DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment and Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed February 18, 2026, are acknowledged. Claim 1 is amended and Claim 5 has been cancelled. No new matter has been added.
Claim 10, Claims 11-12, Claims 13-16 and Claim 17 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions Groups II-V, directed to a use of a composite powder, a method of producing an article, an article, and a method of making a composite powder, respectively, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely elected in the response filed on September 13, 2024.
Claims 1, 3 and 6-17 are pending, and Claims 1, 3 and 6-9 are currently considered in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsubota (US 20170333987 A1) in view of Breedis (previously cited, US 5096508 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Tsubota discloses a pre-alloyed gas atomized copper alloy powder comprising up to 1% Cr and/or Si, which reads on the claimed core component comprising a highly reflective metal matrix that is pre-alloyed with a metal comprising a high optical reflectivity at wavelengths above 800nm (Cu), and at least one alloy element capable of forming a nitride, carbonitride or carbide (Cr and/or Si) present in an amount less than 2wt% based upon the total weight of the powder particle (Abstract; para. [0051], powder is gas-atomized and therefore pre-alloyed; see also para. [0088] and powders A1-A3 and B1-B2 compositions in Table 1).
One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Cu comprises the claimed high optical reflectivity at 800nm or more (high optical reflectivity is interpreted as defined in the instant specification, see Pg. 3, lines 12-18), and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Cr and Si comprise an equilibrium solid solubility at room temperature in Cu of less than 2wt%, as claimed.
Regarding the term “pre-alloyed”, this limitation is a product-by-process limitation. While product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113. In the instant case, Tsubota discloses wherein the copper alloy is formed by gas atomization, which reads on a pre-alloyed structure (see also Pg. 18 of instant specification, lines 24-25, wherein pre-alloying occurs by gas atomization).
Tsubota further discloses the claimed average particle diameter of 20-200um (para. [0049], 100-200um, 50-100um or 5-50um; Table 1 particle sizes comprising about 21um to about 28um diameters).
Tsubota fails to disclose the claimed diffusion layer comprising a nitride, carbide or carbonitride compound of the alloy element, and fails to disclose the claimed alloy depleted layer between the diffusion layer and the core, comprising said metal and less than 2wt% alloy element and a thickness of at least 100nm.
Breedis teaches nitriding a copper alloy core comprising 1-10wt% of a reactive element Q, wherein Q may be chromium and/or silicon, with a nitrogen containing atmosphere in order to form a nitride surface film QN, thereby improving oxidation resistance and improving mechanical properties such as wear resistance and hardness, without substantially changing electrical properties (Abstract; Col. 2, lines 6-28 and lines 50-61).
Breedis teaches forming a QN film of 100-500nm using a temperature of 600-1000C and a holding of up to an hour (Col. 4, lines 3-19; Col. 3, lines 18-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the surface of the powder of Tsubota using the nitriding method of Breedis in order to form a Cr and/or Si nitride surface layer, as taught by Breedis, thereby improving the oxidation resistance of the powder without substantially changing electrical properties, and to create parts with increased wear resistance and hardness (see teachings above). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that powder with increased wear resistance and hardness would produce additively manufactured parts with increased wear resistance and hardness. One of ordinary skill in the art would also appreciate the benefit of oxidation resistance for copper powder, and one which may remain in bulk storage until use in additive manufacturing.
While Breedis does not expressly use the term diffusion layer, and is silent towards a depleted layer comprising said metal and less than 2wt% of the alloy elements, the method of forming the diffusion layer (and subsequent thickness thereof) of Breedis and the composition and size of the core component of Tsubota is the same as the instant invention (see instant specification, Pg. 20, lines 12-16 and Pg. 21, line 1, heating in nitrogen (N2 or NH3 gas) atmosphere at 400-850C for at least 1hr; Pg. 15, lines 22-26, diffusion layer of 100-500nm).
Therefore, it would be obvious that the nitriding method for forming the nitride (diffusion) layer taught by Breedis result in the claimed diffusion layer and claimed alloy depleted layer because the diffusion layer and the alloy depleted layer are a result of the nitriding process and the composition and powder size of the alloy core component subjected to the nitriding process, and the core component composition of Tsubota and Breedis and core component size of Tsubota is the same as the instant invention, and the nitriding process and the thickness of the resulting diffusion layer by Breedis is the same as the instant invention. When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 3, Tsubota discloses wherein the alloy element comprises one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Si and Cr (Abstract; Table 1 compositions).
Regarding Claim 6, Breedis discloses forming a nitride QN with the reactive elements Q, and Tsubota and Breedis disclose wherein Q is Cr and/or Si (Tsubota, Abstract; Table 1; Breedis, Col. 3, lines 18-24; Col. 5, lines 1-4). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the disclosed nitrides, CrN and SiN, are stable at a temperature greater than room temperature, as claimed.
Regarding Claim 7, Tsubota discloses wherein the particle size is up to 200um, and by example is 25um, and Breedis discloses wherein the diffusion layer is about 100-500nm (Tsubota, para. [0049]; Table 1, particle sizes, see A1 for example 25um; Breedis, Col. 4, lines 3-19; Col. 3, lines 18-24; see claim 1 rejection above). Therefore, Tsubota and Breedis disclose a diffusion layer thickness t to mean particle diameter D, t/D, within the claimed range. For example, for a particle size of 25um, the t/D for a 100-500nm thick diffusion layer would be 0.004-0.02, which reads on the claimed range of 0.0001-0.1.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 8, Tsubota and Breedis are silent towards the absorption of the nitrided copper alloy powder; however, the Tsubota and Breedis disclose the claimed structure because the core composition and nitriding process, and therefore diffusion layer and alloy depleted layer, of Tsubota and Breedis are the same as claimed (see Claim 1 rejection above). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the powder of Tsubota and Breedis comprise the claimed absorption feature.
When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01.
Claim 8 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsubota (US 20170333987 A1) in view of Breedis (previously cited, US 5096508 A), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Endo (previously cited, US 20210178465 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Tsubota and Breedis are silent towards the absorption of the nitrided copper alloy powder; however, the Tsubota and Breedis disclose the claimed structure because the core composition and nitriding process, and therefore diffusion layer and alloy depleted layer, of Tsubota and Breedis are the same as claimed (see Claim 1 rejection above). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the powder of Tsubota and Breedis comprise the claimed absorption feature.
When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01.
Further, Endo teaches a copper powder comprising an absorption up to 65% using a laser with a wavelength greater than 800nm (1060nm) in order to provide a powder which is capable of fusion bonding with a low energy laser and having efficient heat abortion, and to balance the energy need for shaping with the generation of slag (Abstract; para. [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have comprised an absorption of up to 65%, and therefore at least 50% as claimed, using a laser with a wavelength of 1060nm, and therefore greater than 800nm as claimed, as taught by Endo, for the invention disclosed by Tsubota and Breedis, in order to provide a copper powder with is capable of fusion bonding with a low energy laser and having efficient heat abortion, and to balance the energy need for shaping with the generation of slag (see teachings above).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsubota (US 20170333987 A1) in view of Breedis (previously cited, US 5096508 A), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Nauka (previously cited, US 20210331391 A) and Colon (previously cited, US 20210260650 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Tsubota is silent towards the average angle and avalanche (maximum) angle in a dynamic angle of repose test.
Nauka teaches wherein avalanche angles of greater than 45 degrees cause difficulties in spreading powder (para. [0016]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the avalanche angle is measured from a dynamic angle of repose test.
Colon further teaches wherein powder with reduced agglomeration of particles (reduced particle cohesion), comprises improved flowability, and therefore improved AM process predictability (para. [0089]). Colon taches wherein work of cohesion gives an indication of the natural affinity of powder for agglomeration (para. [0151]; para. [0174]), and wherein the dynamic angle of repose represents the ability of powder to be spread over a powder by horizontal movement of a re-coater blade (para. [0175]). Colon teaches wherein a lower average dynamic angle of repose is associated with a lower cohesive index (and therefore lower agglomeration – see above), with preferable (powder A and B) average dynamic angles of 26 and 30 degrees (para. [0176]; Fig. 9a-9b; para. [0153])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have comprised an avalanche angle of less than 45 degrees, as taught by Nauka, and an average angle of 26-30 degrees, as taught by Colon, as determined by a dynamic angle of repose test, for the invention disclosed by Tsubota and Breedis, in order to facilitate the spreading of powder (see teaching by Nauka and Colon above), and to prevent agglomeration and particle cohesion during recoating, thereby improving flowability of powder and process predictability (see teaching by Colon above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed February 18, 2026, with respect to Claims 1, dependent claims thereof, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Zhang in view of Breedis, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments further limiting the particle diameter of the core component. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Tsubota in view of Breedis, as detailed above.
Applicant’s arguments directed towards Zhang and the powder (core component) sizes are deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bonitatibus (US 20120176016 A1): teaches a core-shell particle comprising a noble metal core, including gold, silver or alloy thereof, and a ceramic shell including a transition metal composition, wherein the ceramic shell is a transition metal nitride, a transition metal carbide and a transition metal carbonitride, and wherein the transition metal may be hafnium, zirconium, yttrium, tantalum, tungsten, molybdenum, and/or niobium (Abstract; para. [0028]-[0029]). Bonitatibus teaches these particles are structurally and mechanically stable at high temperatures, and are therefore suitable for high temperature operations (para. [0002]). Bonitatibus further teaches wherein the core-shell particle composition is selected to comprise specific wavelengths of radiation to be reflected (i.e., to have a particular reflectivity) (para. [0034]-[0035]; para. [0043]).
Karlen (previously cited, US 20180021878 A1): teaches a multi-layer additive manufacturing particle comprising a core material comprising a copper alloy, a first shell over the core, and a second shell over the first shell, wherein the first shell comprises a metal from the core composition and is selected to provide weldability to promote the fusion process, while the core composition is selected to provide physical properties or heat process capabilities lacking in the first shell metal, and wherein the second shell material comprises a lower reflectivity than the first shell in order to promote absorption of energy by the particles during powder fusion processes (para. [0019]-[0020]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that nitrides, for example TiN, comprise a lower reflectivity to that of copper and copper alloys, because the nitride material is a ceramic material and copper is metallic.
Patsalas (previously cited, “Conductive nitrides: Growth principles, optical and electronic properties, and their perspectives in photonics and plasmonics”): teaches wherein reflectivity of TiN and ZrN are below 90% even at 1000nm (Fig. 22).
Marcus (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed May 14, 2021, US 5338374 A): teaches an intermediate product of a composite powder comprising a core element of copper alloyed with Ti or Zr, and a nitrided diffusion layer comprising TiN or ZrN (Abstract; Fig. 1, mechanically alloyed Cu-3wt%Ti particle cores nitrided to comprising TiN diffusion layer). Marcus teaches wherein the nitrides are thermodynamically stable at a first temperature which is greater than room temperature (see Col. 1, line 65-Col. 2, line 3, wherein nitride is stable even at high temperatures approaching the melting temperature).
Sembashi (previously cited, “Surface hardening of age-hardenable Cu–Ti dilute alloys by plasma nitriding”): teaches wherein plasma nitriding of Cu-4at%Ti (equivalent to Cu-3wt% Ti – see composition of Breedis and Marcus above) results in a Ti-depleted layer adjacent to the TiN layer.
Yamasaki (previously cited, KR 870001504 B, see English Machine translation): teaches wherein titanium contents which exceed 1% results in lowered heat resistance and conductivity, and weldability (para. [0014]).
Maehara (previously cited, US 20100189593 A1): teaches wherein amounts of titanium are tailored to achieve strength while balancing for electrical conductivity and ductility (para. [0058]).
Matsuoka (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed May 14, 2021, US 20190275587 A1): teaches core particles of copper alloy which comprise a thin surface layer of low-heat conductivity (<35.0W/Km) particles (Abstract; Fig. 3). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that CrN and ZrN comprise thermal conductivities of less than 35.0W/Km.
Matsuoka teaches the core particles are 20-60um in order to balance ease of fabrication and production cost with building precision (para. [0048]). Matsuoka teaches wherein the surface particles forming the thin layer are 100-300nm (i.e., the thin layer is at least 100-300nm – see Fig. 1-3 wherein layer is formed by a monolayer of particles) in order to balance thermal conduction between adjacent matrix (core) particles, thereby improving build speed and precision, with sufficient sintering/fusion between particles, thereby increasing mechanical strength of the additively manufactured part (para. [0058]).
Lou (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed May 14, 2021, US 20180193916 A1): teaches a composite powder comprising a copper alloy core with a an alloying element of chromium, titanium and/or zirconium in an amount of 0.01-10%, which has been nitrided to comprise a nitrogen-rich shell, and subsequently capable of forming nitrides during additive manufacturing or heat treatment (Abstract; Fig. 1; para. [0017]-[0020]; para. [0033]-[0036]).
Okumura (US 20190193151 A): teaches modifying the surface of a metal particle with a nitride of the same metal element as the metal element constituting the internal region, such as by nitriding the metal particle, in order to decrease shear adhesive forces and Van der Waals force acting between particles, thereby improving fluidity of the metal powder material and reducing the influence of liquid bridge by water (para. [0074]-[0077]).
Okumura further teaches a particle size of 10-100um (Abstract).
Zhang (previously cited and applied, “Investigation on forming process of copper alloys via Selective Laser Melting”): discloses a gas atomized spherical copper alloy powder for selective laser melting comprising 98.37-99.12% Cu, 0.5-1.2% Cr, 0.03-0.3% Zr and less than 0.1% (inclusive of 0%) Si, less than 0.08% Fe (inclusive of 0%) and less than 0.2% other elements (inclusive of 0%), comprising a size of 12um (see Table 1 composition; Fe and other elements may be 0%; Si may also be 0%; Sect. 2.1, Laser processing, 12um).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE P SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00-4:00 MT.
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 on (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.
CATHERINE P. SMITH
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/CATHERINE P SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights