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 .
Response to Arguments
The claim objections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection over Matsunaga et al. (US 2018/0211741), have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the present invention is made by a process that includes a heat treatment before finishing step of maintaining the copper alloy at a temperature of 300°C for 1-120 seconds (see Spec., ¶ 105), in order to prevent a significant decrease in strength due to recrystallization (see Remarks, pp. 7-8). Applicant argues this heat treatment step is distinct from the corresponding heat treatment in Matsunaga, which requires heating to 400°C-900°C (¶¶ 89-90) to form a recrystallization structure.
However, the instant specification actually states that the heat treatment step before finishing is conducted at a temperature “within the range of 100° C. or higher and 800° C. or lower” (¶ 105). This clearly overlaps the prior art heat treatment step of heating to 400°C-900°C. Furthermore, Applicant’s argument that the process of the present invention avoids recrystallization is not supported by the evidence. The instant specification states: “a significant decrease in the strength due to recrystallization is avoided” (¶ 105). This does not mean recrystallization does not occur; it merely states a decrease in strength does not occur in spite of recrystallization. The fact that Matsunaga teaches recrystallization occurs is therefore not a point of distinction when compared to the claimed invention, unless a significant decrease in strength also occurs in Matsunaga. To the contrary however, one object of Matsunaga is to improve strength of the copper alloy through heat treatment (see, e.g., ¶¶ 93-95).
Applicant also argues that for the present invention, when the heating temperature is above 400°C (see Remarks, p. 9), the heating time should be less than 10 seconds. However, Applicant points to no disclosure in the present statement to support this conjecture, nor has Applicant presented any evidence in support thereof. Applicant has presented insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the process of Matsunaga is substantially similar to the process for making the claimed product, and therefore would result in a product having the claimed properties. Attorney argument cannot take the place of evidence. See MPEP 2145.I. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is therefore maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Maki et al. (US 2018/0245183), have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant presents the same arguments as those presented against the Matsunaga rejection. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for the same reasons, and the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Matsunaga et al. (US 2018/0211741).
Regarding claims 1-6, Matsunaga discloses a copper alloy containing 0.1%-0.5% Mg with a balance of Cu and inevitable impurities (¶ 11). P is included at an amount of 1-100 ppm (¶ 51). These ranges lie within the claimed ranges. Matsunaga does not expressly teach the claimed stress-strain characteristics. However, the copper alloy of Matsunaga is obtained via a substantially identical process for obtaining the claimed invention.
For the claimed invention, the copper alloy is cast (Spec., ¶¶ 93-96), and heat treated at a temperature of 300-900°C as a homogenizing/solutionizing treatment (Spec., ¶¶ 97-99). The alloy is then rough worked at a ratio of at least 20% (Spec., ¶ 100), before undergoing an intermediate heat treatment of 400-900°C for 10 seconds to 10 hours (Spec., ¶ 101). Another working step is performed at a ratio of at least 5% (Spec., ¶ 103), followed by another heat treatment of 100-800°C for 1-120 seconds (Spec., ¶ 105). A final working step is performed at a ratio of 5%-50% (Spec., ¶¶ 107-108), and a final heat treatment of 100-800°C for 1-120 seconds (Spec., ¶ 109).
In Matsunaga, the copper alloy is cast (¶¶ 78-79), and heat treated at a temperature of 300-900°C as a homogenizing/solutionizing treatment (¶¶ 80-82). The alloy is then worked at a ratio of at least 30% (¶ 83-84), before undergoing an intermediate heat treatment of 400-900°C for 10 seconds to 10 hours (¶ 85-86). Another working step is performed at a ratio of at least 20% (¶¶ 87-88), followed by another heat treatment of 400-900°C for 10 seconds to 10 hours (¶¶ 89-90). A finish working step is performed at a ratio of at least 30% (¶¶ 94-95), and a finish heat treatment of at least 300°C for at least 5 seconds (¶ 96). As this process is substantially identical to the claimed process, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the copper alloy of Matsunaga to exhibit the same properties as the claimed copper alloy, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 7, Matsunaga teaches the copper alloy is plastically worked (¶ 7).
Regarding claim 8, the copper alloy has a sheet thickness of 0.5, 1, and 2 mm (¶ 119).
Regarding claim 9, Matsunaga teaches forming a Sn plating on the plastically worked copper alloy (¶ 99).
Regarding claims 10-13, the copper alloy is a component for an electronic or electric device such as a terminal, a bus bar, or a lead frame (¶ 100).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maki et al. (US 2018/0245183).
Regarding claims 1-6, Maki discloses a copper alloy containing 0.5-3.0% Mg with a balance of Cu and inevitable impurities (¶ 11). P is included at an amount of 0.001%-0.1% (¶ 19). These ranges overlap or lie within the claimed ranges, creating a prima facie case of obviousness as to composition. See MPEP 2144.05 I. Maki does not expressly teach the claimed stress-strain characteristics. However, the copper alloy of Maki is obtained via a substantially identical process for obtaining the claimed invention.
For the claimed invention, the copper alloy is cast (Spec., ¶¶ 93-96), and heat treated at a temperature of 300-900°C as a homogenizing/solutionizing treatment (Spec., ¶¶ 97-99). The alloy is then rough worked at a ratio of at least 20% (Spec., ¶ 100), before undergoing an intermediate heat treatment of 400-900°C for 10 seconds to 10 hours (Spec., ¶ 101). Another working step is performed at a ratio of at least 5% (Spec., ¶ 103), followed by another heat treatment of 100-800°C for 1-120 seconds (Spec., ¶ 105). A final working step is performed at a ratio of 5%-50% (Spec., ¶¶ 107-108), and a final heat treatment of 100-800°C for 1-120 seconds (Spec., ¶ 109).
In Maki, the copper alloy is cast (¶¶ 69-70), and heat treated at a temperature of 400-900°C as a homogenizing/solutionizing treatment (¶¶ 72-74). The alloy is then worked at a ratio of at least 30% (¶¶ 76-77), before undergoing an intermediate heat treatment of 400-900°C for 10 seconds to 10 hours (¶¶ 79-80). Another working step is performed at a ratio of at least 20% (¶¶ 82-83), followed by another heat treatment of 400-900°C for 10 seconds to 10 hours (¶¶ 85-86). A finish working step is performed at a ratio of at least 50% (¶¶ 91-92), and a finish heat treatment of at least 300°C for at least 5 seconds (¶ 94). As this process is substantially identical to the claimed process, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the copper alloy of Maki to exhibit the same properties as the claimed copper alloy, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 7, Maki teaches the copper alloy is plastically worked (¶ 76).
Regarding claim 8, the copper alloy has a sheet thickness of 0.5, 1, and 2 mm (¶ 113).
Regarding claim 9, Maki teaches forming a Sn plating on the plastically worked copper alloy (¶ 97).
Regarding claims 10-13, the copper alloy is a component for an electronic or electric device such as a terminal, a bus bar, or a lead frame (¶ 108).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
Prosecution Insights