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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 8-12 and 17-20 in the reply filed on 6/9/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-7 and 13-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/9/2026.
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.
Claims 8-12, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 102039418A, hereinafter “Liu”) in view of Hu et al. (CN 104762486A, hereinafter “Hu”).
The Examiner is providing machine translations of CN102039418A and CN104762486A).
Regarding claims 8, 9, 10, 12, and 20, Liu teaches a method for preparing copper powder by vacuum evaporation of pure copper including under a vacuum of 2-30 Pa and a heating rate of 20-40°C/min, pure copper is heated to 1200-1250°C and held for 10-20 minutes to remove low-boiling-point impurities from the surface of the copper, then heated again to 1300-1700°C at a heating rate of 40-60°C/min for 30-90 minutes, and then further heated to 1500-1800°C to turn it into copper vapor (Liu, [0003], [0012], and Examples 1, 2, and 3). Lui then teaches under conditions of vacuum, the copper vapor is cooled to room temperature to obtain copper powder, with a spherical, near-spherical, or flake-shape with an average particle size of 1.7µm (Liu, [0013-0014]).
While Liu teaches the use of vacuum distillation for the recovery of pure copper powder (Liu, [0003]), Liu does not explicitly disclose wherein an evaporation orifice plate is provided between a condensation plate and the evaporation chamber, and the evaporation orifice plate has a pore size of 1 mm to 10 mm.
With respect to the difference, Hu teaches a vacuum distillation purification apparatus and metal vacuum distillation purification (Hu, [0002]). Hu teaches the vacuum distillation device comprises the heating furnace 9, i.e., evaporation chamber, a crucible 8 with a crucible lid 6, and a condensing plate 4 (Hu, Figure 1 and [0035]). Hu also teaches a series of small holes are evenly distributed on the crucible lid 6, wherein at least 20 holes are present with a diameter of at least 10 mm (Hu, [0037]).
As Hu expressly teaches, the function of the holes in the crucible lid is to reduce the evaporation rate of the metal and ensure the smooth progress of distillation (Hu, [0037]).
Liu and Hu are analogous art as they are both directed to the vacuum distillation of metals within a vacuum distillation device (Liu, [0003]; Hu, [0002]).
In light of the motivation to include a crucible with a lid containing holes as taught in Hu above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a crucible lid containing holes in the vacuum distillation process of Liu in order to reduce the evaporation rate of the metal and ensure the smooth progress of distillation (Hu, [0037]), and thereby arrive at the present invention.
The method of Liu in view of Hu corresponds to a method for preparing high-purity copper particles of claim 8. Placing the copper into the vacuum chamber of Liu corresponds to adding a metallic copper raw material into an evaporation chamber of a vacuum distillation furnace of claim 8.
The vacuum distillation device, condensing plate, and crucible with crucible lid containing holes of at least 10mm of Liu in view of Hu corresponds to and overlaps with wherein an evaporation orifice plate is provided between a condensation plate and the evaporation chamber, and the evaporation orifice plate has a pore size of 1 mm to 10 mm of claim 8.
Vacuum distilling the copper at the above pressures and temperatures of Liu corresponds to subjecting the metallic copper raw material to vacuum distillation to obtain the high-purity copper particles on the condensation plate, wherein the vacuum distillation is conducted at a vacuum degree of 0.1 Pa to 100 Pa and a temperature of 1,100 °C to 1,800 °C of claim 8. The particle size of the copper powder of Liu falls within wherein the high-purity copper particles have a particle size of 1 µm to 100 µm of claim 8 and wherein the particle size of the high-purity copper particles is in a range of 1 µm to 10 µm of claim 12.
Given the heating process of Liu can be conducted for a total of 40-110 minutes, this falls within wherein the vacuum distillation is conducted for 0.5h to 3h of claim 9. The heating rate being 20-40°C/min of Liu overlaps with wherein the metallic copper raw material is heated to the temperature for the vacuum distillation at a heating rate of 5 °C/min to 20 °C/min of claim 10 and claim 20.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fe. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 11, Liu teaches the starting material is a pure copper, i.e., containing ≥99.5% copper, by first removing an oxide layer, soaking in hydrochloric acid, rinsing with anhydrous ethanol, washing with distilled water, then vacuum drying to provide the pure copper for the process of vacuum distillation (Liu, [0009-0011]). Given that electrolytic cathode copper is a high-purity copper material, the pure copper of Liu would correspond to the electrolytic cathode copper of claim 11.
Regarding claim 17, given that Liu in view of Hu teaches a series of small holes are evenly distributed on the crucible lid 6, wherein at least 20 holes are present with a diameter of at least 10 mm (Hu, [0037]), one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine the porosity based on the total number of holes, the size of the crucible lid, and the diameter of the holes and thereby arrive at a porosity that overlaps with 0.138-13.80% of claim 17. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fe. Cir. 1990).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Hu as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Whitney (US 2647862, hereinafter “Whitney”).
Regarding claim 18, while Liu in view of Hu teach the use of a crucible lid with holes within a vacuum distillation chamber (Hu, [0035-0037]), Liu and Hu do not explicitly disclose wherein the evaporation orifice plate has a shape of a conical disc; and a vertex of the conical disc is above a bottom surface of the conical disc.
With respect to the difference, Whitney teaches a vacuum distillation apparatus comprising a conical shaped evaporating plate 11, where the plate contains at least one orifice, suitable for the passage of internal diffusion pump vapors (Whitney, Column 3, lines 26-30 and Figure 1).
Liu, Hu, and Whitney are analogous art as all are directed to recovering elements using a vacuum distillation apparatus (Liu, [0003]; Hu, [0002]; Whitney, Column 1, lines 1-5).
In light of the disclosure of Whitney of using a conical shaped evaporating plate, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the conical evaporating plate as the crucible lid in Liu in view of Hu in a vacuum distillation process, and thereby arrive at the present invention.
Regarding claim 19, since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the dimension, i.e., vertical distance of the lowest and highest point of the evaporation orifice plate, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the dimension of a component. A change in dimension is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Change in size and shape is not patently distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). MPEP 2144.04 IV(A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE CARDA whose telephone number is (571)270-1240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-4:00 EST.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/DANIELLE M. CARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights