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 a certified copy of PCT/JP2022/023145 filed June 8, 2022 as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Receipt is also acknowledged of a copy of WO 2023/238491, the WIPO publication of PCT/JP2023/013853 filed April 3, 2023.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Claim Amendments and Remarks filed June 17, 2026.
Claims Filing Date
June 17, 2026
Amended
9, 10, 21-23
New
24
Cancelled
11, 16-20
Pending
1-10, 12-15, 21-24
Withdrawn
1-8, 12-15
Under Examination
9, 10, 21-24
The applicant argues support in Fig. 2 and [0028], [0031], [0089]-[0090], and [0098]-[0099] of the published application (Remarks p. 8 para. 2).
Amended claim 9 recites “the temperature of the molten metal…is a temperature in the two liquid phase region in the phase diagram, and is greater than or equal to 1747°C” (lines 14-16) and “the first component is copper and the second component is chromium, and a content of chromium is 47 mass % to 80 mass %, based on a total weight of the raw material member.” (lines 31-33). Applicant’s Fig. 2 is Cu-Cr phase diagram (applicant’s [0006]), which has a region with two separate liquid phases at L1+L2 for a Cr content of 47 mass% to 80 mass%, at a temperature of greater than or equal to 1747°C, supporting applicant’s claim 9 amendments.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following 112(b) rejections are withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 9 line 11 “the temperature of the molten metal”.
Claim 9 lines 19-22 “a standard error of the content of the first component in the particles on mass basis being 1.2 or less, a standard error of the content of the second component in the particles on mass basis being 1.2 or less”.
The following 112(b) rejection is withdrawn due to persuasive argument:
Claim 9 lines 23-24 “an average grain size of the plurality of precipitates of the manufactured powder is 5 um or less”.
The applicant persuasively argues [0100]-[0101] of applicant’s published application describes the grain size of the plurality of precipitates (para. spanning pp. 9-10).
[0100] states “The grain size of the precipitate 41 is the equivalent circle diameter of the precipitate 41 obtained from a SEM-EDX image.”
Response to Remarks filed June 17, 2026
Bohmeier in view of Tapscott and Zeitz as evidenced by Perkul; Bohmeier in view of Tapscott and Gerking as evidenced by Perkul; Bohmeier in view of Tapscott and Zeitz and Yamamoto as evidenced by Perkul; Bohmeier in view of Tapscott and Gerking and Yamamoto as evidenced by Perkul
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 11-13, filed June 17, 2026, with respect to Bohmeier and Tapscott have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of Bohmeier in view of Tapscott and Zeitz as evidenced by Perkul; Bohmeier in view of Tapscott and Gerking as evidenced by Perkul; Bohmeier in view of Tapscott and Zeitz and Yamamoto as evidenced by Perkul; and Bohmeier in view of Tapscott and Gerking and Yamamoto as evidenced by Perkul have been withdrawn.
The applicant persuasively argues Bohmeier states 7 wt% or more Cr lowers the liquidus to 1470°C and in the phase diagram of Tapscott an L1+L2 liquid phase exists above 1470°C (p. 13 para. 2), whereas the claimed L1+L2 liquid region occurs at greater than or equal to 1747°C (applicant’s Fig. 2) (p. 11 para. 2).
Li ‘843 in view of Zhou and Zeitz as evidenced by Perkul; Li ‘843 in view of Zhou and Gerking as evidenced by Perkul; Li ‘843 in view of Zhou and Zeitz and Yamamoto as evidenced by Perkul; Li ‘843 in view of Zhou and Gerking and Yamamoto as evidenced by Perkul
Applicant's arguments filed June 17, 2026 with respect to the pending rejections over Li ‘843 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues Li ‘843 melts Cu-Cr alloy in a water-cooled copper crucible, which is expensive and is not the crucible-less atomization method claimed (para. spanning pp. 16-17).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz discloses melting the raw material (Li ‘843 [0015]) with a high-frequency induction heating device having no crucible (Zeitz [0007], [0010]) to reduce contamination of the liquid phase (Zeitz [0010]), producing powder free from crucible material contamination (Zeitz [0007]).
Li ‘843 in view of Gerking discloses melting the raw material (Li ‘843 [0015]) with a high-frequency induction heating device having no crucible (Gerking [0009], [0016], [0031]-[0032], [0068], Fig. 1) to prevent a chemical reaction between the crucible and melted material (Gerking [0004]) so that the atomized material remains pure (Gerking [0025]).
Similarly, applicant’s specification at [0041] recites “The nonuse of crucibles can prevent contamination from crucibles.” “Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention”. MPEP 716.02(c)(II).
The applicant argues in Li ‘843 Fig. 1 one particle is largely separated into Cu and Cr because a gray fine microstructure is dispersed within a white particle, but the outside of the white structure is covered with gray particles, such that the structure is not homogeneous (para. spanning pp. 16-17).
A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. MPEP 2123(I). Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. MPEP 2123(II).
Li ‘843 discloses the present invention produces “uniform microstructure” and “good consistency” ([0024]) with Cr particles that are as small as possible and evenly distributed ensuring arc energy does not accumulate in chromium-rich areas ([0006]). Therefore, it is within the scope of Li ‘843 to form a homogeneous structure.
The applicant argues in the illustrated example of Li ‘843 the average particle size of the precipitates is not 5 um or less (para. spanning pp. 16-17).
Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. MPEP 716.01(c)(II).
Li ‘843’s Fig. 1 does not include a scale bar. Li ‘843 [0026] states that “Figure 1 is a photograph of the morphology of the alloy powder obtained by the present invention.” without mention of the average particle size of the figure. Li ‘843 discloses Cr particles as small as possible ([0006]) and fine grains ([0012], [0024]). Further, Li ‘843 in view of either one of Zeitz or Gerking renders obvious the claimed method of manufacturing a powder (Li ‘843 [0002], [0011], [0014]-[0016]; Zeitz [0007]-[0010]; Gerking [0009], [0012], [0014], [0016], [0025], [0031]-[0032], [0068], Fig. 1), such that the claimed precipitates average grain size naturally flows from the prior art disclosure.
Alternatively, this limitation is rejected over Li ‘843 in view of Yamamoto, in which Cr precipitates of 1 to 5 um prevents the Cu-Cr alloy powder form exceeding 200 um and forms contact material with a fine microstructure and advantageous voltage resistance (Yamamoto [0029]).
The applicant argues in Zeitz [0007] levitation (skull) melting melts a large volume at once such that non-uniformity of the feed material before atomization cannot be avoided, such that there is a limit to obtaining particles having a homogeneous structure (para. spanning pp. 16-17).
The pending rejection over Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz discloses claims steps A-D (Li ‘843 [0014]-[0017]) with step B melting the raw material member with a high-frequency induction heating device having no crucible to reduce contamination from liquid phase and produce powder that is free from contamination by the crucible material (Zeitz [0007], [0010]). The relied upon disclosure of Zeitz does not require the argued levitation (skull) melting.
Zeitz [0007] states that the consumable electrode metal rods that are inductively melted can be produced by skull melting, and that inhomogeneities in skull melting can be eliminated by repeated (re)melting. It is within the scope of Zeitz for the raw material member that undergoes high-frequency induction heating to be homogeneous. The levitation (skull) melting of Zeitz is with respect to forming the raw material member for high-frequency induction heating with no crucible and is not the basis for the pending rejection.
The applicant argues Li ‘843 produces Cu-Cr powder by ball milling with an average particle size of the Cr distribution of 1-2 um (p. 17 para. 2), but ball milling is less productive than atomization, whereas the instant method is performed at relatively low cost (p. 17 para. 3).
Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. MPEP 716.01(c)(II). Li ‘843 does not mention “ball milling” nor does applicant point out where Li ‘843 discloses the alleged ball milling.
Li ‘843 does disclose producing Cu-Cr alloy powder by atomization ([0014]-[0016]).
The applicant the amended claim 1 features have not been shown by the cited references (para. spanning pp. 17-18).
Li ‘843 discloses step D of pressure molding the powder to form a compact and sintering the compact to form a sintered body ([0034], [0042], [0051]). Li ‘843 also discloses the temperature of the molten metal B and metal C is greater than or equal to 1747 °C (1600-2000°C) ([0015], [0031], [0039], [0048]). Li ‘843 discloses the first component is copper and the second component is chromium ([0011]-[0017]), and a content of chromium is 47 mass % to 80 mass %, based on a total weight of the raw material member (Cu rod and Cr block in a mass ratio of 1-5:5-9, 50 to 90 mass% Cr) ([0014]).
With respect to Yamamoto, the applicant argues 25-40 wt% Cr is not obvious because of the temperature range in which liquid-phase separation of Cu-Cr occurs, where Yamamoto’s method cannot provide powder in which Cu and Cr are homogeneously dispersed (p. 19 para. 2).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Li ‘843 in view of Yamamoto discloses low gas and impurity content for improved alloy purity (Li ‘843 [0011]-[0012]) and evenly distributed Cu and Cr particles (Li ‘843 [0006]) that produce a uniform structure (Li ‘843 [0023]-[0024]) with Cr particles as small as possible (Li ‘843 [0006]) and fine grains (Li ‘843 [0012], [0024]) with an average grain size of 1 to 5 um (Yamamoto [0028]-[0029], [0032]) forming a fine microstructure with advantageous voltage resistance (Yamamoto [0029]).
Therefore, for the above cite reasons, the rejections over Li ‘843 in view of Zhou and Zeitz as evidenced by Perkul; Li ‘843 in view of Zhou and Gerking as evidenced by Perkul; Li ‘843 in view of Zhou and Zeitz and Yamamoto as evidenced by Perkul; and Li ‘843 in view of Zhou and Gerking and Yamamoto as evidenced by Perkul are maintained.
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 9, 10, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li ’843 (CN 102728843 machine translation) in view of Zhou (Zhou et al. Cr-Cu (Chromium -Copper) phase diagram. J. Mater. Sci., Vol 46, 2011, p 7039-7045.) and Zeitz (DE 3528169 machine translation) as evidenced by Perkul (Perkul. Induction Furnaces. P. 109. ASM Handbook. Vol. 15 Casting. ASM International. 2008.).
Regarding claim 9, Li ‘843 discloses a method of manufacturing a sintered body from a powder ([0002], [0011], [0034], [0042], [0051]), the method comprising:
step A of providing a raw material member comprising a first component (Cu rod) and a second component (Cr block) ([0014]-[0015]);
step B of melting the raw material member to form a molten metal ([0015]);
step C of atomizing the molten metal obtained in step B into a powder ([0016]); and
step D of pressure molding the powder to form a compact and sintering the compact to form a sintered body ([0034], [0042], [0051]), wherein
the content ratios of the first component and the second component in the raw material member are content ratios falling in the two liquid phases separate region (Cu rod and Cr block in a mass ratio of 1-5:5-9, 10 to 50 mass% Cu and 50 to 90 mass% Cr) ([0014]),
the temperature of the molten metal in step B and step C is a temperature in the two liquid phases separate region in the phase diagram, and is greater than or equal to 1747°C (1600 to 2000°C) ([0015]),
the first component is copper and the second component is chromium ([0011]-[0017]), and
a content of chromium is 47 mass % to 80 mass %, based on a total weight of the raw material member (Cu rod and Cr block in a mass ratio of 1-5:5-9, 10 to 50 mass% Cu and 50 to 90 mass% Cr) ([0014]).
Zhou discloses a copper-chromium phase diagram with a region in which two liquid phases L1+L2 exist between 1747°C for 45.8 to 80.2 wt% Cr and 1825°C for 65 wt% Cr (wherein the first component and the second component are a combination having a two liquid phases separate region in a phase diagram). Therefore, 50 to 90 mass% Cr (Li ‘843 [0014]) falls within the two liquid phases separate region (Zhou) and a temperature of 1600°C to 2000°C (Li ‘843 [0015]) overlaps with the two liquid phases separate region in the phase diagram (Zhou).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Li ‘843 is silent to step B of melting the raw material member with a high-frequency induction heating device having no crucibles.
Zeitz discloses a method of manufacturing a powder ([0001]), the method comprising:
step A of providing a raw material member (consumable electrode manufactured by powder metallurgy) ([0007]);
step B of melting the raw material member with a high-frequency induction heating device having no crucible to form a molten metal ([0007], [0010]); and
step C of atomizing the molten metal obtains in step B into a powder ([0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the melting process of Li ‘843 to use a crucible-free induction melting process to reduce contamination of the liquid phase (Zeitz [0010]) such that the produced powder is free from contamination by the crucible material (Zeitz [0007]).
With respect to step B, Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz discloses molten metal in the high-frequency induction stirring device (Li ‘843 [0015]; Zeitz [0007], [0010]). As evidenced by Perkul, in an induction furnace: “When alternating current is applied to an induction coil, it produces a magnetic field, which in turn generates a current flow through the charge material, heating and finally melting it….A second magnetic field is created by the induced current in the charge. Because these two fields are always in opposite directions, they create a mechanical force that is perpendicular to the lines of flux and cause metal movement, or stirring, when the charge is liquified. The mechanical force stays perpendicular to the field only in the center of the coil; on both ends pf the coil it changes direction. The metal is pushed away from the coil, moves upward and downward and flows back….It is this stirring that allows excellent alloy and charge absorption and aids in producing a melt that is both chemically and thermally homogeneous.” Therefore, the claimed stirring of the molten metal with the high-frequency induction heating device necessarily results from the melting of the raw material member with a high-frequency heating device as disclosed by the prior art (Li ‘843 [0015]; Zeitz [0007], [0010]).
Li ‘843 discloses the manufactured powder includes particles ([0011]) each comprising a matrix (Cu) and a plurality of (Cr) precipitates dispersed in the matrix ([0006]-[0007]),
the matrix comprises the first component (Cu) ([0006]), and
the plurality of precipitates comprises the second component (Cr) ([0006]-[0007]).
With respect to a standard error, relative to average values of the content of the first component in each of 10 or more particles, as determined by SEM-EDX, of the content of the first component in the particles on mass basis being 1.2 or less and a standard error of the content of the second component, relative to average values of the content of the second component in each of 10 or more particles, as determined by SEM-EDX, in the particles on mass basis being 1.2 or less, Li ‘843 discloses powder with low gas and impurity content for improved alloy purity ([0011]-[0012]) and evenly distributed Cu and Cr particles ([0006]) that produces a uniform structure ([0023]-[0024]).
With respect to an average grain size of the plurality of precipitates of the manufactured powder being 5 um or less, Li ‘843 discloses in the powder Cr particles as small as possible ([0006]) and fine grains ([0012], [0024]).
Furthermore, the claimed standard error and precipitate average grain size have been considered and determined to result from the claimed powder manufacturing process. The prior art renders obvious the claimed method of manufacturing a powder (Li ‘843 [0002], [0011], [0014]-[0016]; Zhou; Zeitz [0007]-[0010]), such the claimed standard errors and precipitate average grain size naturally flows.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature (or standard of error or precipitate average grain size) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature (or standard of error or precipitate average grain size) is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum of workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 10, Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz discloses the raw material member is a raw material compact comprising a powdery first solid principally containing the first component and a powdery second solid principally containing the second component (consumable electrode manufactured using powder metallurgy of mixing the various element powders) (Zeitz [0007]).
Regarding claim 24, Li ‘843 discloses an average grain size of the particles is 200 um or less (powder sieved through a 30-50 micron sieve) ([0017]).
With respect to a standard error of the average grain size of the plurality of precipitates in the particles being 0.1 or less, Li ‘843 discloses powder with low gas and impurity content for improved alloy purity ([0011]-[0012]) and evenly distributed Cu and Cr particles ([0006]) that produces a uniform structure ([0023]-[0024]).
With respect to a maximum grain size of the plurality of precipitates being 20 um or less, Li ‘843 discloses in the powder Cr particles as small as possible ([0006]) and fine grains ([0012], [0024]).
Furthermore, the claimed standard error and precipitate maximum grain size have been considered and determined to result from the claimed manufacturing process. The prior art renders obvious the claimed method (Li ‘843 [0002], [0011], [0014]-[0016]; Zhou; Zeitz [0007]-[0010]), such the claimed standard error and precipitate maximum grain size naturally flow.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature (or standard of error or precipitate average grain size) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature (or standard of error or precipitate average grain size) is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum of workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li ’843 (CN 102728843 machine translation) in view of Zhou (Zhou et al. Cr-Cu (Chromium -Copper) phase diagram. J. Mater. Sci., Vol 46, 2011, p 7039-7045.) and Zeitz (DE 3528169 machine translation) as evidenced by Perkul (Perkul. Induction Furnaces. P. 109. ASM Handbook. Vol. 15 Casting. ASM International. 2008.) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Li ‘309 (CN 113293309 machine translation).
In the event it is determined that the disclosure of Zeitz does not read on claim 10, then the below rejection in view of Li ‘309 is applied.
Regarding claim 10, Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz discloses the raw material member is a compact comprising a powder (consumable electrode manufactured using powder metallurgy of mixing the various element powders) (Zeitz [0007]).
Li ‘309 discloses a method of manufacturing a powder ([n0010]-[n0011])) by providing a raw material member ([n0008]-[n0010]) then melting and atomizing ([n0011]), wherein the raw material member is a compact comprising a powdery first solid principally containing the first component (Cu) and a powdery second solid principally containing the second component (Cr) ([n0008]-[n0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz to manufacture the compact using powder metallurgy by mixing Cu powder and Cr powder, forming a compact, melting, then atomizing to advantageously improve the quality of the Cu-Cr contact material (Li ‘309 [n0025]) by forming no obvious coarse microstructure and element enrichment, such that electrical properties include withstand voltage, breaking, and anti-welding are improved (Li ‘309 [n0026]).
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li ’843 (CN 102728843 machine translation) in view of Zhou (Zhou et al. Cr-Cu (Chromium -Copper) phase diagram. J. Mater. Sci., Vol 46, 2011, p 7039-7045.) and Zeitz (DE 3528169 machine translation) as evidenced by Perkul (Perkul. Induction Furnaces. P. 109. ASM Handbook. Vol. 15 Casting. ASM International. 2008.) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Liu (CN 109290582 machine translation).
Regarding claim 21, Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz discloses a powdery first solid and a powdery second solid (Zeitz [0007]), where the first is copper and the second is chromium (Li ‘843 [0014]-[0016]).
Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz is silent to the D50 of each of the powder first solid and the powder second solid of 1 um to 150 um.
Liu discloses copper-chromium material ([0002], [0009]) manufactured by mixing chromium powder of 20-200 um and copper powder of 50-300 um ([0011], [0016], [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use 20-200 um chromium powder and 50-300 um copper powder in the process of Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz for lower oxidation content and reduced raw material costs (Liu [0016]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 23, Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz discloses a powdery first solid and a powdery second solid (Zeitz [0007]), where the first is copper and the second is chromium (Li ‘843 [0014]-[0016]).
Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz is silent to the D50 of each of the powder first solid and the powder second solid of 75 um to 150 um.
Liu discloses copper-chromium material ([0002], [0009]) manufactured by mixing chromium powder of 20-200 um and copper powder of 50-300 um ([0011], [0016], [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use 20-200 um chromium powder and 50-300 um copper powder in the process of Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz for lower oxidation content and reduced raw material costs (Liu [0016]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li ’843 (CN 102728843 machine translation) in view of Zhou (Zhou et al. Cr-Cu (Chromium -Copper) phase diagram. J. Mater. Sci., Vol 46, 2011, p 7039-7045.), Zeitz (DE 3528169 machine translation), as evidenced by Perkul (Perkul. Induction Furnaces. P. 109. ASM Handbook. Vol. 15 Casting. ASM International. 2008.), and in view of Li ‘309 (CN 113293309 machine translation) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Liu (CN 109290582 machine translation).
Regarding claim 21, Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz and Li ‘309 discloses a powdery first solid and a powdery second solid (Zeitz [0007]; Li ‘309 [n0008]-[n0010]), where the first is copper and the second is chromium (Li ‘843 [0014]-[0016]; Li ‘309 [n0008]-[n0010]).
Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz and Li ‘309 is silent to the D50 of each of the powder first solid and the powder second solid of 1 um to 150 um.
Liu discloses copper-chromium material ([0002], [0009]) manufactured by mixing chromium powder of 20-200 um and copper powder of 50-300 um ([0011], [0016], [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use 20-200 um chromium powder and 50-300 um copper powder in the process of Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz for lower oxidation content and reduced raw material costs (Liu [0016]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 23, Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz and Li ‘309 discloses a powdery first solid and a powdery second solid (Zeitz [0007]; Li ‘309 [n0008]-[n0010]), where the first is copper and the second is chromium (Li ‘843 [0014]-[0016]; Li ‘309 [n0008]-[n0010]).
Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz and Li ‘309 is silent to the D50 of each of the powder first solid and the powder second solid of 75 um to 150 um.
Liu discloses copper-chromium material ([0002], [0009]) manufactured by mixing chromium powder of 20-200 um and copper powder of 50-300 um ([0011], [0016], [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use 20-200 um chromium powder and 50-300 um copper powder in the process of Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz for lower oxidation content and reduced raw material costs (Liu [0016]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li ’843 (CN 102728843 machine translation) in view of Zhou (Zhou et al. Cr-Cu (Chromium -Copper) phase diagram. J. Mater. Sci., Vol 46, 2011, p 7039-7045.) and Zeitz (DE 3528169 machine translation) as evidenced by Perkul (Perkul. Induction Furnaces. P. 109. ASM Handbook. Vol. 15 Casting. ASM International. 2008.) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Patrick (Patrick et al. Chapter 12 Heating Systems. Pp. 323, 325-326. Electrical Power Systems Technology. River Publishers. 2021.).
Regarding claim 22, Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz discloses a high-frequency induction heating device (Zeitz [0007], [0010]).
Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz is silent to the frequency of the current that operates the high-frequency induction heating device.
Patrick discloses a frequency of current that operates a high-frequency induction heating device is 100 kHz or higher (100-500 kHz) (pp. 325-326 Induction Heating).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz for the high-frequency induction heating device to use a frequency of current of 100-500 kHz because this is a high-frequency range that rapidly produces a high heat output due to greater amounts of induced voltage (Patrick pp. 325-326 Induction Heating).
Claims 9, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li ’843 (CN 102728843 machine translation) in view of Zhou (Zhou et al. Cr-Cu (Chromium -Copper) phase diagram. J. Mater. Sci., Vol 46, 2011, p 7039-7045.) and Gerking (US 2016/318105) as evidenced by Perkul (Perkul. Induction Furnaces. P. 109. ASM Handbook. Vol. 15 Casting. ASM International. 2008.).
Regarding claim 9, Li ‘843 discloses a method of manufacturing a sintered body from a powder ([0002], [0011], [0034], [0042], [0051]), the method comprising:
step A of providing a raw material member comprising a first component (Cu rod) and a second component (Cr block) ([0014]-[0015]);
step B of melting the raw material member to form a molten metal ([0015]);
step C of atomizing the molten metal obtained in step B into a powder ([0016]); and
step D of pressure molding the powder to form a compact and sintering the compact to form a sintered body ([0034], [0042], [0051]), wherein
the content ratios of the first component and the second component in the raw material member are content ratios falling in the two liquid phases separate region (Cu rod and Cr block in a mass ratio of 1-5:5-9, 10 to 50 mass% Cu and 50 to 90 mass% Cr) ([0014]),
the temperature of the molten metal in step B and step C is a temperature in the two liquid phases separate region in the phase diagram, and is greater than or equal to 1747°C (1600 to 2000°C) ([0015]),
the first component is copper and the second component is chromium ([0011]-[0017]), and
a content of chromium is 47 mass % to 80 mass %, based on a total weight of the raw material member (Cu rod and Cr block in a mass ratio of 1-5:5-9, 10 to 50 mass% Cu and 50 to 90 mass% Cr) ([0014]).
Zhou discloses a copper-chromium phase diagram with a region in which two liquid phases L1+L2 exist between 1747°C for 45.8 to 80.2 wt% Cr and 1825°C for 65 wt% Cr (wherein the first component and the second component are a combination having a two liquid phases separate region in a phase diagram). Therefore, 50 to 90 mass% Cr (Li ‘843 [0014]) falls within the two liquid phases separate region (Zhou) and a temperature of 1600°C to 2000°C (Li ‘843 [0015]) overlaps with the two liquid phases separate region in the phase diagram (Zhou).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Li ‘843 is silent to step B of melting the raw material member with a high-frequency induction heating device having no crucibles.
Gerking discloses a method of manufacturing a powder ([0001], [0025]), the method comprising:
step A of providing a raw material member (rod) ([0012]);
step B of melting the raw material member with a high-frequency induction heating device having no crucible ([0009], [0016], [0031]-[0032], [0068], Fig. 1); and
step C of atomizing a molten metal obtains in step B into a powder ([0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the induction melting process of Li ‘843 to use a crucible-free induction melting process to prevent a chemical reaction between the crucible and melted material (Gerking [0004]) so that the material to be atomized remains pure (Gerking [0025]).
With respect to step B, Li ‘843 in view of Gerking discloses molten metal in the high-frequency induction stirring device (Li ‘843 [0015]; Gerking [0009], [0016], [0031]-[0032], [0068], Fig. 1). As evidenced by Perkul, in an induction furnace: “When alternating current is applied to an induction coil, it produces a magnetic field, which in turn generates a current flow through the charge material, heating and finally melting it….A second magnetic field is created by the induced current in the charge. Because these two fields are always in opposite directions, they create a mechanical force that is perpendicular to the lines of flux and cause metal movement, or stirring, when the charge is liquified. The mechanical force stays perpendicular to the field only in the center of the coil; on both ends pf the coil it changes direction. The metal is pushed away from the coil, moves upward and downward and flows back….It is this stirring that allows excellent alloy and charge absorption and aids in producing a melt that is both chemically and thermally homogeneous.” Therefore, the claimed stirring of the molten metal with the high-frequency induction heating device necessarily results from the melting of the raw material member with a high-frequency heating device as disclosed by the prior art (Li ‘843 [0015]; Gerking [0009], [0016], [0031]-[0032], [0068], Fig. 1).
Li ‘843 discloses the manufactured powder includes particles ([0011]) each comprising a matrix (Cu) and a plurality of (Cr) precipitates dispersed in the matrix ([0006]-[0007]),
the matrix comprises the first component (Cu) ([0006]), and
the plurality of precipitates comprises the second component (Cr) ([0006]-[0007]).
With respect to a standard error, relative to average values of the content of the first component in each of 10 or more particles, as determined by SEM-EDX, of the content of the first component in the particles on mass basis being 1.2 or less and a standard error, relative to average values of the content of the second component in each of 10 or more particles, as determined by SEM-EDX, of the content of the second component in the particles on mass basis being 1.2 or less, Li ‘843 discloses powder with low gas and impurity content for improved alloy purity ([0011]-[0012]) and evenly distributed Cu and Cr particles ([0006]) that produces a uniform structure ([0023]-[0024]).
With respect to an average grain size of the plurality of precipitates of the manufactured powder being 5 um or less, Li ‘843 discloses in the powder Cr particles as small as possible ([0006]) and fine grains ([0012], [0024]).
Furthermore, the claimed standard error and precipitate average grain size have been considered and determined to result from the claimed powder manufacturing process. The prior art renders obvious the claimed method of manufacturing a powder (Li ‘843 [0002], [0011], [0014]-[0016]; Zhou; Gerking [0009], [0012], [0014], [0016], [0025], [0031]-[0032], [0068], Fig. 1), such the claimed standard errors and precipitate average grain size naturally flows.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature (or standard of error or precipitate average grain size) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature (or standard of error or precipitate average grain size) is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum of workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 22, Li ‘843 in view of Gerking discloses a frequency of the current that operates the high-frequency induction heating device (Gerking [0009], [0016], [0031]-[0032], [0068], Fig. 1) is 100 kHz or higher (roughly between 50 kHz and 200 kHz for melting the rod) (Gerking [0027]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 24, Li ‘843 discloses an average grain size of the particles is 200 um or less (powder sieved through a 30-50 micron sieve) ([0017]).
With respect to a standard error of the average grain size of the plurality of precipitates in the particles being 0.1 or less, Li ‘843 discloses powder with low gas and impurity content for improved alloy purity ([0011]-[0012]) and evenly distributed Cu and Cr particles ([0006]) that produces a uniform structure ([0023]-[0024]).
With respect to a maximum grain size of the plurality of precipitates being 20 um or less, Li ‘843 discloses in the powder Cr particles as small as possible ([0006]) and fine grains ([0012], [0024]).
Furthermore, the claimed standard error and precipitate maximum grain size have been considered and determined to result from the claimed manufacturing process. The prior art renders obvious the claimed method (Li ‘843 [0002], [0011], [0014]-[0016]; Zhou; Zeitz [0007]-[0010]), such the claimed standard error and precipitate maximum grain size naturally flow.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature (or standard of error or precipitate average grain size) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature (or standard of error or precipitate average grain size) is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum of workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li ’843 (CN 102728843 machine translation) in view of Zhou (Zhou et al. Cr-Cu (Chromium -Copper) phase diagram. J. Mater. Sci., Vol 46, 2011, p 7039-7045.) and Gerking (US 2016/318105) as evidenced by Perkul (Perkul. Induction Furnaces. P. 109. ASM Handbook. Vol. 15 Casting. ASM International. 2008.) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Li ‘309 (CN 113293309 machine translation).
Regarding claim 10, Li ‘843 in view of Gerking discloses the method of manufacturing a powder according to claim 9, wherein the raw material member is a compact (rod) (Gerking [0012]).
Li ‘843 in view of Gerking is silent to the rod being manufactured from a powdery first solid principally containing the first component and a powdery second solid principally containing the second component.
Li ‘309 discloses a method of manufacturing a powder ([n0010]-[n0011])) by providing a raw material member ([n0008]-[n0010]) then melting and atomizing ([n0011]), wherein the raw material member is a compact comprising a powdery first solid principally containing the first component (Cu) and a powdery second solid principally containing the second component (Cr) ([n0008]-[n0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Li ‘843 in view of Gerking to manufacture the rod using powder metallurgy by mixing Cu powder and Cr powder, forming a compact, melting, then atomizing to advantageously improve the quality of the Cu-Cr contact material (Li ‘309 [n0025]) by forming no obvious coarse microstructure and element enrichment, such that electrical properties include withstand voltage, breaking, and anti-welding are improved (Li ‘309 [n0026]).
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li ’843 (CN 102728843 machine translation) in view of Zhou (Zhou et al. Cr-Cu (Chromium -Copper) phase diagram. J. Mater. Sci., Vol 46, 2011, p 7039-7045.), Gerking (US 2016/318105), as evidenced by Perkul (Perkul. Induction Furnaces. P. 109. ASM Handbook. Vol. 15 Casting. ASM International. 2008.), and in view of Li ‘309 (CN 113293309 machine translation) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Liu (CN 109290582 machine translation).
Regarding claim 21, Li ‘843 in view of Gerking and Li ‘309 discloses a powdery first solid and a powdery second solid (Li ‘309 [n0008]-[n0010]), where the first is copper and the second is chromium (Li ‘843 [0014]-[0016]; Li ‘309 [n0008]-[n0010]).
Li ‘843 in view of Gerking and Li ‘309 is silent to the D50 of each of the powder first solid and the powder second solid of 1 um to 150 um.
Liu discloses copper-chromium material ([0002], [0009]) manufactured by mixing chromium powder of 20-200 um and copper powder of 50-300 um ([0011], [0016], [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use 20-200 um chromium powder and 50-300 um copper powder in the process of Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz for lower oxidation content and reduced raw material costs (Liu [0016]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 23, Li ‘843 in view of Gerking and Li ‘309 discloses a powdery first solid and a powdery second solid (Li ‘309 [n0008]-[n0010]), where the first is copper and the second is chromium (Li ‘843 [0014]-[0016]; Li ‘309 [n0008]-[n0010]).
Li ‘843 in view of Gerking and Li ‘309 is silent to the D50 of each of the powder first solid and the powder second solid of 75 um to 150 um.
Liu discloses copper-chromium material ([0002], [0009]) manufactured by mixing chromium powder of 20-200 um and copper powder of 50-300 um ([0011], [0016], [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use 20-200 um chromium powder and 50-300 um copper powder in the process of Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz for lower oxidation content and reduced raw material costs (Liu [0016]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 9, 10, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li ’843 (CN 102728843 machine translation) in view of Zhou (Zhou et al. Cr-Cu (Chromium -Copper) phase diagram. J. Mater. Sci., Vol 46, 2011, p 7039-7045.), Zeitz (DE 3528169 machine translation), and Yamamoto (JP 2008-057026 machine translation) as evidenced by Perkul (Perkul. Induction Furnaces. P. 109. ASM Handbook. Vol. 15 Casting. ASM International. 2008.).
Regarding claim 9, Li ‘843 discloses a method of manufacturing a powder ([0002], [0011]), the method comprising:
step A of providing a raw material member comprising a first component (Cu rod) and a second component (Cr block) ([0014]-[0015]);
step B of melting the raw material member ([0015]); and
step C of atomizing a molten metal obtained in step B into a powder ([0016]),
the content ratios of the first component and the second component in the raw material member are content ratios falling in the two liquid phases separate region (Cu rod and Cr block in a mass ratio of 1-5:5-9, 10 to 50 mass% Cu and 50 to 90 mass% Cr) ([0014]), and
the temperature of the molten metal is a temperature in the two liquid phases separate region in the phase diagram (1600 to 2000°C) ([0015]).
Zhou discloses a copper-chromium phase diagram with a region in which two liquid phases L1+L2 exist between 1747°C for 45.8 to 80.2 wt% Cr and 1825°C for 65 wt% Cr (wherein the first component and the second component are a combination having a two liquid phases separate region in a phase diagram).
Therefore, 50 to 90 mass% Cr (Li ‘843 [0014]) falls within the two liquid phases separate region (Zhou) and a temperature of 1600°C to 2000°C (Li ‘843 [0015]) overlaps with the two liquid phases separate region in the phase diagram (Zhou).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Li ‘843 is silent to step B of melting the raw material member with a high-frequency induction heating device having no crucibles.
Zeitz discloses a method of manufacturing a powder ([0001]), the method comprising:
step A of providing a raw material member (consumable electrode manufactured by powder metallurgy) ([0007]);
step B of melting the raw material member with a high-frequency induction heating device having no crucible ([0007], [0010]); and
step C of atomizing a molten metal obtains in step B into a powder ([0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the melting process of Li ‘843 to use a crucible-free induction melting process to reduce contamination of the liquid phase (Zeitz [0010]) such that the produced powder is free from contamination by the crucible material (Zeitz [0007]).
With respect to step B, Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz discloses molten metal in the high-frequency induction stirring device (Li ‘843 [0015]; Zeitz [0007], [0010]). As evidenced by Perkul, in an induction furnace: “When alternating current is applied to an induction coil, it produces a magnetic field, which in turn generates a current flow through the charge material, heating and finally melting it….A second magnetic field is created by the induced current in the charge. Because these two fields are always in opposite directions, they create a mechanical force that is perpendicular to the lines of flux and cause metal movement, or stirring, when the charge is liquified. The mechanical force stays perpendicular to the field only in the center of the coil; on both ends pf the coil it changes direction. The metal is pushed away from the coil, moves upward and downward and flows back….It is this stirring that allows excellent alloy and charge absorption and aids in producing a melt that is both chemically and thermally homogeneous.” Therefore, the claimed stirring of the molten metal with the high-frequency induction heating device necessarily results from the melting of the raw material member with a high-frequency heating device as disclosed by the prior art (Li ‘843 [0015]; Zeitz [0007], [0010]).
Li ‘843 discloses the manufactured powder includes particles ([0011]) each comprising a matrix (Cu) and a plurality of (Cr) precipitates dispersed in the matrix ([0006]-[0007]),
the matrix comprises the first component (Cu) ([0006]), and
the plurality of precipitates comprises the second component (Cr) ([0006]-[0007]).
With respect to a standard error of the content of the first component in the particles on mass basis being 1.2 or less and a standard error of the content of the second component in the particles on mass basis being 1.2 or less, Li ‘843 discloses powder with low gas and impurity content for improved alloy purity ([0011]-[0012]) and evenly distributed Cu and Cr particles ([0006]) that produces a uniform structure ([0023]-[0024]).
Furthermore, the claimed standard error and precipitate average grain size have been considered and determined to result from the claimed powder manufacturing process. The prior art renders obvious the claimed method of manufacturing a powder (Li ‘843 [0002], [0011], [0014]-[0016]; Zhou; Zeitz [0007]-[0010]), such the claimed standard errors and precipitate average grain size naturally flows.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature (or standard of error) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature (or standard of error) is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum of workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
With respect to an average grain size of the plurality of precipitates of the manufactured powder being 5 um or less, Li ‘843 discloses in the powder Cr particles as small as possible ([0006]) and fine grains ([0012], [0024]).
Yamamoto discloses manufactured powder includes particles each comprising a matrix and a plurality of precipitates dispersed in the matrix ([0014]-[0015], [0025]-[0026], [0033]),
the matrix comprises the first component (Cu) ([0014], [0025], [0033]),
the plurality of precipitates comprises the second component (Cr) ([0015], [0026], [0033]), and
an average grain size of the plurality of precipitates of the manufactured powder is 5 um or less (1 to 5 um) ([0028]-[0029], [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the powder of Li ‘843 to limit the Cr precipitates to 1 to 5 um so that the average particle size of the Cu-Cr alloy powder does not exceed 200 um and the contact material has a fine microstructure with advantageous voltage resistance (Yamamoto [0029]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 10, Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz discloses the raw material member is a compact comprising a powdery first solid principally containing the first component and a powdery second solid principally containing the second component (consumable electrode manufactured using powder metallurgy of mixing the various element powders) (Zeitz [0007]).
Regarding claim 24, Li ‘843 in view of Yamamoto discloses an average grain size of the particles is 200 um or less (Li ‘843 [0017]; Yamamoto [0028]-[0029], [0032]), and
a maximum grain size of the plurality of precipitates is 20 um or less (Li ‘843 [0006] [0012], [0024]; Yamamoto [0028]-[0029], [0032]).
With respect to a standard error of the average grain size of the plurality of precipitates in the particles being 0.1 or less, Li ‘843 discloses powder with low gas and impurity content for improved alloy purity ([0011]-[0012]) and evenly distributed Cu and Cr particles ([0006]) that produces a uniform structure ([0023]-[0024]).
Furthermore, the claimed standard error has been considered and determined to result from the claimed manufacturing process. The prior art renders obvious the claimed method (Li ‘843 [0002], [0011], [0014]-[0016]; Zhou; Zeitz [0007]-[0010]), such the claimed standard error naturally flows.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature (or standard of error or precipitate average grain size) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature (or standard of error or precipitate average grain size) is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum of workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li ’843 (CN 102728843 machine translation) in view of Zhou (Zhou et al. Cr-Cu (Chromium -Copper) phase diagram. J. Mater. Sci., Vol 46, 2011, p 7039-7045.), Zeitz (DE 3528169 machine translation), and Yamamoto (JP 2008-057026 machine translation) as evidenced by Perkul (Perkul. Induction Furnaces. P. 109. ASM Handbook. Vol. 15 Casting. ASM International. 2008.) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Li ‘309 (CN 113293309 machine translation).
In the event it is determined that the disclosure of Zeitz does not read on claim 10, then the below rejection in view of Li ‘309 is applied.
Regarding claim 10, Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz discloses the raw material member is a compact comprising a powder (consumable electrode manufactured using powder metallurgy of mixing the various element powders) (Zeitz [0007]).
Li ‘309 discloses a method of manufacturing a powder ([n0010]-[n0011])) by providing a raw material member ([n0008]-[n0010]) then melting and atomizing ([n0011]), wherein the raw material member is a compact comprising a powdery first solid principally containing the first component (Cu) and a powdery second solid principally containing the second component (Cr) ([n0008]-[n0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz to manufacture the compact using powder metallurgy by mixing Cu powder and Cr powder, forming a compact, melting, then atomizing to advantageously improve the quality of the Cu-Cr contact material (Li ‘309 [n0025]) by forming no obvious coarse microstructure and element enrichment, such that electrical properties include withstand voltage, breaking, and anti-welding are improved (Li ‘309 [n0026]).
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li ’843 (CN 102728843 machine translation) in view of Zhou (Zhou et al. Cr-Cu (Chromium -Copper) phase diagram. J. Mater. Sci., Vol 46, 2011, p 7039-7045.), Zeitz (DE 3528169 machine translation), and Yamamoto (JP 2008-057026 machine translation) as evidenced by Perkul (Perkul. Induction Furnaces. P. 109. ASM Handbook. Vol. 15 Casting. ASM International. 2008.) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Liu (CN 109290582 machine translation).
Regarding claim 21, Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz discloses a powdery first solid and a powdery second solid (Zeitz [0007]), where the first is copper and the second is chromium (Li ‘843 [0014]-[0016]).
Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz is silent to the D50 of each of the powder first solid and the powder second solid of 1 um to 150 um.
Liu discloses copper-chromium material ([0002], [0009]) manufactured by mixing chromium powder of 20-200 um and copper powder of 50-300 um ([0011], [0016], [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use 20-200 um chromium powder and 50-300 um copper powder in the process of Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz for lower oxidation content and reduced raw material costs (Liu [0016]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 23, Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz discloses a powdery first solid and a powdery second solid (Zeitz [0007]), where the first is copper and the second is chromium (Li ‘843 [0014]-[0016]).
Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz is silent to the D50 of each of the powder first solid and the powder second solid of 75 um to 150 um.
Liu discloses copper-chromium material ([0002], [0009]) manufactured by mixing chromium powder of 20-200 um and copper powder of 50-300 um ([0011], [0016], [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use 20-200 um chromium powder and 50-300 um copper powder in the process of Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz for lower oxidation content and reduced raw material costs (Liu [0016]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li ’843 (CN 102728843 machine translation) in view of Zhou (Zhou et al. Cr-Cu (Chromium -Copper) phase diagram. J. Mater. Sci., Vol 46, 2011, p 7039-7045.), Zeitz (DE 3528169 machine translation), and Yamamoto (JP 2008-057026 machine translation) as evidenced by Perkul (Perkul. Induction Furnaces. P. 109. ASM Handbook. Vol. 15 Casting. ASM International. 2008.), and in view of Li ‘309 (CN 113293309 machine translation) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Liu (CN 109290582 machine translation).
Regarding claim 21, Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz and Li ‘309 discloses a powdery first solid and a powdery second solid (Zeitz [0007]; Li ‘309 [n0008]-[n0010]), where the first is copper and the second is chromium (Li ‘843 [0014]-[0016]; Li ‘309 [n0008]-[n0010]).
Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz and Li ‘309 is silent to the D50 of each of the powder first solid and the powder second solid of 1 um to 150 um.
Liu discloses copper-chromium material ([0002], [0009]) manufactured by mixing chromium powder of 20-200 um and copper powder of 50-300 um ([0011], [0016], [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use 20-200 um chromium powder and 50-300 um copper powder in the process of Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz for lower oxidation content and reduced raw material costs (Liu [0016]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 23, Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz and Li ‘309 discloses a powdery first solid and a powdery second solid (Zeitz [0007]; Li ‘309 [n0008]-[n0010]), where the first is copper and the second is chromium (Li ‘843 [0014]-[0016]; Li ‘309 [n0008]-[n0010]).
Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz and Li ‘309 is silent to the D50 of each of the powder first solid and the powder second solid of 75 um to 150 um.
Liu discloses copper-chromium material ([0002], [0009]) manufactured by mixing chromium powder of 20-200 um and copper powder of 50-300 um ([0011], [0016], [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use 20-200 um chromium powder and 50-300 um copper powder in the process of Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz for lower oxidation content and reduced raw material costs (Liu [0016]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li ’843 (CN 102728843 machine translation) in view of Zhou (Zhou et al. Cr-Cu (Chromium -Copper) phase diagram. J. Mater. Sci., Vol 46, 2011, p 7039-7045.), Zeitz (DE 3528169 machine translation), and Yamamoto (JP 2008-057026 machine translation) as evidenced by Perkul (Perkul. Induction Furnaces. P. 109. ASM Handbook. Vol. 15 Casting. ASM International. 2008.) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Patrick (Patrick et al. Chapter 12 Heating Systems. Pp. 323, 325-326. Electrical Power Systems Technology. River Publishers. 2021.).
Regarding claim 22, Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz discloses a high-frequency induction heating device (Zeitz [0007], [0010]).
Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz is silent to the frequency of the current that operates the high-frequency induction heating device.
Patrick discloses a frequency of current that operates a high-frequency induction heating device is 100 kHz or higher (100-500 kHz) (pp. 325-326 Induction Heating).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz for the high-frequency induction heating device to use a frequency of current of 100-500 kHz because this is a high-frequency range that rapidly produces a high heat output due to greater amounts of induced voltage (Patrick pp. 325-326 Induction Heating).
Claims 9, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li ’843 (CN 102728843 machine translation) in view of Zhou (Zhou et al. Cr-Cu (Chromium -Copper) phase diagram. J. Mater. Sci., Vol 46, 2011, p 7039-7045.), Gerking (US 2016/318105), and Yamamoto (JP 2008-057026 machine translation) as evidenced by Perkul (Perkul. Induction Furnaces. P. 109. ASM Handbook. Vol. 15 Casting. ASM International. 2008.).
Regarding claim 9, Li ‘843 discloses a method of manufacturing a powder ([0002], [0011]), the method comprising:
step A of providing a raw material member comprising a first component (Cu rod) and a second component (Cr block) ([0014]-[0015]);
step B of melting the raw material member ([0015]); and
step C of atomizing a molten metal obtained in step B into a powder ([0016]),
the content ratios of the first component and the second component in the raw material member are content ratios falling in the two liquid phases separate region (Cu rod and Cr block in a mass ratio of 1-5:5-9, 10 to 50 mass% Cu and 50 to 90 mass% Cr) ([0014]), and
the temperature of the molten metal is a temperature in the two liquid phases separate region in the phase diagram (1600 to 2000°C) ([0015]).
Zhou discloses a copper-chromium phase diagram with a region in which two liquid phases L1+L2 exist between 1747°C for 45.8 to 80.2 wt% Cr and 1825°C for 65 wt% Cr (wherein the first component and the second component are a combination having a two liquid phases separate region in a phase diagram).
Therefore, 50 to 90 mass% Cr (Li ‘843 [0014]) falls within the two liquid phases separate region (Zhou) and a temperature of 1600°C to 2000°C (Li ‘843 [0015]) overlaps with the two liquid phases separate region in the phase diagram (Zhou).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Li ‘843 is silent to step B of melting the raw material member with a high-frequency induction heating device having no crucibles.
Gerking discloses a method of manufacturing a powder ([0001], [0025]), the method comprising:
step A of providing a raw material member (rod) ([0012]);
step B of melting the raw material member with a high-frequency induction heating device having no crucible ([0009], [0016], [0031]-[0032], [0068], Fig. 1); and
step C of atomizing a molten metal obtains in step B into a powder ([0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the induction melting process of Li ‘843 to use a crucible-free induction melting process to prevent a chemical reaction between the crucible and melted material (Gerking [0004]) so that the material to be atomized remains pure (Gerking [0025]).
With respect to step B, Li ‘843 in view of Gerking discloses molten metal in the high-frequency induction stirring device (Li ‘843 [0015]; Gerking [0009], [0016], [0031]-[0032], [0068], Fig. 1). As evidenced by Perkul, in an induction furnace: “When alternating current is applied to an induction coil, it produces a magnetic field, which in turn generates a current flow through the charge material, heating and finally melting it….A second magnetic field is created by the induced current in the charge. Because these two fields are always in opposite directions, they create a mechanical force that is perpendicular to the lines of flux and cause metal movement, or stirring, when the charge is liquified. The mechanical force stays perpendicular to the field only in the center of the coil; on both ends pf the coil it changes direction. The metal is pushed away from the coil, moves upward and downward and flows back….It is this stirring that allows excellent alloy and charge absorption and aids in producing a melt that is both chemically and thermally homogeneous.” Therefore, the claimed stirring of the molten metal with the high-frequency induction heating device necessarily results from the melting of the raw material member with a high-frequency heating device as disclosed by the prior art (Li ‘843 [0015]; Gerking [0009], [0016], [0031]-[0032], [0068], Fig. 1).
Li ‘843 discloses the manufactured powder includes particles ([0011]) each comprising a matrix (Cu) and a plurality of (Cr) precipitates dispersed in the matrix ([0006]-[0007]),
the matrix comprises the first component (Cu) ([0006]), and
the plurality of precipitates comprises the second component (Cr) ([0006]-[0007]).
With respect to a standard error of the content of the first component in the particles on mass basis being 1.2 or less and a standard error of the content of the second component in the particles on mass basis being 1.2 or less, Li ‘843 discloses powder with low gas and impurity content for improved alloy purity ([0011]-[0012]) and evenly distributed Cu and Cr particles ([0006]) that produces a uniform structure ([0023]-[0024]).
Furthermore, the claimed standard error and precipitate average grain size have been considered and determined to result from the claimed powder manufacturing process. The prior art renders obvious the claimed method of manufacturing a powder (Li ‘843 [0002], [0011], [0014]-[0016]; Zhou; Gerking [0009], [0012], [0014], [0016], [0025], [0031]-[0032], [0068], Fig. 1), such the claimed standard errors and precipitate average grain size naturally flows.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature (or standard of error) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature (or standard of error) is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum of workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
With respect to an average grain size of the plurality of precipitates of the manufactured powder being 5 um or less, Li ‘843 discloses in the powder Cr particles as small as possible ([0006]) and fine grains ([0012], [0024]).
Yamamoto discloses manufactured powder includes particles each comprising a matrix and a plurality of precipitates dispersed in the matrix ([0014]-[0015], [0025]-[0026], [0033]),
the matrix comprises the first component (Cu) ([0014], [0025], [0033]),
the plurality of precipitates comprises the second component (Cr) ([0015], [0026], [0033]), and
an average grain size of the plurality of precipitates of the manufactured powder is 5 um or less (1 to 5 um) ([0028]-[0029], [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the powder of Li ‘843 to limit the Cr precipitates to 1 to 5 um so that the average particle size of the Cu-Cr alloy powder does not exceed 200 um and the contact material has a fine microstructure with advantageous voltage resistance (Yamamoto [0029]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 22, Li ‘843 in view of Gerking discloses a frequency of the current that operates the high-frequency induction heating device (Gerking [0009], [0016], [0031]-[0032], [0068], Fig. 1) is 100 kHz or higher (roughly between 50 kHz and 200 kHz for melting the rod) (Gerking [0027]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 24, Li ‘843 in view of Yamamoto discloses an average grain size of the particles is 200 um or less (Li ‘843 [0017]; Yamamoto [0028]-[0029], [0032]), and
a maximum grain size of the plurality of precipitates is 20 um or less (Li ‘843 [0006] [0012], [0024]; Yamamoto [0028]-[0029], [0032]).
With respect to a standard error of the average grain size of the plurality of precipitates in the particles being 0.1 or less, Li ‘843 discloses powder with low gas and impurity content for improved alloy purity ([0011]-[0012]) and evenly distributed Cu and Cr particles ([0006]) that produces a uniform structure ([0023]-[0024]).
Furthermore, the claimed standard error has been considered and determined to result from the claimed manufacturing process. The prior art renders obvious the claimed method (Li ‘843 [0002], [0011], [0014]-[0016]; Zhou; Zeitz [0007]-[0010]), such the claimed standard error naturally flows.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature (or standard of error or precipitate average grain size) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature (or standard of error or precipitate average grain size) is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum of workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li ’843 (CN 102728843 machine translation) in view of Zhou (Zhou et al. Cr-Cu (Chromium -Copper) phase diagram. J. Mater. Sci., Vol 46, 2011, p 7039-7045.), Gerking (US 2016/318105), and Yamamoto (JP 2008-057026 machine translation) as evidenced by Perkul (Perkul. Induction Furnaces. P. 109. ASM Handbook. Vol. 15 Casting. ASM International. 2008.) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Li ‘309 (CN 113293309 machine translation).
Regarding claim 10, Li ‘843 in view of Gerking discloses the raw material member is a compact (rod) (Gerking [0012]).
Li ‘843 in view of Gerking is silent to the rod being manufactured from a powdery first solid principally containing the first component and a powdery second solid principally containing the second component.
Li ‘309 discloses a method of manufacturing a powder ([n0010]-[n0011])) by providing a raw material member ([n0008]-[n0010]) then melting and atomizing ([n0011]), wherein the raw material member is a compact comprising a powdery first solid principally containing the first component (Cu) and a powdery second solid principally containing the second component (Cr) ([n0008]-[n0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Li ‘843 in view of Gerking to manufacture the rod using powder metallurgy by mixing Cu powder and Cr powder, forming a compact, melting, then atomizing to advantageously improve the quality of the Cu-Cr contact material (Li ‘309 [n0025]) by forming no obvious coarse microstructure and element enrichment, such that electrical properties include withstand voltage, breaking, and anti-welding are improved (Li ‘309 [n0026]).
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li ’843 (CN 102728843 machine translation) in view of Zhou (Zhou et al. Cr-Cu (Chromium -Copper) phase diagram. J. Mater. Sci., Vol 46, 2011, p 7039-7045.), Gerking (US 2016/318105), and Yamamoto (JP 2008-057026 machine translation) as evidenced by Perkul (Perkul. Induction Furnaces. P. 109. ASM Handbook. Vol. 15 Casting. ASM International. 2008.), and in view of Li ‘309 (CN 113293309 machine translation) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Liu (CN 109290582 machine translation).
Regarding claim 21, Li ‘843 in view of Gerking and Li ‘309 discloses a powdery first solid and a powdery second solid (Li ‘309 [n0008]-[n0010]), where the first is copper and the second is chromium (Li ‘843 [0014]-[0016]; Li ‘309 [n0008]-[n0010]).
Li ‘843 in view of Gerking and Li ‘309 is silent to the D50 of each of the powder first solid and the powder second solid of 1 um to 150 um.
Liu discloses copper-chromium material ([0002], [0009]) manufactured by mixing chromium powder of 20-200 um and copper powder of 50-300 um ([0011], [0016], [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use 20-200 um chromium powder and 50-300 um copper powder in the process of Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz for lower oxidation content and reduced raw material costs (Liu [0016]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 23, Li ‘843 in view of Gerking and Li ‘309 discloses a powdery first solid and a powdery second solid (Li ‘309 [n0008]-[n0010]), where the first is copper and the second is chromium (Li ‘843 [0014]-[0016]; Li ‘309 [n0008]-[n0010]).
Li ‘843 in view of Gerking and Li ‘309 is silent to the D50 of each of the powder first solid and the powder second solid of 75 um to 150 um.
Liu discloses copper-chromium material ([0002], [0009]) manufactured by mixing chromium powder of 20-200 um and copper powder of 50-300 um ([0011], [0016], [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use 20-200 um chromium powder and 50-300 um copper powder in the process of Li ‘843 in view of Zeitz for lower oxidation content and reduced raw material costs (Liu [0016]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Related Art
Wang (CN 105018768 machine translation)
Wang discloses copper-chromium contact material ([0002], [0007]) with 10-50% Cr and balance Cu using 50-300 um Cr powder and less than 300 um Cu powder ([0008]-[0013]) manufactured by mixing, cold isostatic pressing, vacuum encasing, heating, and hot extrusion ([0014]-[0023]). Wang discloses a high-performance copper-chromium contact material with high density and a uniform structure ([0007]) and that the mixed powder eliminates aggregation and has good dispersibility ([0015]).
Li ‘328 (CN 112458328 machine translation)
Li ‘328 discloses CuCr alloy powder materials ([n0001], [n0005]) prepared for consumable electrodes for arc melting ([n0006]) by mixing CuCr powder materials with 1-50 wt% Cr ([n0007]-[n0011]), melting the mixed powder, and atomizing to make CuCr alloy powder ([n0012]-[n0013]) followed by cold isostatic pressing, sintering, and smelting ([n0015]-[n0020]).
Yang (CN 119736509 machine translation)
Yang discloses Cu-Cr contact material ([n0001], [n0005]) manufactured ([n0006]) by mixing 25-55% Cr powder with a balance of Cu powder ([0010]-[0011]), cold isostatic pressing ([0012]-[0013]), vacuum sintering ([0014]-[0015]), vacuum degassing ([0016]-[0017]), then hot isostatic pressing ([0018]-[0019]). Yang discloses the particle size of the Cr powder and the Cu powder is -200 mesh ([n0007]) for good density and chemical stability, providing additional conductivity and corrosion resistance ([n0008]), which contribute to not reducing performance of the contact material ([n0056]).
Renner (JP H10-223075 machine translation)
Renner discloses chromium copper contact material having fine Cr particles ([0001], [0009]-[0010], [0031]) with 20-60 wt% Cr and remainder of Cu ([0011]-[0012], [0020]) manufactured using Cr metal powder with a particle size of less than 250 um and forming evenly dispersed Cr crystals with a diameter of 0.5 to 100 um ([0014], [0020]). Renner discloses the fine Cr particles increase overall hardness of the material such that the material has not resistance to deformation during high switching cycles ([0023]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANI HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday-Friday 7am-12pm.
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 WALKER can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights