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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 12/21/2023 is being considered by the Examiner.
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.
Claims 2 and 3 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.
Regarding claim 2, in the limitation reciting “a fatigue test…”, please amend the claim such that the recitation of “a fatigue test” is clearly differentiated from the recitation of “a fatigue test” recited in claim 1. Examiner recommend amending the claim to reflect, for example, “a second fatigue test”.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites “a porosity of tungsten”. However, claim 1 recites “tungsten or a tungsten alloy”. Claim 3 does not first narrow the claim to one of the two options (tungsten) before narrowing one of the two options. Please amend the claim to first select tungsten, then narrow the invention to the claimed porosity.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, a metal wire comprising tungsten or a tungsten alloy, combined with testing parameters which are correlated with physical properties, i.e. the capabilities of the wire to withstand the recited fatigue stress. Given that the statutory category of the claimed invention is an apparatus (i.e. a metal wire), Examiner has carefully reviewed the specification in order to determine what physical characteristics a tungsten or tungsten alloy wire has in order to meet the claimed invention. In essence, while a prior art may not explicitly state the fatigue test results in accordance with Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS) C6821, a prior art wire having the same characteristics as those described within the specification would read onto the claimed invention under broadest reasonable interpretation, and in light of the specification. Examiner referenced the following paragraphs for clarification: [0015-0022], [0025], [0026], [0052], [0066], [0101]. Examiner has provided the prior art rejections below in light of these considerations.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (US 20230374634).
Regarding claim 1, Tang (US 20230374634) teaches of a metal wire comprising:
tungsten or a tungsten alloy (see Abstract, as well as [0057], [0061-00612], wherein tungsten may be present in the content of 95-99.9 wt %; wherein [0064] discloses an alloy which may include rhenium), wherein when a fatigue test is conducted on the metal wire at a maximum stress of 4400 MPa in accordance with Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS) C6821, a total number of cycles required to break the metal wire is at least 20,000 cycles (wherein [0045] teaches the diameter is less than or equal to 40 μm, tensile strength is greater than 4800 Mpa; wherein [0046] also teaches wire diameter is equal to or less than 25 μm, with a tensile strength greater than 5,000 MPA; [0049]: wire diameter may be uniform; [0061-0064]: content of potassium is less than 80 parts per million, content of tungsten is 97.0-99.5 wt %, allow may be rhenium; [0094]: the wire rods after drawing can be subjected to electrolytic polishing and cleaning, so as to make the surface of the wire rods smooth; [0087-0094] discloses the manufacturing steps; wherein Tang discloses that sintering is preferably conducted at a temperature of 1,800-2,400° C in [0089], in addition to electrolytic polishing and cleaning so as to smooth the surface of the rods; Examiner also notes herein that a push-pull toughness testing device is shown in Figure 1).
Examiner notes herein that this rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 due to the explanation provided in the Claim Interpretation section above, as the structure of the metal wire as taught by Tang reads onto the structure of the metal wire which enables a metal wire to behave as recited.
Regarding claim 2, Tang teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Tang further teaches wherein when a fatigue test is conducted on the metal wire at a maximum stress of 4400 MPa in accordance with Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS) C6821, a total number of cycles required to break the metal wire is at least 60,000 cycles (please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as provided above, as well as the claim interpretation section; see also [0045], [0049], [0061-0064], [0087-0094] of Tang).
Regarding claim 3, Tang teaches the claimed invention as applied above. However, Tang does not explicitly teach a specific porosity for the tungsten, i.e. wherein a porosity of tungsten in the metal wire is at most 0.25%.
However, Tang does describe distributing metal material at grain boundaries of the tungsten matrix phase (see [0056], [0164]). Furthermore, Tang also describes temperature at which processes take place, including sintering at a temperature of 1,800-2,400° C ([0154-0155]), i.e. temperatures at which tungsten recrystallization takes place, and also describes additional processes which serve to smooth the surfaces of wire rods ([0094]). The temperatures at which operations take place, combined with the consideration of how the material matrixes are formed, directly affects the porosity of the device, and thus porosity is recognized as a result effective variable. The porosity also alters the behavior of the wire rod, wherein the ultimate goal of Tang is to achieve a wire rod having an improved strength and toughness ([0164]). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the wire rod of Tang to have a porosity within the claimed range, as it involves adjusting preexisting parameters which are already adjusted and contemplated by Tang. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tang to have a porosity as claimed, as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 4, Tang teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Tang further teaches wherein the metal wire has a tensile strength of at least 4.8 Gpa (see at least [0045-0046] disclosing a tensile strength of at least 4800 MPa, or 5000 MPa).
Regarding claim 5, Tang teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Tang further teaches a saw wire comprising: the metal wire according to claim 1 (please refer to the rejection as applied to claim 1 above); and
abrasive particles electrodeposited on a surface of the metal wire ([00369]: wherein electroplated diamond particles can be provided on the allow wire rod for cutting materials).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schaffer (US 20230272578), see at least [0051-0053] regarding fatigue strength and cycle testing.
Puzemis (US 9,902,044), see Col. 7, lines 43-58 and Col. 52, line 66-Col. 53, line 10.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAKENA S MARKMAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-6:00pm.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/MAKENA S MARKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723