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Claims 18-35 are pending wherein claims 18-23 and 27-35 are currently under examination and claims 24-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to non-elected method of using copper-silver-gold alloys. Applicant’s election of claims 18-23 and 27-35 was made in the Response filed on March 19, 2026. Because Applicant did not specifically and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP §818.01(a)).
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 33 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.
Claim 33 recites the limitations “the carrier element” and "the insulator element" in claim 33. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim or the claims upon which it depends. Claim 33 previously claims “at least one carrier element” and “at least one insulator element”
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 18-23, 27, 29-32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarangapani et al. (US 2013/0140084).
In regard to claim 18, Sarangapani et al. (‘084) discloses copper-silver-gold alloys having compositions relative to that of the instant invention as set forth below (Alloy Element 9 in Table 1).
Element
Instant Claim
(weight percent)
Sarangapani et al. (‘084)
(weight percent)
Overlap
Ag
0.01 – 0.20
0.005 – 0.07
0.01 – 0.07
Au
0.01 – 0.10
0.009 – 0.89
0.01 – 0.10
Cu
99.70 – 99.98
Balance
(99.04 – 99.984)
99.70 – 99.98
The Examiner notes that the amounts of silver, gold and copper in the alloys disclosed by Sarangapani et al. (‘084) 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 contents of silver, gold and copper from the amounts disclosed by Sarangapani et al. (‘084) because Sarangapani et al. (‘084) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
With respect to the recitation “for at least one of an electrical, electronic or electrotechnical component for at least one of sound reproduction or recording or for sound signal processing, output, reception or transmission, or for music or speech reproduction, recording or processing or for an audio reproduction system” in claim 18, the Examiner considers this a recitation of intended use that would not further limit the structure of the alloy. MPEP 2111.02 II.
In regard to claim 19, Sarangapani et al. (‘084) discloses copper-silver-gold alloys having compositions relative to that of the instant invention as set forth below (Alloy Element 9 in Table 1).
Element
Instant Claim
(weight percent)
Sarangapani et al. (‘084)
(weight percent)
Overlap
Ag
0.04 – 0.10
0.005 – 0.07
0.04 – 0.07
Au
0.01 – 0.05
0.009 – 0.89
0.01 – 0.05
Cu
99.85 – 99.95
Balance
(99.04 – 99.984)
99.85 – 99.95
The Examiner notes that the amounts of silver, gold and copper in the alloys disclosed by Sarangapani et al. (‘084) 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 contents of silver, gold and copper from the amounts disclosed by Sarangapani et al. (‘084) because Sarangapani et al. (‘084) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
With respect to the recitation “wherein a mass fraction of the silver is higher than a mass fraction of the gold” in claim 20, the ranges of copper, silver and gold in Saragapani et al. (‘084) would include an alloy such as 0.05 weight percent silver, 0.04 weight percent gold and 99.91 weight percent copper, which would read on the claim (Alloy Element 9 in Table 1).
With respect to the recitation “wherein a mass fraction of the silver is at least twice mass fraction of the gold” in claim 21, the ranges of copper, silver and gold in Sarangapani et al. (‘084) would include an alloy such as 0.05 weight percent silver, 0.02 weight percent gold and 99.93 weight percent copper, which would read on the claim (Alloy Element 9 in Table 1).
With respect to the recitation “wherein, based on the total weight of the alloy, a sum of a mass fraction of the silver and a mass fraction of the gold is ≤ 0.20 wt%” in claim 22, the ranges of copper, silver and gold in Sarangapani et al. (‘084) would include an alloy such as 0.05 weight percent silver, 0.04 weight percent gold and 99.91 weight percent copper, which would have a total of 0.09 weight percent of silver and gold and would read on the claim since 0.09 weight percent would be less than or equal to 0.20 weight percent (Alloy Element 9 in Table 1).
With respect to the recitation “wherein, based on the total weight of the alloy, a sum of a mass fraction of the silver and a mass fraction of the gold is ≤ 0.15 wt%” in claim 23, the ranges of copper, silver and gold in Sarangapani et al. (‘084) would include an alloy such as 0.05 weight percent silver, 0.04 weight percent gold and 99.91 weight percent copper, which would have a total of 0.09 weight percent of silver and gold and would read on the claim since 0.09 weight percent would be less than or equal to 0.15 weight percent (Alloy Element 9 in Table 1).
In regard to claim 27, Sarangapani et al. (‘084) discloses forming wires for bonding in microelectronics, which would be an electrical or electronic component [0008].
With respect to the recitation “for at least one of sound reproduction or recording or for sound signal processing, output, reception or transmission, or for music or speech reproduction, recording or processing, or audio reproduction system” in claim 27, the Examiner considers this a recitation of intended use that would not further limit the structure of the microelectronic wire alloy. MPEP 2111.02 II.
With respect to the recitation “or for an instrument, or for a guitar” in claim 29, the Examiner considers this a recitation of intended use that would not further limit the structure of the microelectronic wire alloy. MPEP 2111.02 II.
In regard to claim 30, Sarangapani et al. (‘084) discloses forming wires for bonding in microelectronics, which would be an electrical or electronic component [0008].
With respect to the recitation “for at least one of an audio reproduction system or as part of an audio reproduction system” in claim 30, the Examiner considers this a recitation of intended use that would not further limit the structure of the microelectronic wire alloy. MPEP 2111.02 II.
In regard to claim 32, Sarangapani et al. (‘084) discloses forming wires for bonding in microelectronics (connecting wire), which would be an electrical or electronic component [0008].
In regard to claims 31 and 34 and still regarding claim 32, Sarangapani et al. (‘084) discloses forming wires for bonding in microelectronics, which would be an electrical or electronic component [0008]. However, merely changing the shape of the wire such that it forms a coil would not patently distinguish from the wire of Sarangapani et al. (‘084). MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarangapani et al. (US 2013/0140084) as applied to claim 27, and further in view of Yim (US 2007/0104929).
In regard to claim 28, Sarangapani et al. (‘084) discloses copper alloys as set forth above, but Saragapani et al. (‘084) fails to specify wherein the copper alloy would be used for a printed circuit board.
Yim (‘929) discloses using a copper alloy wire plated with palladium or a palladium alloy and then gold or gold alloy for printed circuit boards in order to provide high reliability at a low production cost [0043].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the fling of the instant invention to modify the copper alloys, as disclosed by Sarangapani et al. (‘084), by plating with palladium or a palladium alloy and then gold or gold alloy, as disclosed by Yim (‘929), in order to be used in highly reliable and low cost printed circuit boards, as disclosed by Yim (‘929) [0043].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 33 and 35 are 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 and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth above is remedied.
In regard to claim 33, neither Sarangapani et al. (‘084), Yim (‘929) nor the remainder of the prior art disclose or adequately suggest using the copper-silver-gold alloy as a capacitor or foil.
In regard to claim 35, neither Sarangapani et al. (‘084), Yim (‘929) nor the remainder of the prior art disclose or adequately suggest using the copper-silver-gold alloy as a choke coil installed in a crossover filter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Maehara (‘593) discloses copper alloy rods/wires with substantially similar amounts of silver and gold within a Markush group [0051-0052], but requires the presence of other elements such as titanium (0.01 to 2.5 weight percent), chromium (0.01 to 0.5 weight percent) and iron (0.01 to 1 weight percent) [0035].
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