Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/467,268

ALLOY AND PROCESS FOR PRODUCING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Sep 14, 2023
Examiner
LIANG, ANTHONY M
Art Unit
1734
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
548 granted / 659 resolved
+18.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
696
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
44.0%
+4.0% vs TC avg
§102
7.6%
-32.4% vs TC avg
§112
33.9%
-6.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 659 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I: claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 1/12/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 6-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/12/2026. Claim Objections Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claims 1 and 3, the element names should not be capitalized, because they are common nouns, not proper nouns. For example, “Gold” should read –gold–. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim 5 is 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. The term “good heat and electrical conductivity” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “good heat and electrical conductivity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what level of heat conductivity and electrical conductivity would and would not be considered “good,” which renders the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, claim 5 is given the broadest reasonable interpretation such that any alloy reading on claim 1 is considered to have “good heat and electrical conductivity.” 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bales (US 4,396,578). Regarding claim 1, Bales teaches a jewelry alloy consisting essentially of, by weight, about 21-36% silver, 10-23% palladium, 3-15% nickel, 25-42% copper, 3-17% zinc, 0-25% gold, 0-5% platinum, 0-3% tin, and 0-3% iron (Abstract, claims 1 and 3). Regarding claims 2 and 3, Bales teaches a preferred composition containing, by weight, 25.30% silver, 16.80% palladium, 9.60% nickel, 32.40% copper, 13.40% zinc, 1.55% platinum, 0.86% gold, and trace amounts of iron and tin (col. 1 ln. 67 – col. 2 ln 12). Note that trace amount meets the limitation of predetermined proportions. Regarding claims 4-5, Bales teaches wherein the alloy is lustrous, tarnish resistant, and corrosion resistant (Abstract, col. 1 ln. 40-53, col. 2 ln. 20-24). Bales further teaches that its alloy is durable and may be plated with rhodium (col. 1 ln. 15-17, col. 2 ln.27-31), which further lends to durability. Bales discloses that its alloy can be made into wire (col. 2 ln. 23-25), which is considered ductile by definition. Bales does not explicitly state that its alloy has good heat and electrical conductivity. However, the term “good heat and electrical conductivity” is indefinite, as discussed above. Bales teaches an alloy that reads on claim 1 and is thus considered to meet the limitation of having “good heat and electrical conductivity.” Examiner notes that all metals are thermally and electrically conductive due to the presence of free valence electrons. Furthermore, the majority of the alloy of Bale is made up of silver, copper, and gold, which are well known by those skilled in the art to be the most thermally and electrically conductive metals. Thus, the alloy of Bale meets the limitation of having good heat and electrical conductivity. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY M LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0483. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:00pm. 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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1177. 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. /ANTHONY M LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 14, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 27, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601038
NON-ORIENTED ELECTRICAL STEEL SHEET, MOTOR CORE, AND PRODUCTION METHODS THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601037
STEEL HAVING HIGH MECHANICAL PROPERTIES AND MANUFACTURING PROCESS THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601039
FERRITIC STAINLESS STEEL AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12584183
MOLTEN IRON DEPHOSPHORIZATION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583032
METHOD FOR PREPARING A LOW-TEMPERATURE SINTERING SILVER PASTE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+9.9%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 659 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month