and it is obvious to optimize from the claimed range, giving a value as claimed. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Yamauchi et al (US 2021/0130968) as cited in the IDS of January 26, 2024 also notes the nickel plating of aluminum wires (note abstract, 0037).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 9, 2025 have been fully considered.
Note the adjustments to the rejections due to the amendments to the claims, including the removal of Wright and ‘432, and the addition of Nakada, Loch and Yamakawa.
As to the arguments regarding the Examiner’s position that the use of sulfamic acid would meet the claimed solubility requirements, it is the Examiner’s position that the suggestion from the references is to use sulfamic acid solution, which is the same material indicated for use in claim 13, so this solution is understood to meet the claimed requirements as to the solubility. As to the grade and type of sulfamic acid, ‘417 suggests the use of sulfamic acid in aqueous solution, where since sulfamic acid is a specific acid with a specific formula it is understood to meet the requirements of the claim that aluminum oxide would be more soluble in this material than aluminum. As to the Examiner improperly looking to applicant’s own disclosure to support an obviousness rejection, the Examiner disagrees. The Examiner has to know what is claimed in order to make a rejection. Since claim 13 indicates the requirements of the etching solution, it indicates the materials to be used. As to claim 13 merely being an example that may be suitable, if it is not suitable, how would it be listed what is to be chosen to provide the solution? While other solutions described by applicant can also be used, this does not mean that a solution option that is claimed would not meet the claimed requirements. Additionally, in the specification as filed at 0086-0087 it is indicated that an aqueous sulfamic solution (which is what is described by ‘417) meets the requirements as to solubility. It is not improper for the Examiner to look to the specification as filed to understand what is claimed and what meets the requirements of the claims. Note the discussion of In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980) in MPEP 2112(V), where what is claimed and also what is described in the specification were used in making a rejection. Note
“In Fitzgerald, the claims were directed to a self-locking screw-threaded fastener comprising a metallic threaded fastener having patches of crystallizable thermoplastic bonded thereto. The claim further specified that the thermoplastic had a reduced degree of crystallization shrinkage. The specification disclosed that the locking fastener was made by heating the metal fastener to melt a thermoplastic blank which is pressed against the metal. After the thermoplastic adheres to the metal fastener, the end product is cooled by quenching in water. The examiner made a rejection based on a U.S. patent to Barnes. Barnes taught a self-locking fastener in which the patch of thermoplastic was made by depositing thermoplastic powder on a metallic fastener which was then heated. The end product was cooled in ambient air, by cooling air or by contacting the fastener with a water trough. The court first noted that the two fasteners were identical or only slightly different from each other. "Both fasteners possess the same utility, employ the same crystallizable polymer (nylon 11), and have an adherent plastic patch formed by melting and then cooling the polymer." Id. at 596 n.1, 619 F.2d at 70 n.1. The court then noted that the Board had found that Barnes’ cooling rate could reasonably be expected to result in a polymer possessing the claimed crystallization shrinkage rate.” (MPEP 2112(V), emphasis added).
As to the amendment to claim 10 to provide the features of claim 14 (as to interdiffusion layer and heating) and also additional features as to the thickness of the interdiffusion layer, the Examiner has removed ‘432 and added Nakada and Yamakawa as to the suggestion to provide a interdiffusion layer meeting the claimed requirements. As to arguments regarding the nickel strike layer, etc. as being thicker than the diffusion layer, Nakada notes how a nickel layer system can be provided that would be thicker than resulting interdiffusion layer (note 0065, 0070). It is argued that the thin strike layer becomes an interdiffusion layer, however, it is not required that all of the strike layer become an interdiffusion layer, or that material from the nickel coating be used or not used when forming the interdiffusion layer, for example. Furthermore, as to the thickness of ‘432, note that overlapping thickness to what is claimed is suggested by Yamakawa as discussed in the rejection above. Therefore, the new rejections above are maintained.
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 KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 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, GORDON BALDWIN can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718