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 § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamoto et al. (US 20050189327 A1) in view of Xia et al. (US 20230228032 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kawamoto discloses
An electric discharge machining wire (electrode wire, tittle and abstract), comprising:
a brass (cooper and zinc, Par.0036) containing cooper (Cu) and zinc (Zn) [Par.0036 cited: “…binary alloy of copper and zinc may have an average zinc content per unit volume of 41 to 44%…”] and having a microstructure (alpha. phase crystals and .beta. phase crystals, Par.0040) including an α-phase and a β-phase [Par.0040 cited: “…alpha. phase crystals and .beta. phase crystals…”], and a volume ratio of the α-phase in the brass [Par.0033 cited: “…copper and zinc at a predetermined ratio …”]
However, Kawamoto does not disclose the brass containing 43 mass % or less of zinc (Zn), wherein zinc contained in brass is 42 mass % or more; and a volume ratio of the α-phase in the brass microstructure is greater than 50 vol % and 55 vol % or less.
Xia discloses a brass containing 43 mass % or less of zinc (Zn), wherein zinc contained in brass is 42 mass % or more [Par.0019 cited: “…brass has a mass of copper of between 61 to 75 mass percent compared to the total mass of copper and zinc in the brass …”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the brass of Kawamoto, containing 43 mass % or less of zinc (Zn), wherein zinc contained in brass is 42 mass % or more, as taught by Xia, in order to provide an excellent coating.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filling date of the invention to modify a volume ratio of the α-phase in the brass microstructure of Kawamoto, is greater than 50 vol % and 55 vol % or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, in order to improve a method of manufacturing an electrode wire.
Regarding claim 2, Kawamoto discloses
the machining wire has an outer diameter of 0.25 mm [Par.0048 cited: “…electrode wire to a final diameter of about .phi. 0.25 to 0.30 mm…”], and an elongation (EL) [Par.0048 cited: “…elongation at a wire diameter of about .phi. 0.9 mm are respectively 500 to 650 MPa and 15 to 30%…”].
Kawamoto does not disclose the elongation (EL) of 2.0% or more.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the elongation (EL) of Kawamoto, of 2.0% or more, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, in order to improve a method of manufacturing an electrode wire.
Response to Amendment
With respect to Drawing Objection: the new Drawing filed on 08/20/2026 that overcame the Drawing objection.
With respect to Rejection 112b: the amended claim filed on 08/20/2026 that overcame the Rejection 112b.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-2, in Remark, filed on 08/20/2026, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
The newly cited Xia reference discloses a brass containing 43 mass % or less of zinc (Zn), wherein zinc contained in brass is 42 mass % or more [Par.0019 cited: “…brass has a mass of copper of between 61 to 75 mass percent compared to the total mass of copper and zinc in the brass …”]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tominaga et al. (US 4686153) is relevant prior art in field of an electric discharge machining, as shown in fig.2, with an electrode wire has a surface coating layer of a zinc, but does not specific disclose about an α-phase and a β-phase; and a component ratio of the α-phase in the brass is greater than 50 vol % and 55 vol % or less…
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1834. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8.00am-5.00pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tu Hoang can be reached on 571-272-4780. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PHUONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
09/06/2026
Prosecution Insights