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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/1/2025 have been fully considered. The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection over Carpenter has been withdrawn in favor of a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over the same reference, in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments are otherwise unpersuasive. Applicant traverses the rejection on the following grounds: A) the conversion of tensile strength to Vicker’s hardness is inapplicable for the claimed alloy, and B) Carpenter does not disclose the claimed TCR over the temperature range 20-155°C.
As to A), this argument is not persuasive. Appplicant cites to references which are not of the record in an attempt to support a finding that the alloy of Carpenter would not have the claimed Vickers hardness. The Lamineries Matthey Evanhom datasheet (cited in the 892), which Applicant references, discloses an alloy with properties substantially identical to the alloy disclosed in Carpenter. Applicant states that the Lamineries Matthey reference discloses annealed alloys having a hardness of 160-280 HV. In Lamineries Matthey, this corresponds to annealed alloys having a tensile strength (Rm) of 650-900 MPa (see p. 1). The Vickers hardness range in Lamineries Matthey substantially overlaps the claimed Vickers hardness of 160-230 HV, and roughly corresponds to the Vickers hardness predicted by CAB Worldwide (predicting 200-280 HV for tensile strengths of 650-900 MPa). Hence, Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to rebut the finding in the prior art rejection of record that the Vickers hardness of the alloy in Carpenter would have a Vickers hardness within the claimed range, especially in view of the disclosure in Lamineries Matthey.
Applicant also cites other data sheets (i.e., Hamilton Precision and Tokkin). It is not clear how these are relevant to the rejection of record. Applicant asserts that a heat treatment at 475°C (as performed in Hamilton Precision) retains a higher hardness (see pp. 10-11 of Remarks), similar to the examples in Applicant’s specification, to achieve a TCR of ±10°C. However, it is unclear how this is relevant to the rejection over Carpenter. Carpenter performs heat treatment at a temperature below 400-600°C, and the annealed alloy has a tensile strength of 689 MPa, which is clearly within the range disclosed by Lamineries Matthey (and implies a Vickers hardness within the claimed range). The alloys in Carpenter and Laminieries Matthey also have a TCR of ±10°C, so there is no evidence that a higher hardness is required to achieve this TCR. Accordingly, there is no basis to assume that the annealed alloy of Carpenter has a higher hardness.
As to B), this argument is not persuasive. Although Carpenter only discloses a TCR of ±10°C over the range of -65°C to 125°C (p. 2), Carpenter also states the TCR does not significantly change outside of the range up to 204°C (p. 1). This supports the conclusion that the prior art TCR would overlap the claimed TCR over a temperature range of 25°C to 155°C, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Response to Amendment
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 12/1/2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims. It should be noted the Declaration appears to have been filed solely to provide support for the claim amendments of 12/1/2025, and does not address the prior art rejection.
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 1-2, 6-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter Electrification (“EVANOHM DATASHEET”), as evidenced by CAB Worldwide (“Correlation of Hardness Values to Tensile Strength”).
Regarding claim 1, Carpenter discloses a resistor alloy comprising the following composition, as compared to the claimed composition, in mass percent (p. 1):
Claim 1
Dependent claims 6-12
Carpenter
Ni
Balance
73.5%
Cu
1.0%-3.0%
1.5%-2.5%
2.00%
Cr
15.0%-25.0%
18%-22%
20.00%
Mn
0%-1.5%
0.5%-1.2%
1.00%
Al
1.0%-4.0%
2.0%-3.0%
2.50%
Si
0%-1.5%
0.5%-1.2%
1.00%
The prior art composition lies within the claimed compositional range. Carpenter teaches the alloy has a volume resistivity of 133 μΩ·cm (p. 2), which lies within the claimed range. Carpenter teaches a temperature coefficient of resistance of ±10 ppm/°C over the temperature range of -65°C to 125°C (p. 2). Carpenter also states the TCR does not significantly change outside of this range up to 204°C (p. 1). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the TCR over the claimed temperature range to be approximately ±10 ppm/°C, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112. This overlaps the claimed range, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I. Carpenter does not expressly teach a Vickers hardness; however, the alloy has a tensile strength of 689 MPa, which correlates to a Vickers hardness of about 210 (evidenced by CAB Worldwide, p. 4). The Vickers hardness of the alloy of Carpenter is therefore expected to lie within the claimed Vickers hardness, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 2, Carpenter teaches the resistor alloy is in the form of a round wire having a diameter of at most 0.057 inch (p. 4), which is 1.45 mm, or the form of a flat wire with a thickness of at most 0.091 inch (p. 5), which is 2.31 mm. Both figures lie within the claimed thickness range.
Regarding claims 13-15, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed above. Carpenter does not expressly teach a maximum wt% of impurities. The amount of all six elements present in the alloy sum to 100% (see p. 1). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the amounts of other elements to as close to 0% as possible.
Regarding claim 17, the instant specification states that avoiding the Ni2Cr phase is accomplished by keeping Cr to 25% mass or less, preferably to 22% or less (see Spec., ¶ 56). Because Carpenter teaches a Cr amount of 20% wt, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the alloy of Carpenter to lack the Ni2Cr phase, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 18, Carpenter teaches the resistor alloy in the form of flat wires having a thickness of 0.072 inch or less (p. 5), which is 1.83 mm or less. This lies within the claimed range.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 are allowed. Reasons for allowance appear in the previous Office Action.
Claim 16 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed temperature coefficient of resistance in claim 16.
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 XIAOBEI WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5705. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/XIAOBEI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784