DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of KR 10-2021-0117350 filed September 3, 2021 and of KR 10-2021-0134003 filed October 8, 2021 as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Receipt is also acknowledged of the WIPO publication of PCT/KR22/05772 filed April 22, 2022, WO 2023/033296.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Claim Amendments and Remarks filed April 15, 2026.
Claims Filing Date
April 15, 2026
Amended
1
Cancelled
2
Pending
1, 3-12
Withdrawn
5-12
Under Examination
1, 3, 4
Response to Remarks filed April 15, 2026
Oishi (US 9,303,300)
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 4 paras. 4-6, filed April 15, 2026, with respect to Oishi have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102/103 rejection of Oishi has been withdrawn.
The applicant persuasively argues claim 1 has been amended to incorporate the subject matter of claim 2, which was not included in the 102/103 rejection over Oishi (Remarks p. 4 paras. 4-6).
Meposo (Meposo® Metal Powder Solutions Corporate Brochure 2021. Italian Manufacturer. Printed in Italy – 10/2020.)
Applicant's arguments filed April 15, 2026 with respect to Meposo have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues the disclosed apparent density and grain size of Meposo refer to the powder itself rather than the crystal grain size defined in the present claims (Remarks p. 5 paras. 1-3).
Claim 1 line 2 recites “an average grain size”. Meposo discloses “Grain size” (CU-EP-77100 p. 6). The claim language and the prior art use the same language. Therefore, Meposo renders claim 1 obvious.
Kita (US 2018/0161876) as evidenced by C11000 Data Sheet (C11000 Data Sheet. Trianglealloy© (2024))
Lin (KR 2009-0072973 machine translation) in view of Taniguchi (JP 2009-287044 machine translation)
Applicant's arguments filed April 15, 2026 with respect to Kita and with respect to Lin in view of Taniguchi have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues the present invention enhances solubility in electrolyte by control of the average grain size between 50 and 300 um and control of the bulk density between 1.0 and 3.0 g/cm3 (Remarks p. 7 para. 2), which have an unexpected synergy as supported by applicant’s Tables 1 and 2 (Remarks p. 7 para. 3), where samples with average grain sizes above 50 um and bulk densities below 3.0 g/cm3 have increased superior meltage (Remarks p. 8 para. 1).
The “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.” MPEP 716.02(d). 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).
With respect to the average grain size and the bulk density, applicant’s data is insufficient to show criticality and establish unexpected results. For example, the average grain size of the inventive examples is 177 to 195 um, which does not span the broader claimed range of 50 to 300 um. Further, the comparative examples have average grain sizes ranging from 5.8 to 10.4 um, which is insufficient to establish criticality of the claimed lower endpoint of 50 um. Further, the bulk density of the inventive examples is 1.63 to 2.48 g/cm3 does not span the entire claimed range of 1.0 to 3.0 g/cm3. The bulk density of comparative examples ranges from 3.87 to 3.95 g/cm3, which is also insufficient to establish the criticality of the claimed upper endpoint of 3.0 g/cm3.
For the above cited reasons, the rejections over Kita and over Lin in view of Taniguchi are maintained.
Specification and Claim Interpretation
In applicant’s specification and pending claims 1-4 an “indeterminate copper material” is interpreted in light of applicant’s specification at [37], which states that this term “may be understood to mean a copper material having an indeterminate shape that cannot be defined as a specific shape such as a linear or circular shape.”
Applicant may be their own lexicographer. To act as their own lexicographer, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term, where “the inventor’s intention, as expressed in the specification, is regarded as dispositive.” MPEP 2111.01(IV).
Claim 1 line 2 “grain size” is interpreted as referring to the crystal grain size of the microstructure of the indeterminate copper material as supported by applicant’s specification at [39]-[42].
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meposo (Meposo® Metal Powder Solutions Corporate Brochure 2021. Italian Manufacturer. Printed in Italy – 10/2020.).
Regarding claim 1, Meposo discloses an indeterminate (dendritic shape) copper material (powder) for electrolytic copper foil (electrolytic copper), wherein an average grain size is in a range of 50 to 300 um (CU-EP-77100 grain size -100um-150#) (p. 6), wherein bulk (apparent) density is in a range of 1.0 to 3.0 g/cm3 (CU-EP-77100 1.7 g/cm3) (p. 6). 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 bulk density being defined by the following Equation 1:
[Equation 1]
bulk density (g/cm3)=total mass of indeterminate copper material (g)/1000 cm3,
wherein total mass of indeterminate copper material denotes total mass of the indeterminate copper material filling a cubic box having a size of 10 cm x 10 cm x 10 cm in width, length and height has been considered and determined to recite the method used to determine the claimed bulk density. The prior art discloses the bulk (apparent) density (CU-EP-77100 1.7 g/cm3) (Meposo p. 6), such that claim 1 is rejected. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. If the product is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable. MPEP 2123(I).
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kita (US 2018/0161876) as evidenced by C11000 Data Sheet (C11000 Data Sheet. Trianglealloy© (2024)).
Regarding claim 1, Kita discloses an indeterminate copper material (porous copper body 10 of a plurality of copper fibers 11) ([0016]-[0019], [0050]-[0056], Fig. 1), wherein an average grain size is in a range of 50 to 300 um (grain size is 5% or more of the diameter, diameter is 0.02 to 1.0 mm (20 to 100,000 um), such that grain size is 1 um or more) ([0015]-[0019], [0059]), wherein bulk density is in a range of 1.0 to 3.0 g/cm3 (50% or less of the true density of the copper fibers, which are C1100 (tough pitch copper) that have a true density of 8.94 g/cm3 (C11000 Data Sheet for electrolytic tough pitch), have a bulk density of 4.47 g/cm3 or less) ([0052], [0096]-[0097], [0100]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
The limitation of the bulk density being defined by the following Equation 1:
[Equation 1]
bulk density (g/cm3)=total mass of indeterminate copper material (g)/1000 cm3,
wherein total mass of indeterminate copper material denotes total mass of the indeterminate copper material filling a cubic box having a size of 10 cm x 10 cm x 10 cm in width, length and height has been considered and determined to recite the method used to determine the claimed bulk density. The prior art discloses overlapping bulk density (Kita [0052], [0096]-[0097], [0100]), such that claim 1 is rendered obvious. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. If the product is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable. MPEP 2123(I).
The preamble recitation of the indeterminate copper material being for electrolytic copper foil has been considered and determined to recite the purpose or intended use of the claimed indeterminate copper material that does not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Since the structure of the prior art (Kita) reads on the claimed structure, then it is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble and meets the claim. MPEP 2111.02(II).
Regarding claim 3, Kita discloses a longest axis (L) among long axes on a cross section of the indeterminate copper material is 10 mm or more (diameter R is 0.02 mm to 1.0 mm and L/R ratio is 4 to 2500, therefore L is 0.08 to 2500 mm) ([0018]-[0019], [0052], [0095]-[0096], [0100]-[0101]), and
a shortest axis (R) among short axes on the cross section is 5 mm or less (diameter R is 0.02 mm to 1.0 mm) ([0018]-[0019], [0052], [0095]-[0096], [0098]-[0099]).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, Kita discloses the longest axis (L) is in a range of 10 to 75 mm (diameter R is 0.02 mm to 1.0 mm and L/R ratio is 4 to 2500, therefore L is 0.08 to 2500 mm) ([0018]-[0019], [0052], [0095]-[0096], [0100]-[0101]), and
the shortest axis (R) is in a range of 1 to 5 mm (diameter R is 0.02 mm to 1.0 mm) ([0018]-[0019], [0052], [0095]-[0096], [0098]-[0099]).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (KR 2009-0072973 machine translation) in view of Taniguchi (JP 2009-287044 machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses an indeterminate (irregular) copper material (p. 2 para. 3) for electrolytic copper foil (Abstract, p. 1, p. 2 paras. 1-2, p. 5 para. 2), wherein bulk density is in a range of 1.0 to 3.0 g/cm3 (1.6 to 4.0) (p. 2 para. 3, p. 5 paras. 1-2, Table 1).
The limitation of the bulk density being defined by the following Equation 1:
[Equation 1]
bulk density (g/cm3)=total mass of indeterminate copper material (g)/1000 cm3,
wherein total mass of indeterminate copper material denotes total mass of the indeterminate copper material filling a cubic box having a size of 10 cmx 10 cmx 10 cm in width, length and height has been considered and determined to recite the method used to determine the claimed bulk density. The prior art discloses overlapping bulk density (Lin p. 2 para. 3, p. 5 paras. 1-2, Table 1), such that claim 1 is rendered obvious. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. If the product is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable. MPEP 2123(I).
Lin is silent to the average grain size of the irregular copper material.
Taniguchi discloses copper material ([0018]) wherein an average grain size is in a range of 50 to 300 um (0.5 to 100 um) ([0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the irregular copper material of Lin to control the average grain size to a range of 0.5 to 100 um to obtain polycrystalline material (Taniguchi [0026], [0028]) in which the crystal grains are selectively dissolved relative to the crystal grain boundaries (Taniguchi [0027], [0029]-[0030], [0033]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (KR 2009-0072973 machine translation) in view of Taniguchi (JP 2009-287044 machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Levey (US 6,287,362).
Regarding claim 3, Lin is silent to a longest axis among long axes on a cross section of the indeterminate copper material is 10 mm or more, and a shortest axis among short axes on the cross section is 5 mm or less.
Levey discloses copper material (1:28-30) with a longest axis among long axes on a cross section of the indeterminate copper material is 10 mm or more, and a shortest axis among short axes on the cross section is 5 mm or less (biscuits having a preferred (longest axis) size range of about 20 to 100 mm and a thickness (shortest axis) that is less than the size range of about 20 to 100 mm) (1:5-15, 3:20-23, 39-42, 54-56, 66-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the irregular copper material of Lin to have a longest axis of about 20 to 100 mm and a shortest axis less than this size range to form a biscuit (lump) shape that falls rapidly through slag layers covering a typical bath of molten metal and feeds easily through existing materials handling systems (Levey 3:20-34) that is acceptable to end users, capable of withstanding storage, transport, and handling without degradation, and produced while minimizing human hazard (Levey 3:35-51). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Further, Levey discloses the manufacturing variables that influence the aspect ratio (shortest axis) of the pebbles (biscuits) (5:11-22). Therefore, the aspect ratio, including shortest axis, is a result-effective variable dependent upon processing conditions. The presence of a known result-effective variable would be motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product. MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Regarding claim 4, Lin in view of Levey discloses the longest axis is in a range of 10 to 75 mm, and the shortest axis is in a range of 1 to 5 mm (biscuits having a preferred (longest axis) size range of about 20 to 100 mm and a thickness (shortest axis) that is less than the size range of about 20 to 100 mm) (Levey 1:5-15, 3:20-23, 39-42, 54-56, 66-67). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Further, Levey discloses the manufacturing variables that influence the aspect ratio (shortest axis) of the pebbles (biscuits) (5:11-22). Therefore, the aspect ratio, including shortest axis, is a result-effective variable dependent upon processing conditions. The presence of a known result-effective variable would be motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product. MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Related Art
Taniguchi (JP 2009-287044 machine translation)
Taniguchi discloses metal fine ([0001]) microparticles ([0008]) with a shape that is flake-like or plate-like ([0016]) made of copper ([0018]) composed of a large number of crystal grains having a size of 0.5 to 100 um ([0025]), which is controlled during atomization by the flow rate and gas direction ([0026]). Taniguchi discloses the polycrystalline material selectively dissolves at the crystal grains ([0030], [0033]).
Aramata (US 6,365,766)
Aramata discloses metallic copper catalyst (2:24-29) in flake or scale form having a bulk specific gravity of 1 to 3 g/cm3 and a mean particle size of 10 um to 1 mm (2:30-52, 3:30-64, 4:9-65, Fig. 1B).
Kim (KR 2016-0048262 machine translation)
Kim discloses manufacturing metal powder with a globular shape (Abstract) by melting metal and vertically dropping to collide with a plate, where the process conditions control the particle size ([0029]-[0031]).
Shi (CN 112828299 machine translation)
Shi discloses loose, porous copper powder ([n0001], [n0004]) with a bulk density of 1.0-3.0 g/cm3 ([n0010]) and a preferred particle size of 1 mm to 3 mm ([n0015]).
Lundstrom (US 2016/0199915)
Lundstrom discloses granulated material ([0001]) of copper ([0060]) with a size distribution in the range of 12-50 mm ([0062]) manufactured by feeding molten metal to a rotating distributor ([0047]).
Suzuki (JP S57-192201 machine translation)
Suzuki discloses dipping melted copper metal into water to make irregular, flaky, porous metal (Abstract, pp. 1-2).
Mo (CN 105458275 machine translation)
Mo discloses manufacturing Cu-Sn10 alloy powder ([0002]) by atomization with water using a conical spray disk to produce Cu powder with a particle size of less than 100 um, am irregular morphology, and a loose packing density less than 3.0 g/cm3 ([0014]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANI HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday-Friday 7am-12pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KEITH WALKER can be reached at 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights