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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 3 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: “bath temperature of from 200 to 1500°C” should have only one preposition. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a pre-forming step of forming”. This limitation is grammatically improper, as a pre-forming step should precede a forming, not be the forming. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Hasegawa et al. (JP H10-017977).
Regarding claim 1, Hasegawa teaches a Mo-Si alloy (¶ 10) containing 35%-45% Si (¶ 12) and 0.1%-5% Cu (¶¶ 13-14). This lies within the claimed range. The Mo-Si alloy is expected to inherently contain silicides, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Watanabe et al. (JP 2003-055761).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe teaches a molybdenum silicide or tungsten silicide containing sputtering target containing 10-300 ppm (0.001%-0.03%) Au or Ag (abstract). This lies within the claimed range.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by Kieffer et al. (US 3,086,886).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 6-9, Kieffer teaches a component comprising molybdenum, tungsten, or their alloys (col. 1, lines 16-17). The component is submerged in a molten bath containing 3%-30% silicon and the remainder copper (col. 2, lines 3-10). Preferably, the bath contains 10%-15% Si (col. 2, lines 28-30). The molten bath is maintained at a temperature of 800°C -1300°C (col. 3, lines 9-14). Kieffer teaches up to 50% of the copper in the copper-silicon bath may be replaced by Sn or Ag additions (col. 3, lines 23-27). The Cu and Sn/Ag corresponds to the claimed element X. This results in a silicide coating layer on the alloy, with elements from the bath adhered thereon (col. 2, lines 10-15).
Kieffer does not expressly teach the silicide coating contains 0.001%-10% by mass of Cu, Sn, or Ag. However, the process of forming the silicide coating in Kieffer is substantially identical to the process for making the claimed silicide. The instant specification states forming a silicon bath containing 0.001%-99.99% mass Si with a remainder of element X (Spec., ¶ 70), ideally 0.01%-50% or 0.1%-20% (Spec., ¶ 75). The temperature of the bath is 200°C -1500°C (Spec., ¶ 70). The immersion time is at least one minute (Spec., ¶ 77). In comparison, the process of Kieffer uses a bath containing 10%-15% Si (col. 2, lines 28-30) maintained at a temperature of 800°C -1300°C (col. 3, lines 9-14). In addition, the immersion time is forty minutes (col. 3, lines 19). Where the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of anticipation has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. This is the case here, as every process parameter disclosed in Kieffer lies within the process parameters for making the claimed product. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the prior art product to be identical to the claimed product, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claims 5 and 10, Kieffer teaches the molybdenum body is shaped and cleaned prior to immersion in the copper-silicon bath (col. 2, lines 3-4). This intrinsically is a pre-forming step.
Regarding claims 11-12, the metal silicide component disclosed in Kieffer is intrinsically capable of functioning as a heating element or electric resistor (see col. 1, line 27).
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 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan et al. (EP 0886458).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Wan discloses a (Mo,W)Si2 heating element containing up to 0.05% mass Cu or Au (abstract). This overlaps the claimed range, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 12, a heating element is intrinsically an electric resistor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Alexander (US 2,866,724) discloses a Mo or W silicide comprising Cu silicide but does not disclose the claimed ratios.
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