DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 5, 2026 has been entered.
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 January 5, 2026.
Claims Filing Date
January 5, 2026
Amended
9
New
23
Cancelled
17, 19, 20
Pending
1-16, 18, 21-23
Withdrawn
1-8, 12-16
Under Examination
9-11, 18, 21-23
The applicant argues support for the claim amendments in [0058], [0084], and [0092] of the published application (Remarks p. 8 para. 2).
Response to Remarks filed January 5, 2026
Applicant's arguments filed January 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues the amended claim 9 features enhanced the quality of compacts obtained by pressure molding the claimed powder and the quality of the bodies obtained from sintering the compacts, where the powder has uniform quality and the features are not realized by the cited references (Remarks p. 9 para. 2, para. spanning pp. 10-11, para. spanning pp. 12-13).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., compacts obtained by pressure molding and sintering the claimed powder) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With respect to uniform quality, Bohmeier discloses homogeneous CuCr alloys (1:67-73) with intermixed and finely distributed alloying elements (1:104-115). Similarly, 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]).
Further, in response to applicant's argument that the claimed powder has uniform quality and features not realized by the cited references, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Bohmeier in view of Tapscott and Zeitz as evidenced by Perkul
Applicant's arguments filed January 5, 2026 with respect to Bohmeier in view of Tapscott and Zeitz as evidenced by Perkul have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues Bohmeier, Tapscott, and Zeitz have not been shown to teach an average grain size of precipitates of the manufactured powder of 5 um or less (Remarks p. 10 para. 1).
Bohmeier discloses an extremely fine distribution of the alloying elements (1:74-115). Further, an average grain size of the plurality of precipitates of the manufactured powder being 5 um or less has been considered and determined to result from the claimed powder manufacturing process. The prior art renders obvious the claimed method of manufacturing a powder (Bohmeier 1:38-42, 86-104, 116-122, 2:11-26, 39-53; Tapscott 3:24-28, 6:37-45, Fig. 8; Zeitz [0007]-[0010]), such that an average grain size of the plurality of precipitates of the manufactured powder being 5 um or less naturally flows.
Bohmeier in view of Tapscott and Gerking as evidenced by Perkul
Applicant's arguments filed January 5, 2026 with respect to Bohmeier in view of Tapscott and Gerking as evidenced by Perkul have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues Bohmeier, Tapscott, and Gerking have not been shown to teach an average grain size of precipitates of the manufactured powder of 5 um or less (Remarks p. 11 para. 2).
Bohmeier discloses an extremely fine distribution of the alloying elements (1:74-115). Further, an average grain size of the plurality of precipitates of the manufactured powder being 5 um or less has been considered and determined to result from the claimed powder manufacturing process. The prior art renders obvious the claimed method of manufacturing a powder (Bohmeier 1:38-42, 86-104, 116-122, 2:11-26, 39-53; Tapscott 3:24-28, 6:37-45, Fig. 8; Gerking [0009], [0012], [0014], [0016], [0025], [0031]-[0032], [0068], Fig. 1), such that an average grain size of the plurality of precipitates of the manufactured powder being 5 um or less naturally flows.
Li ‘843 in view of Zhou and Zeitz as evidenced by Perkul; Li ‘843 in view of Zhou and Gerking as evidenced by Perkul
Applicant's arguments filed January 5, 2026 with respect to Li ‘843 in view of Zhou and Zeitz as evidenced by Perkul and Li ‘843 in view of Zhou and Gerking as evidenced by Perkul have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues Li ‘843 and Zhou have not been shown to teach an average grain size of precipitates of the manufactured powder of 5 um or less (Remarks p. 13 para. 2).
Li ‘843 discloses in the powder Cr particles as small as possible ([0006]) and fine grains ([0012], [0024]). Further an average grain size of the plurality of precipitates of the manufactured powder being 5 um or less has 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]; Gerking [0009], [0012], [0014], [0016], [0025], [0031]-[0032], [0068], Fig. 1), such that an average grain size of the plurality of precipitates of the manufactured powder being 5 um or less naturally flows.
Claim 21
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks para. spanning pp. 14-15, filed January 5, 2026, with respect to Claim 21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claim 21 further in view of Furusawa has been withdrawn.
The applicant persuasively argues the purported advantage of Furusawa does not have anything to do with the particle sizes of the metal powders, such that there is no nexus between the advantage and proposed modification of Furusawa (Remarks para. spanning pp. 14-15).
Claim 23
The applicant argues Furusawa teaches a particle size of 74 um or less, which fails to teaches D50 of 75 um to 150 um (Remarks p. 16 para. 3).
New claim 23 is not rejected over Furusawa, such that applicant’s above argument is moot.
New Grounds
In light of claim amendment and upon further consideration new grounds of rejection are made over Bohmeier in view of Tapscott, Zeitz, and Liu as evidenced by Perkul, over Bohmeier in view of Tapscott, Gerking, and Liu as evidenced by Perkul, over Li ‘843 in view of Zhou, Zeitz, and Liu as evidenced by Perkul, and over Li ‘843 in view of Zhou, Gerking, and Liu as evidenced by Perkul. New grounds of rejection are made over claim 21 and new claim 23 further in view of Yamamoto.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-11, 18, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 line 11 “the temperature of the molten metal” renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis. Does it limit the molten metal temperature obtained in step B and/or atomized in step C? For the purpose of examination claim 9 will be interpreted as requiring molten metal in any part of the manufacturing process to have a temperature in the two liquid phases separate region in the phase diagram.
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” renders the claim indefinite. What is the standard of error based on or calculated from? Is it based on the total raw material composition of the composition of the individual manufactured powder particles? For the purpose pf examination claim 9 will be interpreted as referring to the standard of error of the composition of the individual manufactured powder particles.
Claim 9 lines 23-24 “an average grain size of the plurality of precipitates of the manufactured powder is 5 um or less” renders the claim indefinite. Does “grain size” refer to the size of the grains of the precipitate microstructure or the size of the precipitate?
Claims 10, 11, 18, and 21-23 are rejected as depending from claim 9.
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 9-11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohmeier (GB 2066298) in view of Tapscott (US 5,056,602) 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, Bohmeier discloses a method of manufacturing a powder (1:38-42, 2:39-53), the method comprising:
step A of providing a raw material member comprising a first component (Cu) and a second component (Cr) (1:86-104, 2:39-53);
step B of melting the raw material member with a high-frequency induction heating device (2:11-15); and
step C of atomizing a molten metal obtained in step B into a powder (1:86-104, 116-122, 2:15-21, 39-53), wherein the first component and the second component are a combination having a two liquid phases separate region in a phase diagram (2:15-21),
the content ratios of the first component (Cu) and the second component (38 to 93% by weight Cr) in the raw material member are content ratios falling in the two liquid phases separate region (L1 and L2) (2:39-53), and
the temperature of the molten metal is a temperature in the two liquid phases separate region in the phase diagram (above 1470°C) (1:95-103, 2:15-26, 39-53).
Tapscott discloses a copper-chromium phase diagram with a region in which two liquid phases L1+L2 exist above 1470°C for 37 to 93 wt% Cr (3:24-28, 6:37-45, Fig. 8).
Therefore, 38 to 93 wt% Cr (Bohmeier 2:39-53) falls within the two liquid phases separate region (Tapscott 3:24-28, 6:37-45, Fig. 8) and a temperature above 1470°C (Bohmeier 1:95-103, 2:15-26, 39-53) is in the two liquid phases separate region in the phase diagram (Tapscott 3:24-28, 6:37-45, Fig. 8).
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).
Bohmeier discloses difficulties in vacuum induction melting because of the arising crucible reaction (2:3-11).
Bohmeier is silent to the 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 induction melting process of Bohmeier to avoid crucible reaction by using a crucible-free induction melting process that reduces 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, Bohmeier in view of Zeitz discloses molten metal in the high-frequency induction stirring device (Bohmeier 2:11-15; 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 (Bohmeier 2:11-15; Zeitz [0007], [0010]).
Bohmeier discloses the manufactured powder includes particles each comprising a matrix and a plurality of precipitates dispersed in the matrix (alloying elements in an extremely fine distribution) (1:74-115),
the matrix comprises the first component (melt rich in Cu) (1:86-103), and
the plurality of precipitates comprises the second component (alloying elements in an extremely fine distribution) (1:74-115).
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, Bohmeier discloses homogeneous CuCr alloys (1:67-73) with intermixed and finely distributed alloying elements (1:104-115).
With respect to an average grain size of the plurality of precipitates of the manufactured powder being 5 um or less, Bohmeier discloses an extremely fine distribution of the alloying elements (1:74-1115).
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 (Bohmeier 1:38-42, 86-104, 116-122, 2:11-26, 39-53; Tapscott 3:24-28, 6:37-45, Fig. 8; 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, Bohmeier 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 11, Bohmeier discloses the first component is copper and the second component is chromium (Bohmeier 1:86-104, 2:39-56).
Regarding claim 18, Bohmeier discloses the first component is copper and the second component is chromium (Bohmeier 1:86-104, 2:39-56).
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohmeier (GB 2066298) in view of Tapscott (US 5,056,602) 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, Bohmeier in view of Zeitz 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 Bohmeier 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]).
Regarding claim 18, Bohmeier discloses the first component is copper and the second component is chromium (Bohmeier 1:86-104, 2:39-56).
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohmeier (GB 2066298) in view of Tapscott (US 5,056,602) 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, Bohmeier 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 (Bohmeier 1:86-104, 2:39-56).
Bohmeier in view of Zeitz is silent to the D50 of each of the powdery first solid and the powdery 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 Bohmeier in view of Zeitz for lower oxidation content and reduce 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, Bohmeier 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 (Bohmeier 1:86-104, 2:39-56).
Bohmeier in view of Zeitz is silent to the D50 of each of the powdery first solid and the powdery 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 Bohmeier 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 Bohmeier (GB 2066298) in view of Tapscott (US 5,056,602), 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, Bohmeier 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 (Bohmeier 1:86-104, 2:39-56; Li ‘309 [n0008]-[n0010]).
Bohmeier 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 Bohmeier in view of Zeitz and Li ‘309 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, Bohmeier 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 (Bohmeier 1:86-104, 2:39-56; Li ‘309 [n0008]-[n0010]).
Bohmeier 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 Bohmeier in view of Zeitz and Li ‘309 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 Bohmeier (GB 2066298) in view of Tapscott (US 5,056,602) 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, Bohmeier in view of Zeitz discloses a high-frequency induction heating device (Bohmeier 2:11-15; Zeitz [0007], [0010]).
Bohmeier 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 Bohmeier 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, 11, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohmeier (GB 2066298) in view of Tapscott (US 5,056,602) 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, Bohmeier discloses a method of manufacturing a powder (1:38-42, 2:39-53), the method comprising:
step A of providing a raw material member comprising a first component (Cu) and a second component (Cr) (1:86-104, 2:39-53);
step B of melting the raw material member with a high-frequency induction heating device (2:11-15); and
step C of atomizing a molten metal obtained in step B into a powder (1:86-104, 116-122, 2:15-21, 39-53), wherein the first component and the second component are a combination having a two liquid phases separate region in a phase diagram (2:15-21),
the content ratios of the first component (Cu) and the second component (38 to 93% by weight Cr) in the raw material member are content ratios falling in the two liquid phases separate region (L1 and L2) (2:39-53), and
the temperature of the molten metal is a temperature in the two liquid phases separate region in the phase diagram (above 1470°C) (1:95-103, 2:15-26, 39-53).
Tapscott discloses a copper-chromium phase diagram with a region in which two liquid phases L1+L2 exist above 1470°C for 37 to 93 wt% Cr (3:24-28, 6:37-45, Fig. 8).
Therefore, 38 to 93 wt% Cr (Bohmeier 2:39-53) falls within the two liquid phases separate region (Tapscott 3:24-28, 6:37-45, Fig. 8) and a temperature above 1470°C (Bohmeier 1:95-103, 2:15-26, 39-53) is in the two liquid phases separate region in the phase diagram (Tapscott 3:24-28, 6:37-45, Fig. 8).
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).
Bohmeier discloses difficulties in vacuum induction melting because of the arising crucible reaction (2:3-11).
Bohmeier is silent to the 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 Bohmeier 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, Bohmeier in view of Gerking discloses molten metal in the high-frequency induction stirring device (Bohmeier 2:11-15; 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 (Bohmeier 2:11-15; Gerking [0009], [0016], [0031]-[0032], [0068], Fig. 1).
Bohmeier discloses the manufactured powder includes particles each comprising a matrix and a plurality of precipitates dispersed in the matrix (alloying elements in an extremely fine distribution) (1:74-115),
the matrix comprises the first component (melt rich in Cu) (1:86-103), and
the plurality of precipitates comprises the second component (alloying elements in an extremely fine distribution) (1:74-115).
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, Bohmeier discloses homogeneous CuCr alloys (1:67-73) with intermixed and finely distributed alloying elements (1:104-115).
With respect to an average grain size of the plurality of precipitates of the manufactured powder being 5 um or less, Bohmeier discloses an extremely fine distribution of the alloying elements (1:74-1115).
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 (Bohmeier 1:38-42, 86-104, 116-122, 2:11-26, 39-53; Tapscott 3:24-28, 6:37-45, Fig. 8; 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 11, Bohmeier discloses the first component is copper and the second component is chromium (Bohmeier 1:86-104, 2:39-56).
Regarding claim 22, Bohmeier in view of Gerking discloses a frequency of the current that operates the high-frequency induction heating device (Bohmeier 2:11-15) 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).
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohmeier (GB 2066298) in view of Tapscott (US 5,056,602) 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, Bohmeier in view of Gerking the raw material member is a compact (rod) (Gerking [0012]).
Bohmeier 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 Bohmeier 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]).
Regarding claim 18, Bohmeier in view of Li ‘309 discloses the first component is copper and the second component is chromium (Bohmeier 1:86-104, 2:39-56; Li ‘309 [n0008]-[n0011]).
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohmeier (GB 2066298) in view of Tapscott (US 5,056,602), and 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, Bohmeier 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 (Bohmeier 1:86-104, 2:39-56; Li ‘309 [n0008]-[n0010]).
Bohmeier in view of Gerking and Li ‘309 is silent to the D50 of each of the powdery first solid and the powdery 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 Bohmeier in view of Zeitz and Li ‘309 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, Bohmeier 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 (Bohmeier 1:86-104, 2:39-56; Li ‘309 [n0008]-[n0010]).
Bohmeier in view of Gerking and Li ‘309 is silent to the D50 of each of the powdery first solid and the powdery 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 Bohmeier in view of Zeitz and Li ‘309 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 9-11 and 18 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 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]).
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 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 11, Li ‘843 discloses the first component is copper and the second component is chromium ([0014]-[0016]).
Regarding claim 18, Li ‘843 discloses the first component is copper and the second component is chromium ([0014]-[0016]).
Claims 10 and 18 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 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]).
Regarding claim 18, Li ‘843 discloses the first component is copper and the second component is chromium ([0014]-[0016]).
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, 11, and 22 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 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]).
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 11, Li ‘843 discloses the first component is copper and the second component is chromium ([0014]-[0016]).
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).
Claims 10 and 18 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.) 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]).
Regarding claim 18, Li ‘843 discloses the first component is copper and the second component is chromium ([0014]-[0016]).
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 9-11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohmeier (GB 2066298) in view of Tapscott (US 5,056,602), 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, Bohmeier discloses a method of manufacturing a powder (1:38-42, 2:39-53), the method comprising:
step A of providing a raw material member comprising a first component (Cu) and a second component (Cr) (1:86-104, 2:39-53);
step B of melting the raw material member with a high-frequency induction heating device (2:11-15); and
step C of atomizing a molten metal obtained in step B into a powder (1:86-104, 116-122, 2:15-21, 39-53), wherein the first component and the second component are a combination having a two liquid phases separate region in a phase diagram (2:15-21),
the content ratios of the first component (Cu) and the second component (38 to 93% by weight Cr) in the raw material member are content ratios falling in the two liquid phases separate region (L1 and L2) (2:39-53), and
the temperature of the molten metal is a temperature in the two liquid phases separate region in the phase diagram (above 1470°C) (1:95-103, 2:15-26, 39-53).
Tapscott discloses a copper-chromium phase diagram with a region in which two liquid phases L1+L2 exist above 1470°C for 37 to 93 wt% Cr (3:24-28, 6:37-45, Fig. 8).
Therefore, 38 to 93 wt% Cr (Bohmeier 2:39-53) falls within the two liquid phases separate region (Tapscott 3:24-28, 6:37-45, Fig. 8) and a temperature above 1470°C (Bohmeier 1:95-103, 2:15-26, 39-53) is in the two liquid phases separate region in the phase diagram (Tapscott 3:24-28, 6:37-45, Fig. 8).
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).
Bohmeier discloses difficulties in vacuum induction melting because of the arising crucible reaction (2:3-11).
Bohmeier is silent to the 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 induction melting process of Bohmeier to avoid crucible reaction by using a crucible-free induction melting process that reduces 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, Bohmeier in view of Zeitz discloses molten metal in the high-frequency induction stirring device (Bohmeier 2:11-15; 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 (Bohmeier 2:11-15; Zeitz [0007], [0010]).
Bohmeier discloses the manufactured powder includes particles each comprising a matrix and a plurality of precipitates dispersed in the matrix (alloying elements in an extremely fine distribution) (1:74-115),
the matrix comprises the first component (melt rich in Cu) (1:86-103), and
the plurality of precipitates comprises the second component (alloying elements in an extremely fine distribution) (1:74-115).
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, Bohmeier discloses homogeneous CuCr alloys (1:67-73) with intermixed and finely distributed alloying elements (1:104-115).
Furthermore, the claimed standard errors 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 (Bohmeier 1:38-42, 86-104, 116-122, 2:11-26, 39-53; Tapscott 3:24-28, 6:37-45, Fig. 8; Zeitz [0007]-[0010]), such the claimed standard errors naturally flow.
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, Bohmeier discloses an extremely fine distribution of the alloying elements (1:74-115).
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 Bohmeier 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 resulting 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, Bohmeier 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 11, Bohmeier discloses the first component is copper and the second component is chromium (Bohmeier 1:86-104, 2:39-56).
Regarding claim 18, Bohmeier discloses the first component is copper and the second component is chromium (Bohmeier 1:86-104, 2:39-56).
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohmeier (GB 2066298) in view of Tapscott (US 5,056,602), 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, Bohmeier 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 Bohmeier 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]).
Regarding claim 18, Bohmeier discloses the first component is copper and the second component is chromium (Bohmeier 1:86-104, 2:39-56).
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohmeier (GB 2066298) in view of Tapscott (US 5,056,602), 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, Bohmeier 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 (Bohmeier 1:86-104, 2:39-56).
Bohmeier in view of Zeitz is silent to the D50 of each of the powdery first solid and the powdery 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, Bohmeier 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 (Bohmeier 1:86-104, 2:39-56).
Bohmeier in view of Zeitz is silent to the D50 of each of the powdery first solid and the powdery 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 Bohmeier (GB 2066298) in view of Tapscott (US 5,056,602), 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, Bohmeier 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 (Bohmeier 1:86-104, 2:39-56; Li ‘309 [n0008]-[n0010]).
Bohmeier 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, Bohmeier 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 (Bohmeier 1:86-104, 2:39-56; Li ‘309 [n0008]-[n0010]).
Bohmeier 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 Bohmeier (GB 2066298) in view of Tapscott (US 5,056,602), 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, Bohmeier in view of Zeitz discloses a high-frequency induction heating device (Bohmeier 2:11-15; Zeitz [0007], [0010]).
Bohmeier 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 Bohmeier 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, 11, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohmeier (GB 2066298) in view of Tapscott (US 5,056,602), 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, Bohmeier discloses a method of manufacturing a powder (1:38-42, 2:39-53), the method comprising:
step A of providing a raw material member comprising a first component (Cu) and a second component (Cr) (1:86-104, 2:39-53);
step B of melting the raw material member with a high-frequency induction heating device (2:11-15); and
step C of atomizing a molten metal obtained in step B into a powder (1:86-104, 116-122, 2:15-21, 39-53), wherein the first component and the second component are a combination having a two liquid phases separate region in a phase diagram (2:15-21),
the content ratios of the first component (Cu) and the second component (38 to 93% by weight Cr) in the raw material member are content ratios falling in the two liquid phases separate region (L1 and L2) (2:39-53), and
the temperature of the molten metal is a temperature in the two liquid phases separate region in the phase diagram (above 1470°C) (1:95-103, 2:15-26, 39-53).
Tapscott discloses a copper-chromium phase diagram with a region in which two liquid phases L1+L2 exist above 1470°C for 37 to 93 wt% Cr (3:24-28, 6:37-45, Fig. 8).
Therefore, 38 to 93 wt% Cr (Bohmeier 2:39-53) falls within the two liquid phases separate region (Tapscott 3:24-28, 6:37-45, Fig. 8) and a temperature above 1470°C (Bohmeier 1:95-103, 2:15-26, 39-53) is in the two liquid phases separate region in the phase diagram (Tapscott 3:24-28, 6:37-45, Fig. 8).
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).
Bohmeier discloses difficulties in vacuum induction melting because of the arising crucible reaction (2:3-11).
Bohmeier is silent to the 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 Bohmeier 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, Bohmeier in view of Gerking discloses molten metal in the high-frequency induction stirring device (Bohmeier 2:11-15; 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 (Bohmeier 2:11-15; Gerking [0009], [0016], [0031]-[0032], [0068], Fig. 1).
Bohmeier discloses the manufactured powder includes particles each comprising a matrix and a plurality of precipitates dispersed in the matrix (alloying elements in an extremely fine distribution) (1:74-115),
the matrix comprises the first component (melt rich in Cu) (1:86-103), and
the plurality of precipitates comprises the second component (alloying elements in an extremely fine distribution) (1:74-115).
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, Bohmeier discloses homogeneous CuCr alloys (1:67-73) with intermixed and finely distributed alloying elements (1:104-115).
Furthermore, the claimed standard errors 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 (Bohmeier 1:38-42, 86-104, 116-122, 2:11-26, 39-53; Tapscott 3:24-28, 6:37-45, Fig. 8; Gerking [0009], [0012], [0014], [0016], [0025], [0031]-[0032], [0068], Fig. 1), such the claimed standard errors naturally flow.
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, Bohmeier discloses an extremely fine distribution of the alloying elements (1:74-115).
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 Bohmeier 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 11, Bohmeier discloses the first component is copper and the second component is chromium (Bohmeier 1:86-104, 2:39-56).
Regarding claim 22, Bohmeier in view of Gerking discloses a frequency of the current that operates the high-frequency induction heating device (Bohmeier 2:11-15) 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).
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohmeier (GB 2066298) in view of Tapscott (US 5,056,602), 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, Bohmeier in view of Gerking discloses the raw material member is a compact (rod) (Gerking [0012]).
Bohmeier 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 Bohmeier 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]).
Regarding claim 18, Bohmeier in view of Li ‘309 discloses the first component is copper and the second component is chromium (Bohmeier 1:86-104, 2:39-56; Li ‘309 [n0008]-[n0011]).
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohmeier (GB 2066298) in view of Tapscott (US 5,056,602), 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, Bohmeier 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 (Bohmeier 1:86-104, 2:39-56; Li ‘309 [n0008]-[n0010]).
Bohmeier in view of Gerking and Li ‘309 is silent to the D50 of each of the powdery first solid and the powdery 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, Bohmeier 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 (Bohmeier 1:86-104, 2:39-56; Li ‘309 [n0008]-[n0010]).
Bohmeier in view of Gerking and Li ‘309 is silent to the D50 of each of the powdery first solid and the powdery 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 9-11 and 18 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 11, Li ‘843 discloses the first component is copper and the second component is chromium ([0014]-[0016]).
Regarding claim 18, Li ‘843 discloses the first component is copper and the second component is chromium ([0014]-[0016]).
Claims 10 and 18 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 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]).
Regarding claim 18, Li ‘843 discloses the first component is copper and the second component is chromium ([0014]-[0016]).
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, 11, and 22 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 11, Li ‘843 discloses the first component is copper and the second component is chromium ([0014]-[0016]).
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).
Claims 10 and 18 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.) 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]).
Regarding claim 18, Li ‘843 discloses the first component is copper and the second component is chromium ([0014]-[0016]).
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-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