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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090116997 A1 (hereinafter “Watanabe”).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe teaches tubes for heat exchangers (see title). Watanabe teaches that the tubes include a composition of Sn 0.1-2.0%, P 0.005 to 0.1 mass %, S 0.005 mass % or less, O 0.005 mass % or less, and H 0.0002 mass % or less, and the remainder copper (see SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION). Watanabe teaches that the copper is rolled to form sheet as part of the tube forming process ([0038] or Example 1).
Watanabe teaches examples of copper alloy (Examples and [0053]-[0060]). Watanabe teaches that copper sheet is formed in order to test the material properties (see [0060]). The composition of the copper of Watanabe is compared with the claimed composition in the chart below (all units indicated therein).
Element
Claim 1
Watanabe
Ni
Sn
C
O
H
Ag
Ni+Sn
Cu
Impurities
0.0005-0.1%
0.0005-0.1%
100 ppm or less
800 ppm or less
10 ppm or less
50 ppm or less
0.001-0.11%
Balance
100/250 ppm or less
(0.005-0.07 of Fe, Ni, Mn, Mg, Cr, Ti, and Ag)
0.1-1.0
--
0.005% or less
0.0002% or less
(0.005-0.07 of Fe, Ni, Mn, Mg, Cr, Ti, and Ag)
0.1005 – 1.07
Balance
--
Watanabe does not teach Carbon, reading on essentially zero of that element. The composition of Watanabe overlaps the claimed composition, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness for the ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to have selected a composition in the ranges as claimed because Watanabe teaches the same utility over an overlapping range. Applicant is further directed to MPEP 2144.05. In the alternative, regarding the Sn content, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The Si content of Watanabe is also considered to be close enough to what is claimed that the claimed composition is an obvious matter to a skilled artisan.
Regarding claim 2, Watanabe teaches that the S is limited to 0.005 mass% or less (see [0029]), overlapping the claimed compositions.
Regarding claim 3, Watanabe does not teach an IACS conductivity of the copper. The properties not disclosed by the art would have flowed naturally from following the teachings of the prior art. The copper material having the same composition as that claimed would have been reasonably expected to have had the same IACS conductivity property
Regarding claim 4, Watanabe teaches grain diameter is 30 micron or less (see [0013] or claim 1), overlapping the claimed range and establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claims 5-6, Watanabe does not teach what would be the properties of the copper material after being held at specified temperatures for specified times. Watanabe does not do the same testing. The properties not disclosed by the art would have flowed naturally from following the teachings of the prior art. The copper material having the same composition as that claimed would have been reasonably expected to have had the same property.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2014077192 (document cited by applicant; hereinafter “Kawasaki”), in view of US 20090116997 A1 (hereinafter “Watanabe”).
Regarding claim 1, Kawasaki teaches a copper alloy and connector for high current (See title). Kawasaki teaches that the composition of the copper alloy is 0.01-0.3% by mass of Sn, with 0.15 in total of at least one of Ag, Fe, P, Co, Ni, Cr, Mn, Zn, Mg, and Si (see [0010]). Kawasaki teaches that the material is hot rolled, cold rolled, annealed, and cold rolled to sheet (see [0022]).
The composition of Kawasaki overlaps the claimed range. For example, it would have been an obvious matter to start with Example 6 of Kawasaki in Table 1 (0.12% Sn, 0.01% Ni), and to have reduced a tin content because Kawasaki teaches the same utility over an overlapping range. Kawasaki does not teach to add C, reding on essentially 0 of that element.
Kawasaki does not teach the limits on O and H as claimed.
Watanabe teaches tubes for heat exchangers (see title). Watanabe teaches that the tubes include a composition of Sn 0.1-2.0%, P 0.005 to 0.1 mass %, S 0.005 mass % or less, O 0.005 mass % or less, and H 0.0002 mass % or less, and the remainder copper (see SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION). Regarding the O, Watanabe teaches that the O is limited to 0.005% because of deterioration in fatigue property and workability (see [0030]). Watanabe teaches that the H is limited to 0.0002% or less because H causes pinholes which leads to cracks (See [0031]-[0032]).
It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan at time of invention to have made the copper of Kawasaki, and further to have limited O and H to the ranges described in Watanabe, because Watanabe teaches that the O is limited to 0.005% because of deterioration in fatigue property and workability (see [0030]) and Watanabe teaches that the H is limited to 0.0002% or less because H causes pinholes which leads to cracks (See [0031]-[0032]).
Regarding an impurity content in the copper (A and B values of 100 ppm and 250 ppm), the mere purity of the copper, by itself, is insufficient to distinguish over the prior art. The copper produced by the teachings of Kawasaki, as modified by the teachings of Watanabe would have been close enough to what is claimed that the skilled artisan would have expected the coppers to have had similar properties. Applicant is further directed to MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Watanabe teaches that the S is limited to 0.005 mass% or less (see [0029]), overlapping the claimed compositions. Watanabe teaches that this prevents cracks (See [0029]). It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan at time of invention to have made the copper of Kawasaki, and further to have limited to the ranges described in Watanabe, because Watanabe teaches that this prevents cracks (See [0029]).
Regarding claim 3, Kawasaki teaches a conductivity of 75% or more (see [0010]), overlapping the claimed range a establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 4, Kawasaki teaches that a crystal grain size is 100 micron or less ([0010]), overlapping the claimed range a establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claims 5-6, Kawasaki does not teach what would be the properties of the copper material after being held at specified temperatures for specified times. Kawasaki does not do the same testing. The properties not disclosed by the art would have flowed naturally from following the teachings of the prior art. The copper material having the same composition as that claimed would have been reasonably expected to have had the same property.
Regarding claim 7, Kawasaki teaches that the material is hot rolled, cold rolled, annealed, and cold rolled to sheet (see [0022]).
Regarding claim 8, Kawasaki teaches a heat sink (see [0001]).
Regarding claim 9, Kawasaki teaches an electrical component (See [0001]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 6372061 B1 teaches a copper sheet with total impurities of 0.003%. US 5777259 A teaches a heat exchanger with copper alloys of low impurity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6510. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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.
CHRISTOPHER S. KESSLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights