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 1-4 and 6 are pending wherein claims 1-4 and 6 are amended and claim 5 is canceled.
Status of Previous Rejections
The previous rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumeta et al. (JP 2022-040517) in view of Maki et al. (US 2012/02944754) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s arguments.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al. (US 4,402,906).
In regard to claim 1, Ueda et al. (‘906) discloses copper base alloys having compositions relative to that of the instant invention as set forth below (abstract and column 2).
Element
Instant Claim
(mass percent)
Ueda et al. (‘906)
(weight percent)
Overlap
Mn
4.5 – 5.5
5 – 30
5 – 5.5
Fe
0.1 – 0.3
0 – 2.5
0.1 – 0.3
Sn
0.1 – 0.5
0 – 5
0.1 – 0.5
Cu
Balance
Balance
Balance
The Examiner notes that the amounts of manganese, iron, and tin for the copper based alloys disclosed by Ueda et al. (‘906) overlap the amounts of the instant invention, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to select the claimed amounts of manganese, iron and tin from the amounts disclosed by Ueda et al. (‘906) because Ueda et al. (‘906) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
With respect to the recitation “for a shunt resistor” in claim 1, the Examiner notes that this would be a recitation of intended use that would not further limit the structure of the alloy. MPEP 2111.02 II.
With respect to the recitation “wherein the copper-manganese-based copper alloy material has a change in resistance value which is -0.3% to 0% after heated at 175°C for 3000 hours” in claim 1, Ueda et al. (‘906) discloses substantially similar compositions and therefore this property would be expected. PEP 2112.01 I.
With respect to the recitation “wherein the copper-manganese-based copper alloy material has a volume resistivity which is 15-25 µΩ·cm” in claim 2, Ueda et al. (‘906) discloses substantially similar compositions and therefore this property would be expected. PEP 2112.01 I.
With respect to the recitation “wherein the copper-manganese-based copper alloy material has an absolute value of TCR which is 150 x 10-6/K or less” in claim 3, Ueda et al. (‘906) discloses substantially similar compositions and therefore this property would be expected. PEP 2112.01 I.
With respect to the recitation “wherein the copper-manganese-based copper alloy material has a thermal electromotive force with respect to copper which is 1 µV/K or less” in claim 4, Ueda et al. (‘906) discloses substantially similar compositions and therefore this property would be expected. PEP 2112.01 I.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regard to claim 6, the alloys of Ueda et al. (‘906) would be used for the hulls of ships and the applicability to resistors or specifically shunt resistors is not disclosed, suggested or a reasonable use of the alloys of Ueda et al. (‘906) (column 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 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
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