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. Election/Restrictions and Status of Claims Applicant’s election of FILLIN "Indicate the elected group or claims." \d "[ 1 ]" Invention I, claims 1-5 in the reply filed on FILLIN "Indicate the filing date of the reply." \d "[ 2 ]" 3/11/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claim FILLIN "Enter claim identification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 6 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected FILLIN "Enter the appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on FILLIN "Enter mail date of the reply." \* MERGEFORMAT 3/11/26 . As such, c laims 1-5 are examined in this office action of which claims 3 - 5 were amended in the preliminary amendment dated 9 / 12 / 23 . Drawings The drawings are objected to because the makings in FIG s . 2-3 and 5- 7 are incorrect. Citing a single figure number at the top of the page followed by (a), (b), (c), and (d) are not proper ways of labeling different views. Partial views intended to form one complete view, on one or several sheets, must be identified by the same number followed by a capital letter. View numbers must be preceded by the abbreviation "FIG." for example FIG. 7A, FIG 7B and so on, see MPEP § 608.02 and 37 C.F.R. 1.84(u)(1) . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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 ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim s 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0355690 A1 of Nakako . As to claim 1 , with respect to the limitation of a copper paste for forming a sintered copper pillar, the claim preamble must be read in the context of the entire claim. The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or mere statements of purpose or use "can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the [record] to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim" as drafted without importing "'extraneous' limitations from the specification." Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d at 1257, 9 USPQ2d at 1966. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999), see MPEP § 2111.02(II) . In the instant case, the claim fully sets forth the structure of the copper paste and the recitation of “for forming a sintered copper pillar” is merely a statement of purpose or intended use. Nakako discloses a copper paste containing metal particles, and a dispersion medium, and the metal particles include sub-micro copper particles and micro copper particles ( Nakako , paragraph [0035]), meeting the claim limitations of a copper paste comprising copper particles and a dispersion medium . Nakako discloses where the dispersion medium contains a solvent having a boiling point of higher than or equal to 300° C and discloses where the solvent is isobornyl cyclohexanol (MTPH), butyl stearate, stearyl stearate, 2-ethyl hexyl stearate, isotridecyl stearate, isooctadecanol , 2-hexyl decanol , tributyrin, tetraethylene glycol, heptadecane, octadecane, nonadecane, eicosane, heneicosane , docosane , methyl heptadecane, tridecyl cyclohexane, tetradecyl cyclohexane, pentadecyl cyclohexane, hexadecyl cyclohexane, undecyl benzene, dodecyl benzene, tetradecyl benzene, tridecyl benzene, pentadecyl benzene, hexadecyl benzene, heptadecyl benzene, nonyl naphthalene, diphenyl propane, octyl octanoate, methyl myristate, ethyl myristate, methyl linoleate, methyl stearate, triethylene glycol bis(2-ethyl hexanoate), tributyl citrate, pentyl phenol, dibutyl sebacate , oleyl alcohol, cetyl alcohol, methoxy phenethyl alcohol, benzyl phenol, hexadecanitrile , heptadecanitrile , benzyl benzoate, and cinmethylin ( Nakako , paragraph [0065]), meeting the limitation of where this is an organic dispersion medium as these are organic compounds. Nakako discloses where the metal particles include sub-micro copper particles, micro copper particles, and metal particles other than such copper particles ( Nakako , paragraph [0037]). Nakako discloses where the sub-micro copper particles include copper particles having a particle diameter of greater than or equal to 0.01 μm and less than or equal to 0.8 μm ( Nakako , paragraph [0039]), overlapping the claimed range of first sub-micro copper particles having a volume- average particle size of 0.05 to 0.35 μm . Nakako discloses where the metal particles may include metal particles other than the sub-micro copper particles and the micro copper particles, and for example, may include copper nanoparticles with a volume average particle size of greater than or equal to 0.05 μm and less than or equal to 3 μm ( Nakako , paragraph [0061]), overlapping the claimed range of second sub-micro copper particles having a volume- average particle size of 0.5 to 1.5 μm . Nakako discloses that c opper particles having a particle diameter of greater than or equal to 2.0 μm and less than or equal to 1 0 μm can be used as the micro copper particles ( Nakako , paragraph [0052]), overlapping the claimed range of micro copper particles having a volume- average particle size of 2 to 5 μm as the micro copper particles . Nakako discloses where the micro copper particles have a spherical shape ( Nakako , paragraph [0055]), meeting the limitation of spherical micro copper particles. Nakako discloses where t h e content of the sub-micro copper particles may be greater than or equal to 20 mass % and less than or equal to 90 mass % on the basis of the total mass of the metal particles ( Nakako , paragraph [0041]), overlapping the claimed range of a content of the first sub-micro copper particles is 40 to 70 % by mass on the basis of the total mass of the copper particles . Nakako discloses where the other metal particles content may be less than 20 mass % on the basis of the total mass of the metal particles ( Nakako , paragraph [0061]), overlapping the claimed range of a content of the second sub-micro copper particles is 10 to 40 % by mass on the basis of the total mass of the copper particles. Nakako discloses that the content of the micro copper particles may be greater than or equal to 15 mass % and less than or equal to 65 mass % on the basis of the total mass of the metal particles ( Nakako , paragraph [0053]), overlapping the claimed range of a content of the spherical micro copper particles is 15 to 45 % by mass on the basis of the total mass of the copper particles. As Nakako discloses overlapping sizes for copper particles in the paste and discloses overlapping amounts for each of the three types of copper particles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select within these overlapping ranges to reach the claimed invention. “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”, see MPEP § 2144.05(I) . As to claim 2 , Nakako discloses where the sub-micro copper particles have a spherical shape ( Nakako , paragraph [0043]), meeting the claim limitation of the first sub-micro copper particles have a spherical shape. With respect to the metal particles other than the sub-micro copper particles and the micro copper particles, Nakako discloses that the shape of these particles is not particularly limited ( Nakako , paragraph [0061]). As Nakako also discloses that flake-like sub-micro particles can be used and they have improved dispersibility and filling properties ( Nakako , paragraph [0046]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use copper nanoparticles as the other metal particles with a flake shape as disclosed by Nakako , thereby improving dispersibility and filling of the powder bed ( Nakako , paragraph [0046]). As to claim 3 , as Nakako discloses that the content of the micro copper particles may be greater than or equal to 15 mass % and less than or equal to 65 mass % on the basis of the total mass of the metal particles ( Nakako , paragraph [0053]), this means that the ratio of the spherical micro copper particles to the total of the first and second sub-micro copper particles is 15/85=0.176 to 65/35=1.85, overlapping the claimed range of 0.20 to 0.50 . . “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”, see MPEP § 2144.05(I) . As to claim 4 , as Nakako discloses where t h e content of the sub-micro copper particles may be greater than or equal to 20 mass % and less than or equal to 90 mass % on the basis of the total mass of the metal particles ( Nakako , paragraph [0041]) and Nakako discloses where the other metal particles content may be less than 20 mass % on the basis of the total mass of the metal particles ( Nakako , paragraph [0061]), this means that that Nakako discloses a range of second sub-micro copper particles to first sub-micro copper particles of 0/90= 0 to 20/20=1, overlapping the claimed range of 0.15 to 0.4 5. “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”, see MPEP § 2144.05(I) . As to claim 5 , Nakako discloses where the content of the dispersion medium may be 5 parts by mass to 50 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the total mass of the metal particles ( Nakako , paragraph [0071]). This means that the percentage would be from 4.7% (5 parts dispersion medium / 105 parts total) to 33.3% (50 parts dispersion medium / 150 parts total) overlapping the claimed range of a content of the organic dispersion medium is 5 to 70 % by mass on the basis of the total mass of the copper paste . “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”, see MPEP § 2144.05(I) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Joshua S Carpenter whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2724 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Keith Hendricks can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /JOSHUA S CARPENTER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1733 /JOPHY S. KOSHY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733