DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-13 are pending, and claims 1-12 are currently under review.
Claim 13 is withdrawn.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group I, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on 7/20/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 13 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/20/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McDevitt et al. (US 9,951,400).
Regarding claim 1, McDevitt et al. discloses a copper-zinc alloy having a composition as seen in table 1 below, which falls within the claimed range [abstract, table1 example 5B].
Table 1.
Element (wt.%)
Claim 1 (wt.%)
McDevitt et al. (example 5B)
McDevitt et al. (example B)
Cu
66 – 73
69.59
69.56
Si
1.5 – 2.5
2.08
1.57
P
0.01 – 0.15
0.117
0.063
Pb
0 – 0.1
0.023
0.089
Zn & Impurities
Balance
28.14
28.64
Regarding claims 2-4, McDevitt et al. discloses the alloy of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned examples 5B and B of McDevitt et al. do not contain any As or Al (ie. 0%) and contain less than 0.01 weight percent Sn or 0.018 weight percent Sn respectively, which falls within the claimed ranges [table1].
Regarding claims 5-6 and 8-9, McDevitt et al. discloses the alloy of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the aforementioned example 5B composition of McDevitt et al. further falls within the claimed ranges.
Regarding claims 5 and 7-8, McDevitt et al. discloses the alloy of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the aforementioned example B composition of McDevitt et al. further falls within the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 12, McDevitt et al. discloses the alloy of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the aforementioned examples 5B and B further exhibit maximum dezincification depths of much less than 200 micrometers [table2].
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDevitt et al. (US 9,951,400).
Regarding claim 1, McDevitt et al. discloses a copper-zinc alloy having a composition as seen in table 2 below, which falls overlaps with the claimed range [abstract, col.1 ln.15-17, col.2 ln.15-39].
Table 2.
Element (wt.%)
Claim 1 (wt.%)
McDevitt et al.
Cu
66 – 73
66 – 70
Si
1.5 – 2.5
1.3 – 2
P
0.01 – 0.15
0 – 0.15
Pb
0 – 0.1
0 (no lead)
Zn & Impurities
Balance
Balance
Regarding claims 2-4, McDevitt et al. discloses the alloy of claim 1 (see previous). McDevitt et al. further teaches that As, Al, and Sn can be omitted (ie. 0%) or further included in amounts of up to 0.15 weight percent As, up to 2.5 weight percent Al, and up to 1.2 weight percent Sn, which overlaps with the claimed ranges [col.2 ln.29-39]. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 5-9, McDevitt et al. discloses the alloy of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the aforementioned compositional ranges of McDevitt et al. further overlap with the claimed ranges. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 10-11, McDevitt et al. discloses the alloy of claim 1 (see previous). McDevitt et al. further teaches mainly alpha phase, wherein non-alpha phases (ie. beta, gamma, kappa) are included in an amount of between 3 to 45 percent, which overlaps with the claimed ranges [col.2 ln.62-67]. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 12, McDevitt et al. discloses the alloy of claim 1 (see previous). McDevitt et al. further teaches a dezincification maximum depth of less than 200 micrometers [col.5 ln.39-45, claim1].
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi (US 2007/0158002).
Regarding claim 1, Oishi discloses a copper alloy having a composition as seen in table 3 below, which meets the limitation of a copper-zinc alloy [0021]. The examiner notes that the overlap between the composition of Oishi and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Table 3.
Element (wt.%)
Claim 1 (wt.%)
Oishi
Cu
66 – 73
58 – 72.5
Si
1.5 – 2.5
0.05 – 2
P
0.01 – 0.15
0.01 – 0.25
Pb
0 – 0.1
0.01 – 4
Zn & Impurities
Balance
Balance
Regarding claims 2-4, Oishi discloses the alloy of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned embodiment of Oishi does not expressly contain As, Al, or Sn, such that these elements would be recognized to be absent (ie. 0%) which further meets the claimed ranges. Alternatively, Oishi further teaches optional inclusions of As, Al, and Sn in amounts of 0.02 to 0.2 weight percent, 0.01 to 4 weight percent, and 0.05 to 4 weight percent, respectively, which overlaps with the claimed ranges [0019-0020]. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 5-9, Oishi discloses the alloy of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the aforementioned composition of Oishi further overlap with the claimed ranges. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 10-11, Oishi discloses the alloy of claim 1 (see previous). Oishi further teaches that the alloy can have a microstructure of alpha and gamma phases, wherein gamma is included in an amount of up to 25 percent, which overlaps with the claimed ranges [abstract]. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Oishi is silent regarding any required beta phases, which one of ordinary skill would understand to mean that beta is not necessarily included (ie. 0%) which meets the claimed range.
Regarding claim 12, Oishi discloses the alloy of claim 1 (see previous). Oishi further teaches examples having dezincification depths much lower than 200 micrometers [tables6-10]. Although these specific example compositions are not relied upon in the current rejections, the examiner submits that the disclosure of Oishi suggests a range of desirable dezincification depths which overlaps with the claimed range as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights