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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1–12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites that “inside each textured zone of copper-zinc alloy the majority of the gamma phase copper-zinc alloy is in the form of a lamellar texture in which the interstices between the lamellae consisting of gamma phase copper-zinc alloy are filled by the epsilon phase copper-zinc alloy.” While a lamellar texture necessarily has lamellae, it does not necessarily have interstices. Although the meaning of the claim is clear, “the interstices” should be amended to recite “interstices” without an article.
Claim 9 also recites “the interstices” (l. 20), which has the same issue and warrants the same amendment.
Claims 2–8 and 10–12 are objected to due to dependency upon objected-to claims.
Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 5–8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “the first layer” (l. 6). This limitation lacks antecedent basis because it is introduced in claim 2, but claim 5 depends from claim 1.
Claim 6 also recites “the first layer” (l. 2) without antecedent basis because it depends from claim 1.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “less than 1 µm,” and the claim also recites “less than . . . 0.5 µm,” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 8 recites the same limitation as claim 7.
Claim 11 recites the broad recitation “greater than 50 atomic percent,” and the claim also recites “greater than . . . 60 atomic percent,” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 12 recites “consists in.” The language renders the claim indefinite because, although grammatically acceptable, “consists in” is an atypical formulation, and it’s unclear if it should be understood as analogous to the conventional formulations of the more open-ended “comprises,” or the closed-ended “consists of.” See MPEP § 2111.03. Amendment and/or explanation is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
All of claims 1–12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections, as well as the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The claimed invention is neither disclosed nor suggested, alone or in combination, in any prior art of record.
Park (US Pub. 2022/0339724) seems to disclose an electrode wire that is textured by virtue of gamma-phase and epsilon-phase of copper-zinc alloy (¶ 67), but it does not disclose the claimed lamellar texturing.
Nöthe et al. (US Pub. 2022/0212277) discloses an electrode wire with a lamellar structure on its top layer, but at the very least, epsilon-phase copper-zinc alloy is not involved.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM 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, Edward (Ned) F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
