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 .
Detail Action
Claims 1-7 remain for examination, wherein claims 1 and 6 are independent claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “BET” should written in full term. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In the instant case, Claim 6 recites the limitation "acid is allowed to be present” on ln.7 of the instant claim, which is not clear since “is allowed” is not a positive limitation. Since claim 7 depends on claim 6, it is also rejected. Proper amendment is necessary.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakaue et al (US-PG-pub 2007/0208475 A1, thereafter PG’475).
Regarding claims 6-7, PG’475 teaches “a method for producing the flaky copper powder comprises four steps: a first step of preparing an aqueous solution containing a copper salt and complexing agent; a second step of adding an alkali hydroxide to the aqueous solution to prepare a first slurry containing cupric oxide; a third step of adding a first reducing agent which can reduce the cupric oxide into cuprous oxide to the first slurry to prepare a second slurry containing cuprous oxide; and a fourth step of adding a second reducing agent which can reduce the cuprous oxide into copper to the second slurry to provide a flaky copper powder, wherein phosphoric acid and its salt are added in at least one of the first to third steps and/or in the second slurry in the fourth step.” (Abstract and examples of PG’475”, which reads on all the claimed limitations including first reducing step producing cuprous oxide; second reducing step producing copper powder; and presenting phosphoric acid and its salt in the process steps (cl.6) operating in the same reduction system (cl.7). Since PG’475 teaches all of the essential process limitations as claimed in the instant claims, claims 6-7 are anticipated by PG’475.
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 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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PG475 in view of Yoshida et al (US-PG-pub 2020/0122236 A1, thereafter PG’236).
Regarding claim 1, PG’475 teaches a flaky copper powder with an average particle diameter D50 of the powder is in the range from 0.3 to 7 mm. and the flaky copper powder of the present invention preferably has a crystallite diameter of the powder is 25 nm or more. (par.[0016]-[0017] of PG’475, which reads on the copper particles mainly comprising a copper element with the ration of the crystallite size over particle size 0.23 or less as claimed in the instant claim. PG’475 specify conducting X-ray diffraction for flaky copper powder sample and the crystallite diameter in this specification means the average crystallite diameter obtained from the half-value width of the diffraction angle of each crystal face obtained by conducting X-ray diffraction for flaky copper powder sample. (par.[0034] and [0089] of PG’475), which reads on the claimed XRD diffraction measurement and measuring method applying half-value width of the diffraction angle for the crystallite size as claimed in the instant claim. PG’475 does not specify calculating the crystallite size with different XRD peaks with Scherrer equation as claimed in the instant claim. However, applying Scherrer equation to calculate crystallite size with different XRD peaks for nano size Cu powder is well-known technique as demonstrated by PG’236. PG’236 teaches a copper powder and a method for producing the same (Abstract, claims, and examples of PG’236) and PG’236 teaches producing spherical fine metal copper particles having a BET diameter of 3 μm or less and a crystalline diameter of 0.1 to 10 μm (par.[0004] of PG’236). PG’236 specify that the crystallite diameter (Dx) of the copper powder was obtained by the Scherrer equation (Dhk1=Kλ/β cos θ) and the peak data of each plane of the (111) plane, (200) plane and (220) plane were used for carrying out calculation (par.[0052] of PG’236). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the well-known technique, that is to calculate crystallite size with different XRD peaks with Scherrer equation as demonstrated by PG’236 for the copper powder of PG’475 since both of PG’236 and PG’475 indicate the same copper powder with nano crystallite as claimed throughout whole disclosing range. The ratio of S1/S2 depended on the Cu powder and related manufacturing process. Since PG’475 teaches the same Cu powder with nano crystallite manufactured by the same reducing process (refer to the rejection for the claim 6-7 above). The claimed ratio would be highly expected for the Cu powder PG’475 in view of Pg’236). MPEP 2112 01 and 2145 II.
Regarding claim 2, PG’475 indicates the average particle diameter D50 of the powder is in the range from 0.3 to 7 mm (par.[0016] of PG’475), which overlaps the claimed particle size range of 100 nm-500 nm as claimed in the instant claim. Overlapping in particle size creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144 05 I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the particle size from the disclosure of PG’475 since PG’475 teaches the same copper powder as claimed throughout whole disclosing range.
Regarding claim 3, applying Scherrer equation to calculate crystallite size with different XRD peaks for nano size Cu powder is well-known technique as demonstrated by PG’236. PG’236 teaches a copper powder and a method for producing the same (Abstract, claims, and examples of PG’236) and PG’236 teaches producing spherical fine metal copper particles having a BET diameter of 3 μm or less and a crystalline diameter of 0.1 to 10 μm (par.[0004] of PG’236). PG’236 specify that the crystallite diameter (Dx) of the copper powder was obtained by the Scherrer equation (Dhk1=Kλ/β cos θ) and the peak data of each plane of the (111) plane, (200) plane and (220) plane were used for carrying out calculation (par.[0052] of PG’236). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the well-known technique, that is to calculate crystallite size with different XRD peaks with Scherrer equation as demonstrated by PG’236 for the copper powder of PG’475 since both of PG’236 and Pg’475 indicate the same copper powder with nano crystallite as claimed throughout whole disclosing range. The ratio of S1/S3 depended on the Cu powder and related manufacturing process. Since PG’475 teaches the same Cu powder with nano crystallite manufactured by the same reducing process (refer to the rejection for the claim 6-7 above). The claimed ratio would be highly expected for the Cu powder PG’475 in view of PG’236). MPEP 2112 01 and 2145 II.
Regarding claim 4, PG’475 specify applying hydrazine carbonate for producing the flaky copper powder in the reduction process (par.[0026] of pG’475). Zero to trace amount carbon in the flaky copper powder reads on the claimed 1000 ppm or less carbon amount in the copper particles as claimed in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 5, PG’475 indicates the flaky copper powder of the present invention contains P normally at 10 to 200 ppm (par.[0038] of PG’475). 200ppm P disclosed by PG’475 is close to the low limit 300 ppm of P as claimed in the instant claim which creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144 05 I. therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the amount of P in the copper powder from the disclosure of PG’475 since PG’475 teaches the same copper powder as claimed throughout whole disclosing range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIE YANG whose telephone number is (571) 270-1884. The examiner can normally be reached on IFP.
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, Jonathan J Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1177. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734