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 the Claims
Claims 1-22 are pending wherein claims 1-3 and 18 are currently under examination and claims 4-17 and 19-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected method of producing copper alloy compositions. Applicant’s election of claims 1-3 and 18 was made with traverse in the Response filed on September 18, 2026. Applicant traverses on the ground that Funaki (‘334) describes two distinct copper materials with one being age-hardenable copper alloys containing elements such as chromium, zirconium, beryllium, titanium or boron, including Cu-Zr alloys and then separately discloses composite copper materials containing dispersed ceramic particles such as alumina and Funaki (‘334) fails to show or suggest combining zirconium with alumina in the same copper alloy or composite material. In response, the Examiner considers this to be unpersuasive because essentially Applicant is saying there is some motivation to exclude the copper alloys disclosed in Funaki (‘334) when adding alumina to copper alloys to form a composite as disclosed by Funaki (‘334) and as such the copper alloy/composite structure with the alumina with the elements/ceramic within the claimed ranges is found within the four corners of the reference. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The restriction is therefore still deemed proper and therefore made final.
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 1-3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 102899521) in view of Gaffet et al. (FR 2985521).
In regard to claim 1, Chen et al. (CN ‘521) discloses copper based alloys having 0.5 to 4.5 weight percent chromium and 0.5 to 4.5 weight percent zirconium with elemental copper being present in the range of 95 to 99 weight percent [0023]. The Examiner notes that the amounts of chromium and zirconium disclosed by Chen et al. (CN ‘521) overlap the ranges of the instant invention, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to select the claimed amounts of chromium and zirconium from the amounts disclosed by Chen et al. (CN ‘521) because Chen et al. (CN ‘521) discloses the same utility throughout the claimed ranges.
Chen et al. (CN ‘521) discloses copper based alloys having chromium and zirconium as set forth above, but Chen et al. (CN ‘521) does not specify wherein the copper based alloys would have 1.5 to 5 mass percent alumina.
Gaffet et al. (FR ‘521) discloses adding between 1 and 5 weight percent alumina to copper based alloys in order to control the grain growth (page 3 and page 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior to the filing of the instant invention to add between 1 and 5 weight percent alumina, as disclosed by Gaffet et al. (FR ‘521), to the copper based alloys, as disclosed by Chen et al. (CN ‘521), in order to control the grain growth of the copper based alloys, as disclosed by Gaffet et al. (FR ‘521) (page 3 and page 8).
In regard to claim 2, Chen et al. (CN ‘521) discloses forming the alloy from powder [0017].
In regard to claim 3, Chen et al. (CN ‘521) discloses forming the alloy into a contact wire (solid) [0019].
In regard to claim 18, Chen et al. (CN ‘521) discloses copper based alloys having 0.5 to 4.5 weight percent chromium and 0.5 to 4.5 weight percent zirconium with elemental copper being present in the range of 95 to 99 weight percent that would be used to form contact wire ([0019] and [0023]). The Examiner notes that the amounts of chromium and zirconium disclosed by Chen et al. (CN ‘521) overlap the ranges of the instant invention, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to select the claimed amounts of chromium and zirconium from the amounts disclosed by Chen et al. (CN ‘521) because Chen et al. (CN ‘521) discloses the same utility throughout the claimed ranges.
Chen et al. (CN ‘521) discloses copper based alloys having chromium and zirconium as set forth above, but Chen et al. (CN ‘521) does not specify wherein the copper based alloys would have 1.5 to 5 mass percent alumina.
Gaffet et al. (FR ‘521) discloses adding between 1 and 5 weight percent alumina to copper based alloys in order to control the grain growth (page 3 and page 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior to the filing of the instant invention to add between 1 and 5 weight percent alumina, as disclosed by Gaffet et al. (FR ‘521), to the copper based alloys, as disclosed by Chen et al. (CN ‘521), in order to control the grain growth of the copper based alloys, as disclosed by Gaffet et al. (FR ‘521) (page 3 and page 8).
With respect to the recitation “obtained with a manufacturing method according to claim 9” in claim 18, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2113.
Claims 1-3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funaki (WO 2004/009859).
In regard to claim 1, Funaki (WO ‘859) discloses copper base alloys having 0.1 to 1.4 weight percent chromium or 0.15 to 0.5 weight percent zirconium when that is the additive element, which overlaps the range of the instant invention (page 11 of Translation). MPEP 2144.05 I.
This embodiment on page 11 of Funaki (WO ‘859) discloses copper alloys as set forth above, but Funaki (WO ‘859) but Funaki (WO ‘859) fails to specify wherein alumina would be present.
Funaki (WO ‘859) discloses adding 0.1 to 5 weight percent alumina to copper alloys in order to improve the electrical properties (pages 13-14 of Translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to add 0.1 to 5 weight percent alumina, as disclosed on pages 13-14 of Funaki (WO ‘859), to the copper based alloys as disclosed by Funaki (WO ‘859) (page 11 of Translation), in order to improve the electrical properties, as disclosed by Funaki (WO ‘859) (pages 13-14 of Translation).
In regard to claim 2, Funaki (WO ‘859) discloses copper powder (page 14).
In regard to claim 3, Funaki (WO ‘859) discloses a connector constituting a part of wiring (solid) (page 16 of Translation).
In regard to claim 18, Funaki (WO ‘859) discloses copper base alloys for part of wiring of electric vehicles having 0.1 to 1.4 weight percent chromium or 0.15 to 0.5 weight percent zirconium when that is the additive element, which overlaps the range of the instant invention (pages 11 and 16 of Translation). MPEP 2144.05 I.
This embodiment on page 11 of Funaki (WO ‘859) discloses copper alloys as set forth above, but Funaki (WO ‘859) but Funaki (WO ‘859) fails to specify wherein alumina would be present.
Funaki (WO ‘859) discloses adding 0.1 to 5 weight percent alumina to copper alloys in order to improve the electrical properties (pages 13-14 of Translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to add 0.1 to 5 weight percent alumina, as disclosed on pages 13-14 of Funaki (WO ‘859), to the copper based alloys as disclosed by Funaki (WO ‘859) (page 11 of Translation), in order to improve the electrical properties, as disclosed by Funaki (WO ‘859) (pages 13-14 of Translation).
With respect to the recitation “obtained with a manufacturing method according to claim 9” in claim 18, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2113.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Examiner is not aware of additional references that would be pertinent to the subject matter of the claims at this point in prosecution.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessee Roe whose telephone number is (571)272-5938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7:30 am to 4 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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
