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 a certified copy of JP 2020-216764 filed December 25, 2020 as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Receipt is also acknowledged of WO 2022/138233, a copy of the WIPO publication of PCT/JP 2021/045516 filed December 10, 2021.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Claim Amendments and Remarks filed February 24, 2026.
Claims Filing Date
February 24, 2026
Amended
1
Cancelled
3
Pending
1, 2, 4-11
Withdrawn
6-11
Under Examination
1, 2, 4, 5
Amended claim 1 lines 5-6 recite “the copper alloy powder does not include zirconium”. This is a negative limitation, which must have basis in the original disclosure. If alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims. MPEP 2173.05(i). Applicant’s specification positively recites the copper alloy powder may further contain zirconium ([0039], [0046]), such that the exclusion of zirconium in claim 1 has basis in the original disclosure.
Withdrawn Abstract Objection
The following objection is withdrawn due to abstract amendment:
Being longer than 150 words.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following 112(b) rejection is withdrawn due to claim cancellation:
Claim 3 line 2 “JIS Z 2504”.
Response to Remarks filed February 24, 2026
Ma (CN 109337625 machine translation)
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 8, filed February 24, 2026, with respect to Ma have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Ma has been withdrawn.
The applicant persuasively argues amended claim 1 does not include zirconium, but Ma discloses 0.1-0.8 wt% Zr ([0014], [0039], Exs. 1-5 [0070]) (Remarks p. 8).
Claim 5 lines 1-3 recite the copper alloy powder further contains a zirconium element an amount of which is more than 0 wt% and equal to or less than 0.20 wt%”. Since this claim allows for the presence of Zr, the claim 5 rejection of Ma is maintained.
Nishino (WO 2019/239655 machine translation); Nishino in view of Xu (Xu et al. Effect of Ag addition on the microstructure and mechanical properties of Cu-Cr alloy. Materials Science & Engineering A 726 (2018) 208-214.)
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pp. 8-10, filed February 24, 2026, with respect to Nishino have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim 1 rejections of Nishino and of Nishino in view of Xu have been withdrawn.
The applicant persuasively argues Nishino discloses a Cu-Cr-Zr alloy system in which 0.010-1.40% Cr is essential (Remarks pp. 8-10).
Claim 5 lines 1-3 recite the copper alloy powder further contains a zirconium element an amount of which is more than 0 wt% and equal to or less than 0.20 wt%”. Since this claim allows for the presence of Zr, the claim 5 rejections of Nishino and Nishino in view of Xu are maintained.
New Grounds
In light of claim amendment and upon further consider a new grounds of rejection is made over Matsuki in view of Selah.
Abstract Objection
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because
Line 7 “The copper alloy powder does not include zirconium.” is not part of applicant’s disclosure. Applicant discloses zirconium of more than 0 wt% and equal to or less than 0.20 wt% can be further contained (applicant’s specification [0039], [0046], claim 5).
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 5 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.
Claim 5 lines 1-3 “the copper alloy powder further contains a zirconium element an amount of which is more than 0 wt% and equal to or less than 0.20 wt%” fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 5 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 lines 5-6 recite “the copper alloy powder does not include zirconium”. Claim 5 requires zirconium.
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, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuki (JP 2001-131655 machine translation) in view of Selah (US 2007/0068609).
Regarding claim 1, Matsuki discloses a copper alloy powder ([0001]) comprising 80 to 99.9 wt% Cu and 0.1 to 20 wt% of Ag and Cr ([0006]-[0007], Table 1 No. 4).
Selah discloses a copper alloy ([0002]) that overlaps with that claimed ([0010], [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the copper alloy of Matsuki to have the composition disclosed by Selah because the Cr has a strengthening effect (Selah [0005]), the silver improves the softening resistance (Selah [0006]), and the resulting alloy can achieve tensile strength greater than 60 ksi and elongation greater than 6-8% (Selah [0017]).
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).
Element
Claim 1 wt%
Claim 5 wt%
Matsuki [0006] wt%
Selah [0010] wt%
Cr
0.40 to 1.5
0.40 to 1.5
0.1 to 20
0.2 to 0.6
Ag
0.10 to 1.0
0.10 to 1.0
0.005 to 0.25
Zr
Not included
More than 0 to 0.20
-
Up to 0.015
Cu
Balance
Balance
80 to 99.9
Balance
The preamble recitation of the copper alloy powder being for laminating and shaping has been considered and determined to recite the purpose or intended use of the claimed copper alloy powder that does not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Since the prior art anticipates the claimed copper alloy powder, then it is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble and it meets the claim. MPEP 2111.02(II).
Regarding claim 4, an adhesion of the copper alloy powder obtained from a failure envelope obtained by a shearing test being equal to or less than 0.600 kPa has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed copper alloy powder. The prior art discloses a copper alloy powder that renders claim 1 obvious (Matsuki [0001], [0006]-[0007], Table 1; Selah [0002], [0010], [0015]) such that the claimed properties naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including an adhesion of the copper alloy powder obtained from a failure envelope obtained by a shearing test being equal to or less than 0.600 kPa.
Regarding claim 5, Matsuki in view of Selah discloses the copper alloy powder further contains a zirconium element an amount of which is more than 0 wt % and equal to or less than 0.20 wt % (0.1 to 20 wt% of one or more of Ag, Cr, and Zr, Matsuki [0006]-[0007]; with up to 0.015 wt% Zr to further improve softening resistance, Selah [0010], [0015]). 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuki (JP 2001-131655 machine translation) in view of Selah (US 2007/0068609) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ma (CN 109112346 machine translation).
Regarding claim 2, Matsuki discloses an average particle size of 0.1 to 1 um as an appropriate particle size for a conductive paste that can form a uniform film thickness ([0006]-[0007]).
Matsuki is silent to a 50% particle size is equal to or more than 3 um and equal to or less than 200 um.
Ma discloses a copper alloy powder wherein a 50% particle size is equal to or more than 3 um and equal to or less than 200 um (1-50 micrometer) ([0021], [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the copper alloy powder of Matsuki to have a 50% particle size of 1-50 micrometer because it has good oxidation resistance (Ma [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).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuki (JP 2001-131655 machine translation) in view of Selah (US 2007/0068609) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishino (WO 2019/239655 machine translation).
Regarding claim 2, Matsuki discloses an average particle size of 0.1 to 1 um as an appropriate particle size for a conductive paste that can form a uniform film thickness ([0006]-[0007]).
Matsuki is silent to a 50% particle size is equal to or more than 3 um and equal to or less than 200 um.
Nishino discloses a copper alloy powder for laminating and shaping ([0001], [0012]) wherein a 50% particle size is equal to or more than 3 um and equal to or less than 200 um (10 um to 40 um) ([0013], [0024]-[0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the copper alloy powder of Matsuki to have a 50% particle size of 10 um to 40 um so that the powder is easily melted during laser irradiation, making it possible to improve the density of a molded object, the squeegeeing properties of the powder can be improved, improving the bulk density of a powder layer, the powder does not scatter during laser irradiation, and it does not have a problem of melting incompletely (Nishino [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).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (CN 109112346 machine translation).
Regarding claim 5, Ma discloses a copper alloy powder ([0070]) with an overlapping composition (Abstract, [0014], [0039]). 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).
Element
Claim 5 wt%
Ma [0014] wt%
Cr
0.40 to 1.5
0.6 to 1.5
Ag
0.10 to 1.0
0.5 to 2
Zr
More than 0 to 0.20
0.1 to 0.8
Cu
Balance
Balance
Ce
-
0.2 to 0.6
The preamble recitation of the copper alloy powder being for laminating and shaping has been considered and determined to recite the purpose or intended use of the claimed copper alloy powder that does not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Since the prior art anticipates the claimed copper alloy powder, then it is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble and it meets the claim. MPEP 2111.02(II).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishino (WO 2019/239655 machine translation).
Regarding claim 5, Nishino discloses a copper alloy powder for laminating and shaping (additive manufacturing) ([0001], [0012]), wherein the copper alloy powder contains a chromium element an amount of which is equal to or more than 0.40 wt% and equal to or less than 1.5 wt% (0.010 to 1.50%), a silver element an amount of which is equal to or more than 0.10 wt% and equal to or less than 1.0 wt% (0.01 to 1.0%), and a balance of pure copper and unavoidable impurities ([0013]-[0015], [0019]-[0023], [0029]) and the copper alloy powder further contains a zirconium element an amount of which is more than 0 wt% and equal to or less than 0.20 wt% (0.010 to 1.40%) ([0013]-[0014], [0019], [0021]-[0022]). 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishino (WO 2019/239655 machine translation) in view of Xu (Xu et al. Effect of Ag addition on the microstructure and mechanical properties of Cu-Cr alloy. Materials Science & Engineering A 726 (2018) 208-214.).
Regarding claim 5, Nishino discloses a copper alloy powder for laminating and shaping (additive manufacturing) ([0001], [0012]), wherein the copper alloy powder contains a chromium element an amount of which is equal to or more than 0.40 wt% and equal to or less than 1.5 wt% (0.010 to 1.50%), a silver element an amount of which is equal to or more than 0.10 wt% and equal to or less than 1.0 wt% (0.01 to 1.0%), and a balance of pure copper and unavoidable impurities ([0013]-[0015], [0019]-[0023], [0029]) and the copper alloy powder further contains a zirconium element an amount of which is more than 0 wt% and equal to or less than 0.20 wt% (0.010 to 1.40%) ([0013]-[0014], [0019], [0021]-[0022]).
Nishino discloses 0.01 to 1.0% Ag as an optional added component to improve light absorption characteristics ([0022]).
Xu discloses a Cu-Cr-Ag alloy with about 1.0 wt% Cr and about 0.05 to 0.4 wt% Ag (Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the alloy of Nishino to add 0.05 to 0.4 wt% Ag to the Cu-Cr alloy because Ag ameliorates the distribution of Cr precipitates in an as-cast Cu-Cr based alloy (Xu 3.1. Effects of Ag content on casting microstructure of Cu-Cr-based alloy), dissolves in the Cu matrix and promotes lattice distortions, narrowing down the strength gap between the matrix and Cr precipitates (Xu 3.2. Effect of Ag content on microstructure of cold-rolled Cu-Cr-based alloy), hinders the diffusion process of Cr atom, which can effectively inhibit the aggregation of Cr phases, enhancing the stability of the Cr-Cu-Ag alloys (Xu 3.3. Effect of Ag content on comprehensive properties of Cu-Cr-based alloys after aging treatment), improves mechanical properties within this range (4.1. Analysis on the relationship between Ag content and mechanical properties), and meets the need for high strength and high electrical conductivity (4.3. Comprehensive performance analysis of Cu-Cr-Ag alloys) (Abstract, 5. Conclusion).
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
Zuo (CN 109112346 machine translation)
Zuo discloses copper alloy powder for additive manufacturing ([0002], [0009]) with a composition of 99-99.99% Cu, 0-3 wt% one or more of Ag, Cr, W, and Ni, and 0.01-1% Zr ([0011], [0024], [0035], [0043]) with an average particle size of 15 um to 300 um ([0026], [0051]-[0052], [0059]).
Liu (CN 110872658 machine translation)
Liu discloses a copper alloy for powder metallurgy ([0002], [0021]) containing 1-5.0% Cr, 0.1-5.0% Zr, 0.05-0.5% of at least two of Mg, Ag, B, Ga, Si, Li, Ti, Fe, Mn, and RE ([0013]-[0014]) with a particle size less than or equal to 75 um ([0025]) and with high strength and high electrical conductivity ([0041]). In the examples of Liu M includes Ag ([0057]-[0065]).
Xie (CN 109957677 machine translation)
Xie discloses a Cu-Cr-Ag alloy wire ([0002], [0008]) with 0.31-0.45% Cr, 0.22-0.44% Ag, and balance Cu ([0010], [0030]).
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