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 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.
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.
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 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto et al. (2019/0341164) in view of Tomioka et al. (EP 1245690).
Sakamoto et al. discloses a copper alloy wire being a wire rod (1) formed of a copper alloy and having a tensile strength of 400 MPa or more, an elongation at break of 5% or more, a conductivity of 60% IACS or more ([0126]), and a wire diameter of 0.5 mm or less [0012]), wherein the copper alloy has a composition containing 0.05% by mass or more and 1.6% by mass or less of iron, 0.01% by mass or more and 0.7% by mass or less of phosphorus, and 0.05% by mass or more and 0.7% by mass or less of tin with the balance being copper and unavoidable impurities ([0008]-[0010]), and wherein the copper alloy has a structure containing crystals ([0117]) (re-claim 1).
Sakamoto et al. does not disclose a crystal grain size difference determined as a difference between a maximum crystal grain size and a minimum crystal grain size in a cross-section being 1.0 µm or less (re-claim 1).
Tomioka et al. discloses a copper alloy having a structure containing crystals, wherein a crystal grain size is a length between each adjacent intersection point of a plurality of intersection points between each of the crystals along a line of a predetermined length in a cross-section (Fig. 1), and wherein the crystal grain size difference determined as a difference between a maximum crystal grain size and a minimum crystal grain size in a cross-section is 1.0 µm or less. Specifically, Tomioka et al. discloses that the crystal grains are round and uniform (see [0009]), form a plurality of intersection points between each of the crystals (Fig. 1), and have grain size of 1 µm or less ([0009]). Therefore, the crystal grain size is a length between each adjacent intersection point of the plurality of intersection points between each of the crystals along a line of a predetermined length in a cross-section; and the maximum crystal grain size is 1 µm or less.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the copper alloy of Sakamoto et al. such that the difference between the maximum crystal grain size and the minimum crystal grain size is 1.0 µm or less, i.e., providing round and uniform crystal grains, as taught by Tomioka et al. to meet the required electrical and mechanical properties of the alloy.
Sakamoto et al. also discloses that the content ratio by mass of iron to phosphorus is 1.0 or more and 30 or less ([0021]) (re-claim 3); the copper alloy wire has a work hardening coefficient of 0.1 or more ([0131]) (re-claim 4); a covered wire (Fig. 1) comprises a conductor and an insulating layer covering a periphery of the conductor, wherein the conductor comprises a copper alloy stranded wire, and the copper alloy stranded wire comprises the copper alloy wire according to claim 1 (re-claim 5); and a covered wire with terminal (Fig. 2), comprises the covered wire according to claim 5 and a terminal attached to at least one of ends of the covered wire (re-claim 6).
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (2017/0040081) in view of Sakamoto et al. and Tomioka et al.
Kobayashi et al. discloses a copper alloy wire being a wire rod formed of a copper alloy and having a tensile strength of 400 MPa or more, an elongation at break of 5% or more, a conductivity of 60% IACS or more, and a wire diameter of 0.5 mm or less (Table 1), wherein the copper alloy has a composition containing 0.05% by mass or more and 1.6% by mass or less of iron (Table 1, sw3) with the balance being copper and unavoidable impurities, and wherein the copper alloy has a structure containing crystals ([0042]) (re-claim 1).
Kobayashi et al. does not disclose the composition of the copper alloy containing 0.01% by mass or more and 0.7% by mass or less of phosphorus, 0.05% by mass or more and 0.7% by mass or less of tin, and a crystal grain size difference determined as a difference between a maximum crystal grain size and a minimum crystal grain size in a cross-section being 1.0 µm or less (re-claim 1).
Sakamoto et al. discloses a copper alloy containing 0.01% by mass or more and 0.7% by mass or less of phosphorus, and 0.05% by mass or more and 0.7% by mass or less of tin ([0008]-[0010]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to add 0.01% by mass or more and 0.7% by mass or less of phosphorus, and 0.05% by mass or more and 0.7% by mass or less of tin in the copper alloy composition (sw3) of Kobayashi et al. to increase the alloy strength as taught by Sakamoto et al. ([0091]-[0105]).
Tomioka et al. discloses a copper alloy having a structure containing crystals, wherein a crystal grain size is a length between each adjacent intersection point of a plurality of intersection points between each of the crystals along a line of a predetermined length in a cross-section (Fig. 1), and wherein the crystal grain size difference determined as a difference between a maximum crystal grain size and a minimum crystal grain size in a cross-section is 1.0 µm or less. Specifically, Tomioka et al. discloses that the crystal grains are round and uniform (see [0009]), form a plurality of intersection points between each of the crystals (Fig. 1), and have grain size of 1 µm or less ([0009]). Therefore, the crystal grain size is a length between each adjacent intersection point of the plurality of intersection points between each of the crystals along a line of a predetermined length in a cross-section; and the maximum crystal grain size is 1 µm or less.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the modified copper alloy of Kobayashi et al. such that the difference between the maximum crystal grain size and the minimum crystal grain size is 1.0 µm or less, i.e., providing round and uniform crystal grains, as taught by Tomioka et al. to meet the required electrical and mechanical properties of the alloy.
Re-claim 2, in the application’s specification, paragraph [0044], it discloses the “composition containing substantially no carbon.” Kobayashi et al. discloses the copper alloy containing less than 0.001% by mass of carbon (i.e., 0% by mass of carbon or no carbon as disclosed by the applicant).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7am to 5:30pm.
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, Imani N Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/CHAU N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights