Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 25, 2026
Application No. 18/259,669

CONDUCTIVE METAL PARTICLE PRODUCTION METHOD

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 28, 2023
Priority
Mar 30, 2021 — JP 2021-056511 +1 more
Examiner
LUK, VANESSA TIBAY
Art Unit
1733
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Proterial Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
6m
Est. Remaining
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allowance Rate
403 granted / 739 resolved
-10.5% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 10m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
785
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
56.9%
+16.9% vs TC avg
§102
7.4%
-32.6% vs TC avg
§112
28.5%
-11.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 739 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/11/2026 has been entered. Status of Claims Claims 1, 3, and 5-7 are pending and presented for examination on the merits. Claim 1 is currently amended. Information Disclosure Statement One (1) information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 06/22/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 1, 3, and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2009-197317 (A) to Nosaka (“Nosaka”) (abstract and computer-generated translation are in file as of 08/29/2025) in view of US 2018/0015547 (A1) to Okada et al. (“Okada”) and Eluri et al., “Synthesis of nickel nanoparticles by hydrazine reduction: mechanistic study and continuous flow synthesis,” Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 2012, 14:800 (“Eluri”). Regarding claim 1, Nosaka teaches a method of forming spherical NiP particles for use as conductive particles and having excellent monodispersibility (method for producing conductive metal particles). Abstract; para. [0001], [0010]. The method includes a step of mixing an aqueous solution of a nickel salt, a mixed solution of a pH adjuster and a pH buffer, and an aqueous solution of reducing agent containing phosphorus and a step of reducing and precipitating the mixture. Para. [0015]. In an example mixing sequence, an aqueous metal salt solution containing nickel is formed, followed by the formation of a pH-adjusted aqueous solution containing pH adjuster sodium hydroxide (NaOH). Para. [0041]. The aqueous metal salt solution and the pH-adjusted aqueous solution were then mixed (mixing a first aqueous solution containing Ni and NaOH). Para. [0041]. An aqueous reducing agent solution comprising sodium phosphinate is prepared (second aqueous solution containing P). Para. [0042]. Then, the metal salt-pH-adjusted solution mixture and the reducing agent solution are mixed (prepare third aqueous solution). Para. [0042]. The aqueous solution of nickel salt is adjusted so that the pH is alkaline and exceeds 7 when the mixture is mixed to initiate the reduction and precipitation and form Ni-based particles (third aqueous solution has a pH is greater than 7 and inducing a reductive deposition reaction in the third aqueous solution to produce Ni-based conductive metal materials). Para. [0015], [0039], [0043]-[0045]. The Ni-based particles have an average particle size d50 ranging from 0.1 to 70 µm (para. [0014], [0027], [0031]), which overlaps the claimed range. Where a smaller diameter is desired, the average particle size d50 ranges from 0.1 to 10 µm (para. [0014], [0028], [0030]), which falls within the claimed range. Nosaka teaches adding sodium hydroxide to adjust the pH (para. [0041]), but is silent regarding how adjusting the concentration of NaOH affects the median diameter of the particles. Nosaka does not teach the NaOH as claimed. Okada is directed to a method of making metal powder by a liquid-phase reduction method. Abstract; para. [0040]-[0042]. An example metal includes nickel. Para. [0043]. Example reducing agents are sodium hypophosphite (contains P) and hydrazine. Para. [0044]. Okada teaches that the particle size of the metal powder can be controlled by adjusting the mixing proportions of the metal compound, dispersing agent, and reducing agent and by adjusting the pH in the reduction step. Para. [0046]. The pH is preferably adjusted to 7 or more and 13 or less, and an example pH adjuster is sodium hydroxide (NaOH). Para. [0048]. By adjusting the proportions of metal compound, dispersing agent, and reducing agent, the proportions of other components in solution, e.g., pH adjuster, would also be adjusted. It therefore follows that the mean diameter of metal particles is implicitly regulated by adjusting the concentration of pH adjuster in aqueous solution. The relationship between particle size and NaOH concentration is further discussed by Eluri. Eluri studies the effect of temperature and NaOH concentration on nickel particle size in a solution reduction environment. Abstract. Increasing the NaOH concentration corresponds to a decrease in the free energy of reaction, which in turn leads to a more spontaneous reaction, creating a higher number of nuclei and smaller particles (negative correlation where an increase in concentration of NaOH results in a decrease in median diameter of metal particles). Page 6 of 14 – right column; page 7 of 14. Lower concentrations of NaOH (0.1 M) produce fewer nickel particles (and therefore larger particles) compared to higher concentrations of NaOH (0.5 M). Abstract; page 8 of 14 – left column. It is well held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05(II). In the present instance, the pH adjuster (NaOH) concentration in Nosaka is a result-effective variable because it would directly affect the particle diameter, as disclosed by Okada and Eluri above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have varied the concentration of the sodium hydroxide pH adjuster of Nosaka, such as by adjusting the NaOH concentration to a value between 0.1 M and 0.5 M (0.100 mol/L to 0.500 mol/L), as taught by Okada and Eluri, because NaOH concentration has a direct impact on particle size and permits the user to customize for a specific particle size needed for a particular application. Regarding claim 3, Nosaka teaches a particle size distribution (d90-d10)/d50 (dispersion) is 0.8 or less (para. [0014], [0032]), which falls within the claimed range. Regarding claim 5, Nosaka teaches that the aqueous salt solution (first aqueous solution) may contain Cu. Para. [0012], [0015], [0025], [0041]. Regarding claim 6, Nosaka teaches that the aqueous salt solution (first aqueous solution) may contain Sn. Para. [0013], [0026], [0050]. Regarding claim 7, Nosaka teaches that the aqueous salt solution (first aqueous solution) may contain Cu. Para. [0012], [0015], [0025], [0041]. Broadly, Sn can be present in an amount of 0.05-10% by mass (para. [0013]), and Cu can be present in an amount of 0.01-18% by mass (para. [0012]). In an example, Sn and Cu can both be present in amounts of 0.67% by mass and 3.960% by mass, respectively. Para. [0051]; Table 1 – No. 5. The calculated molar ratio (Sn/Cu) is 0.0906, which falls within the claimed range. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered. Applicant argues that the claimed negative correlation between NaOH concentration and particle diameter for achieving a median diameter of 10 µm or less is not a well-known phenomenon. In response, Eluri demonstrates that higher concentrations of NaOH enhance spontaneity in a reduction reaction that produces nickel particles. A more spontaneous reaction forms a higher number of nuclei, thereby leading to smaller particles. When lower concentrations of NaOH were tested, fewer nickel particles are produced (abstract; p. 6 of 14 – right column; p. 7 of 14; p. 8 of 14 – left column). It therefore follows that larger particles are produced at lower concentrations of NaOH. This aligns with the limitation claiming a negative correlation between particle size and NaOH concentration. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Kijlstra (US 2009/0263496 (A1)) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Kijlstra to address the claims. Pertinent Prior Art The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: KR 10-1324527 (B1) to Ahn et al. (computer-generated translation is attached) discloses an apparatus for making nickel powder by mixing nickel precursor with reducing agent and NaOH. Abstract. The average particle size of the synthesized nickel powders decreases as the concentration of NaOH increases. Para. [0069]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANESSA T. LUK whose telephone number is (571)270-3587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM ET. 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 D. Hendricks, can be reached at 571-272-1401. 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. /VANESSA T. LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733 September 30, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 28, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Dec 01, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 11, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §103
May 11, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 01, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 02, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12760384
METHOD OF MANUFACTURING GRAIN-ORIENTED ELECTRICAL STEEL SHEET AND ROLLING APPARATUS FOR MANUFACTURING ELECTRICAL STEEL SHEET
3y 3m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12760381
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING EQUAL-HARDNESS CR5 BACK UP ROLL
3y 4m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12753463
GAS-ASSISTED MICROFLOW EXTRACTION (GAME) SYSTEM PATENT
3y 3m to grant Granted Oct 06, 2026
Patent 12742225
METHOD FOR SEPARATING NICKEL FROM LITHIUM, AND APPLICATION THEREOF
3y 6m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12742233
DUPLEX STAINLESS STEEL PIPE
2y 6m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
54%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+26.3%)
3y 10m (~6m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 739 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month