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 Claims
Claims 1 and 2 are pending where claims 1 and 2 have been amended.
Status of Previous Rejections
The previous 35 USC § 112 and § 103 rejections of the claims over CN 1138072 to Cui et al have been withdrawn in view of amendments to the claims.
The previous 35 USC § 103 rejections of the claims over WO 2013077113 to Otobe have been maintained.
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 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 wetting spreading coefficient of at least 10, and having corrosion resistance against acid wherein the weight loss from sulfuric acid is 0.50 mg/m2∙s or less,” 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the instant claims are patentable over Otobe because the specific examples of Otobe are outside of the instantly claimed ranges. This is not found persuasive because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments (see MPEP 2123 [R-5]). Although Otobe does not explicitly list specific examples of nickel brazing filler metal falling within the instantly claimed ranges, the broader teachings of Otobe disclose overlapping ranges for composition and liquidus temperature and thus reasonably suggest nickel brazing filler metal falling within the instantly claimed ranges and as such Otobe presents a prima facie case of obviousness over the instantly claimed nickel brazing filler metal.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN D WALCK whose telephone number is (571)270-5905. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Sally Merkling can be reached at 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
Prosecution Insights