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 Claims
Claim 1 is amended. Claim 2 is cancelled. Claims 3-5 are withdrawn. Claim 6 is new. Claims 1 and 6 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/01/2025 has been entered.
Status of Previous Rejections
The rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’981 (JP 2019-143981, IDS dated 06/02/2025) is withdrawn in view of the applicants’ amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites a tensile strength of 1664 MPa or more. However, Table 1 of instant Specification shows that when radius of curvature is ≥300 mm, the tensile strength is 1680 MPa or more. There is no support that when radius of curvature is ≥300 mm, the tensile strength is less than 1680 MPa. There is new matter issue and appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’042 (JP2000-199042A), and further in view of CN’871 (CN211027871).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, JP’042 teaches a Cu-Ag alloy wire containing 10 mass% Ag ([0048]; Table 2, Example 7), which meets the recited alloy composition in claim 1. JP’042 discloses that the conductivity (%IACS) is 60% (Table 2, Example 7). The specific resistivity is calculated to be 172.41/60=2.87 µΩ∙cm and meets the recited specific resistance in claim 1.
JP’042 discloses that the tensile strength is 1735 MPa (Table 2, Example 7), which meets the recited tensile strength in claims 1 and 6. Tensile strength of 1735 MPa converts to 352.3 HV and meets the recited hardness in claim 1.
JP’042 is silent on the radius of curvature. However, straightening a copper alloy wire is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by CN’871. CN’871 teaches a device for making a copper alloy wire and discloses that straightening copper alloy wire is necessary prior to cutting in order to reduce rejection rate in the process of cutting (Abstract; [0002]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a straightening process prior to cutting the wire as taught by CN’871 in the process of JP’042 in order to reduce rejection rate in the process of cutting as disclosed by CN’871. A straight Cu-Ag wire meets the recited radius of curvature in claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/01/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new rejection ground.
Conclusion
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 Xiaowei Su whose telephone number is (571)272-3239. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at 5712721401. 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.
/XIAOWEI SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733