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 Objections Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Instant claim 2 recites “as elements that do not adversely affect the characteristics of the nickel brazing filler metal.” This phrase should be deleted from the claim as it serves no purpose and fails to further limit the claim. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1 and 2 are 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 s “ exhibiting excellent wet spreading property, and having corrosion resistance against acid ” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term s “ exhibiting excellent wet spreading property, and having corrosion resistance against acid ” are 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. This renders the degree of wet spreading property and corrosion resistance against acid of the filler metal indefinite which renders the scope of the claim indefinite. Instant claim 2 is dependent on instant claim 1 and is indefinite for at least the same reasons. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. The factual inquiries 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. Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 1138072 to Cui et al (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes). Regarding claims 1 and 2, Cui discloses a nickel alloy comprising the following composition (Cui, para [0004]) which overlaps the instantly claimed composition , as well as a specific example lying close to the instantly claimed composition (Cui, para [0026], Example 2) Element Claimed wt % Cui wt % Cui Example 2 Overlaps/Lies within? Cr 8.0-19.0 6-15 11 Yes/Yes P 7.0-10.5 8-15 11.5 Yes/No B 0.1-1.5 0-1 0.3 Yes/Yes Cu 2.0-8.0 1.5-5 3 Yes/Yes Mo 0-10.0 0-1 0.2 Yes/Yes Si 0-2.5 0-1 0.3 Yes/Yes Co 0-5.0 ≤impurity ≤impurity Yes/Yes Fe 0-3.0 0-2 1 Yes/Yes Mn 0-3.0 ≤impurity ≤impurity Yes/Yes Co+Fe+Mn 0-8.0 0-2 1 Yes/Yes Ni Balance Balance Balance Yes/Yes Wherein the alloy of Cui has melting point below 1000 °C (Cui, para [0005]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5] ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select any portion of the disclosed ranges of Cui including the instantly claimed because Cui discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges. Regarding the limitation “brazing filler metal,” a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the alloy of Cui could be used as a “brazing filler material.” Regarding the limitations “ exhibiting excellent wet spreading property, and having corrosion resistance against acid,” these limitations are indefinite as set forth in the above 35 USC 112 rejection. Regardless, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01 [R-3].) In the instant case, the alloy of Cui would be expected to have the same or similar properties as the instantly claimed alloy because the alloy of Cui has the same or substantially the same composition. Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2013077113 to Otobe (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes). Regarding claims 1 and 2, Otobe discloses a nickel brazing filler metal comprising the following composition ( Otobe , abstract) which overlaps the instantly claimed composition as follows ( Otobe , abstract ) Element Claimed wt % Otobe wt % Overlaps? Cr 8.0-19.0 10.0-35.0 Yes P 7.0-10.5 6.5-10.8 Yes B 0.1-1.5 0-0.3 Yes Cu 2.0-8.0 0.3-5.0 Yes Mo 0-10.0 0-15.0 Yes Si 0-2.5 0-4.0 Yes Co 0-5.0 0-15.0 Yes Fe 0-3.0 0-45.0 Yes Mn 0-3.0 0-5.0 Yes Co+Fe+Mn 0-8.0 0-60.0 Yes Ni Balance Balance Yes Wherein the alloy of Otobe has melting point below 1150 °C ( Otobe , abstract ) , overlapping the instantly claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5] ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select any portion of the disclosed ranges of Cui including the instantly claimed because Otobe discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges. Regarding the limitations “ exhibiting excellent wet spreading property, and having corrosion resistance against acid,” these limitations are indefinite as set forth in the above 35 USC 112 rejection. Regardless, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01 [R-3].) In the instant case, the alloy of Otobe would be expected to have the same or similar properties as the instantly claimed alloy because the alloy of Otobe has the same or substantially the same composition. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BRIAN D WALCK whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5905 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 10 AM - 6:30 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Sally Merkling can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-6297 . 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. /BRIAN D WALCK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738