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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 29, 2025 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 JP 2019-177926 filed September 27, 2019 as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Receipt is also acknowledged of WO 2021/060503, the WIPO publication of PCT/JP2020/036384 filed September 25, 2020.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks and Claim Amendments filed October 29, 2025.
Claims Date
October 29, 2025
Amended
1
Cancelled
2, 3
Pending
1, 4-9
Withdrawn
4-8
Under Examination
1, 9
The applicant argues support for claim 1 amendments in claims 2 and 3 (Remarks p. 4 para. 3).
Withdrawn Claim Objection
The following objection is withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 1 line 1 “bonding chip component”.
Response to Remarks October 29, 2025
Yuhaku in view of Fujita
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks para. spanning pp. 7-8, filed October 29, 2025, with respect to Yuhaku have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Yuhaku in view of Fujita has been withdrawn.
The applicant persuasively argues the conductor composition of Yuhaku contains CuO in an amount much more than Cu2O, 75 to 95 wt% CuO and 25 to 5 wt% Cu2O, whereas the claimed copper oxide paste contains CuO in an amount equal to or less than Cu2O with a molar ratio of Cu2O to CuO of 1.0 or more (Remarks para. spanning pp. 7-8).
Horiuchi optionally in view of Hoshi
Applicant's arguments filed October 29, 2025 with respect to the rejection of Horiuchi optionally in view of Hoshi have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues the claimed copper oxide paste is used for bonding a chip component to a substrate (Remarks p. 6 para. 3), but the composition of the cited references is used for forming a conductive layer (copper wiring pattern), which has different requirements (Remarks p. 7 para. 2).
The copper oxide paste being “used for bonding a chip component to a substrate” of the preamble has been considered and determined to recite the purpose or intended use of the claimed copper oxide paste. Applicant’s argument directed to the difference of use of the claimed oxide paste does not particularly point out how the difference in the intended results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. MPEP 2111.02(II).
Rather, the copper oxide paste of the prior art (Horiuchi [0001], [0009]-[0012], [0042]) comprises the claimed constituents (Horiuchi [0014], [0049], [0055], [0060]) including Cu2O and CuO particles in an overlapping amount (Horiuchi [0007], [0021], [0032], [0046], Table 1) with an overlapping particle size distribution (Horiuchi [0017]-[0020], [0028]-[0031], [0043]-[0045], [0060], Table 1) and BET specific surface area (Horiuchi [0020], [0031], [0045]), such that the claimed copper oxide paste is rendered obvious by the disclosure of the prior art and is capable of being “used for bonding a chip component to a substrate”.
Further, in order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous to the claimed invention. A reference is analogous to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). MPEP 2141.01(a)(I).
Horiuchi is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention of copper oxide paste. Therefore, it is proper for use in an obviousness rejection, even if it addresses a different problem related to forming a conductive layer and not bonding a chip component to a substrate.
The applicant argues the cited references do not teach or suggest the surprising and unexpected technical benefit that the claimed copper oxide paste provides of high bonding strength and high thermal conductivity as supported by [0017] and Tables 1-4 of applicant’s specification and as discussed in the Remarks filed May 6, 2025 (Remarks p. 8 para. 2).
The May 29, 2025 Final Rejection responds to the Remarks filed May 6, 2025 on pages 3-7. For the reasons stated therein, the arguments were not persuasive, including the allegation of surprising and unexpected advantages of the claimed copper oxide paste.
With respect to unexpected results, the “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims the evidence is offered to support.” MPEP 716.02(d). Also, to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. MPEP 716.02(d)(II).
Applicant’s Tables 1-4 present Bonding strength and Electrical resistivity as A, B, or C. Applicant’s page 24 explains A, B, and C for bonding strength. Applicant’s page 25 explains A, B, and C for electrical resistivity. However, the actual values for these tests are not presented, such that the data is insufficient to establish criticality.
Applicant’s Tables 1-4 present comparative and inventive examples regarding the D90/D50 particle size distribution, the BET surface area, the molar ratio of Cu2O to CuO, and the content of copper-containing particles, respectively. The data in Tables 1, 2, and 4 is for one copper oxide paste composition with about 70% Cu2O particles and about 5% CuO particles. This does not establish unexpected results for the respective variables of each table over the claimed range of Cu2O to CuO molar ratio of 1.0 or more, such that the data is not commensurate in scope with the claims. Further, the data, especially around the endpoints of the claimed ranges, does not compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to establish criticality of the endpoint. For example, in Table 1 with respect to the upper limit of D90/D50 of 3.7, there is no data between 3.7 and 4.3 to establish the endpoint of 3.7 as critical.
For the above cited reasons the rejection over Horiuchi optionally in view of Hoshi is maintained.
New Grounds
In light of claim amendment a new grounds of rejection is made over Balakaev in view of Sakaue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The molar ratio of copper-containing % by mass as recited in claim 9 lines 2-4 are required by claim 1 lines 14-17.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horiuchi (JP 2006-093003 machine translation) optionally in view of Hoshi (JP H02-33806 machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Horiuchi discloses a copper oxide paste (conductive paste) ([0001], [0009]-[0012], [0042]), comprising copper-containing particles, a binder resin, and an organic solvent ([0014], [0049], [0055], [0060]),
wherein the copper-containing particles contain Cu2O (cuprous oxide) and CuO (copper powder) ([0007], [0012], [0055], [0060], Table 1);
a total amount of copper constituting Cu2O (cuprous oxide) and CuO (copper powder) in the copper-containing particles is 90% or more of a total copper amount of the copper-containing particles ([0007], [0012], [0055], [0060], Table 1);
the copper-containing particles have a 50% cumulative particle size (D50) of 0.20 um or more than 5.0 um or less (Cu2O D50 is 4 um or less, such as 4 um or 2.5 um) ([0017], [0028], [0043], [0060], Table 1) (CuO D50 is 6 um or less, such as 5.0 um or 2.0 um) ([0018], [0029], [0047], [0060], Table 1), have a 10% cumulative particle size (D10) satisfying the following formula (1) together with the 50% cumulative particle size (D50), and have a 90% cumulative particle size (D90) satisfy the following formular (2) together with the 50% cumulative particle size (D50) ((D90-D10)/D50<=2, [0019], [0030], [0044]); and
the copper-containing particles has a BET specific surface area of 1.0 m2/g or more and 8.0 m2/g or less (15 m2/g or less) ([0020], [0031], [0045]):
1.3 <= D50/D10 <= 4.9…(1)
1.2 <= D90/D50 <= 3.7…(2).
Horiuchi discloses D50 of 4 um or less for Cu2O with examples of 4.0 um or 2.5 um ([0017], [0028], [0043], [0060], Table 1). D50 of 4 um calculates D10 of 0.325 to 0.8 um and D90 of 4.8 to 14.8 um. This calculates a (D90-D10)/D50 of 1.1 to 3.5, which is within the scope of Horiuchi. Similarly, D50 of 2.5 um calculate D10 of 0.51 to 1.92 um and D90 of 3 to 9.25 um. This calculates a (D90-D10)/D50 of 0.4 to 3.5, which is within the scope of Horiuchi. Therefore, the Cu2O powder of Horiuchi overlaps with and renders obvious claimed Expressions (1) and (2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the copper (CuO) powder of Horiuchi to also have a particle size distribution of (D90-D10)/D50<= 2 and BET specific surface area of 15 m2/g or less because the particle size distribution advantageously results in a more uniform particle size with no voids and high filling, resulting in a dense metallized structure with effectively suppressed warping (Horiuchi [0030]) and the BET specific surface area advantageously results in powder with improved sinterability, a reduced number of voids, and reduced conductor resistance of the conductor wiring (Horiuchi [0031]).
Horiuchi discloses D50 of 6 um or less for CuO with examples being 5.0 um or 2.0 um ([0018], [0029], [0047], [0060], Table 1). D50 of 6 um calculates D10 of 1.2 to 4.6 um and D90 of 7.2 to 22.2 um. This calculates a (D90-D10)/D50 of 0.4 to 3.5, which is within the scope of Horiuchi. D50 of 5.0 um calculates D10 of 1.2 to 3.8 um and D90 of 6 to 18.5 um. This calculates a (D90-D10)/D50 of 0.3 to 3.5, which is within the scope of Horiuchi. D50 of 2.0 um calculates D10 of 0.4 to 1.5 um and D90 of 2.4 to 7.4 um. This calculates a (D90-D10)/D50 of 0.4 to 3.5, which is within the scope of Horiuchi. Therefore, the Cu2O powder of Horiuchi overlaps with and renders obvious claimed Expressions (1) and (2).
Horiuchi discloses the copper-containing particles are 60% by mass or more and 92% by mass or less with respect to a total amount of the copper oxide paste (glass powder of 2 to 100% by mass relative to copper powder with 2% resin binder and 15% organic solvent) ([0060]). 100 mass%-(2 mass%+15 mass%) is 83 mass% glass powder + copper powder, which is 41.5 to 81 mass% copper powder (CuO+Cu2O) ((100/200)*83 to (100/102)*83).
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).
In the event it is determined that the “copper powder” of Horiuchi ([0015], [0055], [0060]) does not read on the claimed CuO, then the below rejection in view of Hoshi is applied.
Hoshi discloses a copper oxide paste (p. 1 para. 1), wherein the copper-containing particles contain Cu2O (cuprous oxide) and CuO (cupric oxide) (p.1 para. 1, p. 3 para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in Horiuchi for 100 parts of copper oxide powder to be 1 to 50 parts by weight of the cupric oxide (CuO) powder and a remainder of cuprous oxide (Cu2O) to improve the density of the metallized copper, effectively improve the adhesion and solder resistance of the conductor, and obtain sufficiently good solder wettability (Hoshi p. 3 para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the cupric oxide (CuO) powder of Hoshi to also have a particle size distribution of (D90-D10)/D50<= 2 and BET specific surface area of 15 m2/g or less so that the particle size distribution advantageously results in a more uniform particle size with no voids and high filling, resulting in a dense metallized structure with effectively suppressed warping (Horiuchi [0030]) and the BET specific surface area advantageously results in powder with improved sinterability, a reduced number of voids, and reduced conductor resistance of the conductor wiring (Horiuchi [0031]). As discussed above with respect to Horiuchi, the (D90-D10)/D50<=2 particle size distribution overlaps with and renders obvious the claimed Expressions (1) and (2) based on D50 and D10 or D90.
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).
Horiuchi discloses the copper-containing particles have a molar ratio of Cu2O to CuO (copper powder) of 1.0 or more (mixing ratio of copper powder to cuprous oxide is 5:95 to 40:60 in mass%) ([0007], [0021], [0032], [0046], Table 1). CuO is 79.545 g/mole (63.546+15.999). Cu2O is 143.091 g/mole ((2*63.546)+15.999). Therefore, a mass ratio of CuO:Cu2O of 5:95 to 40:60 converts to a molar ratio of CuO:Cu2O of 9:91 to 55:45, which is a molar ratio of Cu2O to CuO of 0.82 to 10.1 (45/55 to 91/9). 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).
In the event it is determined that the “copper powder” of Horiuchi ([0015], [0055], [0060]) does not read on the claimed CuO, then the below rejection in view of Hoshi is applied.
Horiuchi in view of Hoshi discloses the copper-containing particles have a molar ratio of Cu2O to CuO of 1.0 or more (100 parts of copper oxide powder consists of 1 to 50 parts by weight cupric oxide (CuO) and the remainder being cuprous oxide (Cu2O)) (Hoshi p. 1 para. 2). CuO is 79.545 g/mole (63.546+15.999). Cu2O is 143.091 g/mole ((2*63.546)+15.999). Therefore, 1 to 50 parts by weight of CuO to 99 to 50 parts by weight Cu2O converts to a molar ratio of CuO to Cu2O of 2:98 to 64:36, which is a molar ratio of Cu2O to CuO of 0.56 to 49 (36/64 to 98/2). 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).
The limitation of the claimed copper oxide paste “used for bonding chip component to a substrate” has been considered and determined to recite the purpose or intended use that does not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. As disclosed by the above rejection, Horiuchi optionally in view of Hoshi renders the claimed copper oxide paste obvious. To satisfy an intended use limitation, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim. MPEP 2111.02(II).
Regarding claim 9, Horiuchi discloses the copper-containing particles have a molar ratio of Cu2O to CuO (copper powder) of 1.0 or more (mixing ratio of copper powder to cuprous oxide is 5:95 to 40:60 in mass%) ([0007], [0021], [0032], [0046], Table 1) (CuO is 79.545 g/mole (63.546+15.999); Cu2O is 143.091 g/mole ((2*63.546)+15.999); a mass ratio of CuO:Cu2O of 5:95 to 40:60 converts to a molar ratio of CuO:Cu2O of 9:91 to 55:45, which is a molar ratio of Cu2O to CuO of 0.82 to 10.1 (45/55 to 91/9)), and
wherein the copper-containing particles are 60% by mass or more and 92% by mass or less with respect to a total amount of the copper oxide pastes (glass powder of 2 to 100% by mass relative to copper powder with 2% resin binder and 15% organic solvent) ([0060]) (100 mass%-(2 mass%+15 mass%) is 83 mass% glass powder + copper powder, which is 41.5 to 81 mass% copper powder (CuO+Cu2O) ((100/200)*83 to (100/102)*83)).
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).
In the event it is determined that the “copper powder” of Horiuchi ([0015], [0055], [0060]) does not read on the claimed CuO, then the below rejection in view of Hoshi is applied.
Horiuchi in view of Hoshi discloses the copper-containing particles have a molar ratio of Cu2O to CuO of 1.0 or more (100 parts of copper oxide powder consists of 1 to 50 parts by weight cupric oxide (CuO) and the remainder being cuprous oxide (Cu2O)) (Hoshi p. 1 para. 2) (CuO is 79.545 g/mole (63.546+15.999); Cu2O is 143.091 g/mole ((2*63.546)+15.999); 1 to 50 parts by weight of CuO to 99 to 50 parts by weight Cu2O converts to a molar ratio of CuO:Cu2O of 2:98 to 64:36, which is a molar ratio of Cu2O to CuO of 0.56 to 49 (36/64 to 98/2)), and
wherein the copper-containing particles are 60% by mass or more and 92% by mass or less with respect to a total amount of the copper oxide pastes (glass powder of 2 to 100% by mass relative to copper powder with 2% resin binder and 15% organic solvent) ([0060]) (100 mass%-(2 mass%+15 mass%) is 83 mass% glass powder + copper powder, which is 41.5 to 81 mass% copper powder (CuO+Cu2O)) ((100/200)*83 to (100/102)*83)).
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 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balakaev (RU 2337799) Sakaue (US 2007/0209475).
Cu2O is cuprous oxide or copper (I) oxide. CuO is cupric oxide or copper (II) oxide.
Regarding claim 1, Balakaev discloses a copper oxide paste (soldering paste) (STN Abstract, [0001], [0015]-[0016]),
the copper oxide paste comprising copper-containing particles (copper oxide and cuprous oxide), a binder resin (ethylene glycol), and an organic solvent (synatol) (STN Abstract, [0016]-[0026]),
wherein the copper-containing particles contain Cu20 (cupric oxide) and CuO (cuprous oxide) (STN Abstract, [0016]-[0019], [0021] ;
a total amount of copper constituting Cu20 and CuO in the copper-containing particles is 90% or more of a total copper amount of the copper-containing particles (100% of copper-containing particles are cupric oxide and cuprous oxide) (STN Abstract, [0016], [0026]);
the copper-containing particles have a 50% cumulative particle size (D50) of 0.20 um or more and 5.0 um or less (no more than 1 um) (STN Abstract, [0015], [0018]-[0019], [0026]), and
wherein a content of the copper-containing particles is 60% by mass or more and 92% by mass or less with respect to a total amount of the copper oxide paste (60.0-70.0 Cu2O and 5.0-15.0 CuO is 65.0 to 85.0) (STN Abstract, [0016]).
With respect to the copper-containing particles have a molar ratio of Cu2O to CuO of 1.0 or more, Balakaev discloses 60.0-70.0 wt% Cu2O and 5.0-15.0 wt% CuO (STN Abstract, [0016]). CuO is 79.545 g/mole (63.546+15.999). Cu2O is 143.091 g/mole ((2*63.546)+15.999). Therefore, 60.0-70.0 wt% Cu2O and 5.0-15.0 wt% CuO converts to a molar ratio of Cu2O:CuO in a range of 2.2 to 7.8 ((60/143.091):(15/79.545) to (70/143.091):(5/79.545)).
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).
Balakaev is silent to the D10, D90, and BET specific surface area of the copper-containing particles.
Sakaue discloses copper-containing particles ([0001]) that have a 50% cumulative particle size (D50) of 0.20 um or more and 5.0 um or less (0.3 to 7 um) ([0033]), a 10% cumulative particle size (D10) satisfying the following formula (1) together with the 50% cumulative particle size (D50), and have a 90% cumulative particle size (D90) satisfying the following formula (2) together with the 50% cumulative particle size (D50) ([0040], [0131], Table 2):
1.3 ≤ D50/D10 ≤ 4.9 --- (1)
1.2 ≤ D90/D50 ≤ 3.7--- (2), and
the copper-containing particles have a BET specific surface area of 1.0 m2/g or more and 8.0 m2/g or less (0.2 to 4.0 m2/g) ([0041]).
Sakaue Table 2
D10
D50
D90
D50/D10
D90/D50
Ex 1
0.72
1.02
1.46
1.4
1.4
Ex 2
1.42
2.08
2.96
1.5
1.4
Ex 3
1.41
2.10
2.99
1.5
1.4
Ex 4
1.03
1.41
2.07
1.4
1.4
Ex 5
0.92
1.24
1.76
1.3
1.4
Ex 6
0.72
0.99
1.41
1.4
1.4
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the copper-containing particles of Balakaev to have the particle size distribution and BET specific surface area as disclosed by Sakaue because the particle size distribution (D10, D50, D90) fills well the conductivity paste (Sakaue [0039]-[0040]) without causing excessively high viscosity of the paste so that it is not difficult to make thinner lines (Sakaue [0033]) and the BET specific surface area prevents an excessively viscous conductive paste (Sakaue [0041]). 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).
The limitation of the claimed copper oxide paste “used for bonding chip component to a substrate” has been considered and determined to recite the purpose or intended use that does not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. As disclosed by the above rejection, Balakaev in view of Sakaue renders the claimed copper oxide paste obvious. To satisfy an intended use limitation, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim. MPEP 2111.02(II).
Regarding claim 9, Balakaev discloses the copper-containing particles are 60% by mass or more and 92% by mass or less with respect to a total amount of the copper oxide paste (60.0-70.0 Cu2O and 5.0-15.0 CuO is 65.0 to 85.0) (STN Abstract, [0016]).
With respect to the copper-containing particles have a molar ratio of Cu2O to CuO of 1.0 or more, Balakaev discloses 60.0-70.0 wt% Cu2O and 5.0-15.0 wt% CuO (STN Abstract, [0016]). CuO is 79.545 g/mole (63.546+15.999). Cu2O is 143.091 g/mole ((2*63.546)+15.999). Therefore, 60.0-70.0 wt% Cu2O and 5.0-15.0 wt% CuO converts to a molar ratio of Cu2O:CuO in a range of 2.2 to 7.8 ((60/143.091):(15/79.545) to (70/143.091):(5/79.545)).
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 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balakaev (RU 2337799) in view of Horiuchi (JP 2006-093003 machine translation) and Sakaue (US 2007/0209475).
In the event it is determined that ethylene glycol does not read on binder resin and synatol does not read on organic solvent (Balakaev STN Abstract, [0016]-[0026]), then the below rejection in view of Horiuchi is applied.
Cu2O is cuprous oxide or copper (I) oxide. CuO is cupric oxide or copper (II) oxide.
Regarding claim 1, Balakaev discloses a copper oxide paste (soldering paste) (STN Abstract, [0001], [0015]-[0016]),
wherein the copper-containing particles contain Cu20 (cupric oxide) and CuO (cuprous oxide) (STN Abstract, [0016]-[0019], [0021] ;
a total amount of copper constituting Cu20 and CuO in the copper-containing particles is 90% or more of a total copper amount of the copper-containing particles (100% of copper-containing particles are cupric oxide and cuprous oxide) (STN Abstract, [0016], [0026]);
the copper-containing particles have a 50% cumulative particle size (D50) of 0.20 um or more and 5.0 um or less (no more than 1 um) (STN Abstract, [0015], [0018]-[0019], [0026]), and
wherein a content of the copper-containing particles is 60% by mass or more and 92% by mass or less with respect to a total amount of the copper oxide paste (60.0-70.0 Cu2O and 5.0-15.0 CuO is 65.0 to 85.0) (STN Abstract, [0016]).
With respect to the copper-containing particles have a molar ratio of Cu2O to CuO of 1.0 or more, Balakaev discloses 60.0-70.0 wt% Cu2O and 5.0-15.0 wt% CuO (STN Abstract, [0016]). CuO is 79.545 g/mole (63.546+15.999). Cu2O is 143.091 g/mole ((2*63.546)+15.999). Therefore, 60.0-70.0 wt% Cu2O and 5.0-15.0 wt% CuO converts to a molar ratio of Cu2O:CuO in a range of 2.2 to 7.8 ((60/143.091):(15/79.545) to (70/143.091):(5/79.545)).
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).
Balakaev discloses a paste (STN Abstract, [0015]-[0016], [0026]).
Horiuchi discloses copper oxide paste (conductive paste) ([0001], [0009]-[0012], [0042]), comprising copper-containing particles, a binder resin, and an organic solvent ([0014], [0049], [0055], [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the paste of Balakaev to include a binder resin and an organic solvent to make a conductive paste suitable for molding in a desired shape (Horiuchi [0049]), such as for printing or filling (Horiuchi [0022]-[0023]).
Balakaev is silent to the D10, D50, and BET specific surface area of the copper-containing particles.
Sakaue discloses copper-containing particles ([0001]) that
have a 50% cumulative particle size (D50) of 0.20 um or more and 5.0 um or less (0.3 to 7 um) ([0033]), a 10% cumulative particle size (D10) satisfying the following formula (1) together with the 50% cumulative particle size (D50), and have a 90% cumulative particle size (D90) satisfying the following formula (2) together with the 50% cumulative particle size (D50) ([0040], [0131], Table 2):
1.3 ≤ D50/D10 ≤ 4.9 --- (1)
1.2 ≤ D90/D50 ≤ 3.7--- (2), and
the copper-containing particles have a BET specific surface area of 1.0 m2/g or more and 8.0 m2/g or less (0.2 to 4.0 m2/g) ([0041]).
Example
D10
D50
D90
D50/D10
D90/D50
1
0.72
1.02
1.46
1.4
1.4
2
1.42
2.08
2.96
1.5
1.4
3
1.41
2.10
2.99
1.5
1.4
4
1.03
1.41
2.07
1.4
1.4
5
0.92
1.24
1.76
1.3
1.4
6
0.72
0.99
1.41
1.4
1.4
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the copper-containing particles of Balakaev to have the particle size distribution and BET specific surface area as disclosed by Sakaue because the D50 fills well the conductivity paste(Sakaue [0039]-[0040]) without causing excessively high viscosity of the paste so that it is not difficult to make thinner lines (Sakaue [0033]) and the BET specific surface area also prevents an excessively viscous conductive paste (Sakaue [0041]). 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).
The limitation of the claimed copper oxide paste “used for bonding chip component to a substrate” has been considered and determined to recite the purpose or intended use that does not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. As disclosed by the above rejection, Balakaev in view of Sakaue renders the claimed copper oxide paste obvious. To satisfy an intended use limitation, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim. MPEP 2111.02(II).
Regarding claim 9, Balakaev discloses the copper-containing particles are 60% by mass or more and 92% by mass or less with respect to a total amount of the copper oxide paste (60.0-70.0 Cu2O and 5.0-15.0 CuO is 65.0 to 85.0) (STN Abstract, [0016]).
With respect to the copper-containing particles have a molar ratio of Cu2O to CuO of 1.0 or more, Balakaev discloses 60.0-70.0 wt% Cu2O and 5.0-15.0 wt% CuO (STN Abstract, [0016]). CuO is 79.545 g/mole (63.546+15.999). Cu2O is 143.091 g/mole ((2*63.546)+15.999). Therefore, 60.0-70.0 wt% Cu2O and 5.0-15.0 wt% CuO converts to a molar ratio of Cu2O:CuO in a range of 2.2 to 7.8 ((60/143.091):(15/79.545) to (70/143.091):(5/79.545)).
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
Huttar (US 2,837,487)
Huttar discloses an electrically conductive paste (1:26-31) with 10 to 25 wt% powdered vitreous enamel flux, 3 to 26 wt% finely divided silver, 0 to 25 wt% cupric oxide (CuO), 87 to 29 wt% cuprous oxide (Cu2O) (1:42-52, 3:5-14) mixed together with a liquid vehicle, such as an organic solvent, to form a paste (2:12-35, 3:15-19) in the ratio 20 parts vehicle to 100 parts mixed powders (3:20-22). Huttar discloses the cupric oxide controls and stabilizes the electrical resistance of the fired resistor (1:53-56).
Provance (US 4,322,316)
Provance discloses a thick film conductor paste (1:67-68, 2:3-5)with 7 to 27 wt% boron, 0 to 35 wt% glass frit, and balance copper oxide on a dry basis (2:25-32), where the copper oxide comprises a major portion and is preferably cuprous oxide (Cu2O) and cupric oxide (CuO) (3:20-34) and the dry powder is mixed with an inert liquid vehicle (3:43-68) with 50 to 70 wt% solids (4:1-5). The examples of Provance include Cu2O or CuO (Table II).
Akse (US 4,511,601)
Akse discloses a copper metallization (1:6-12) produced from copper oxide powder dispersed in an organic vehicle and solvent (2:44-58, 3:55-65), where the copper oxide (cuprous or cupric) powder (Cu2O or CuO) is ground to subsieve minus 325 (44 um) (3:45-54) that forms a strong bond (6:31-38).
Steinberg (US 4,868,034)
Steinberg discloses a thick film ink of metallic copper, cuprous or cupric oxide (Cu2O or CuO), manganese boride or manganese borate, and other additives dispersed in an organic vehicle (2:45-54), where the copper oxide powder content ranges from 4 to 10 wt% (3:4-6), has preferred particle size ranges of 90% less than 3.0-8.0 microns, 50% less than 1.5-4.0 microns, 10% less than 1.0-2.5 microns (3:31-35) and a preferred surface area range of 2 to 6 m2/g (3:36-37). In Steinberg the majority of the ink is copper (Table I).
Hirata (JP 2004-307881)
Hirata discloses copper powder with a very uniform particle size and a narrow particle size distribution (p. 1 para. 1) including a copper compound that is a copper oxide with a D50 of 0.1 to 20.0 um in a liquid solvent and D90/D10 of 1.5 or less (para. spanning pp. 1-2, p. 3 paras. 2-3). The particle size distribution of the examples fall within the scope of the claims (para. spanning pp. 4-5, p. 5 para. 2).
D10
D50
D90
D50/D10
D90/D50
4.70
5.45
6.41
1.2
1.2
4.48
5.51
6.60
1.2
1.2
6.14
7.78
9.11
1.3
1.2
5.25
6.13
7.20
1.2
1.2
Kugimiya (JP H06-302927 machine translation)
Kugimiya discloses an electrode paste ([0001]) with copper oxide powder (CuO, Cu2O) with an average particle size (D50) of 2.5 um mixed with glass and/or lead, metallic copper powder, and a vehicle ([0026]) to produce a ceramic wiring board ([0027]).
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 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.
/STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735