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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has been entered. Claims 1-17 are pending. Amendment has overcome the objection to the specification for minor informalities.
Amendment does not appear to properly reflect the status of claim 13. As stated in the office action mailed July 14, 2025, claim 13 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 June 26, 2025. Claim 13 remains withdrawn from consideration. Applicant is further cautioned, that claim 13 is different from claim 13 presented for examination in that claim 13, present for examination depended only on claim 1, whereas preset claim 13 depends on any one of claims 1 to 12.
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.
Claim 17 is 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.
The term “finely and widely” in claim 17is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “finely and widely” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification does not establish how fine precipitates must be in order to be considered finely distributed, and the specification does not establish the spacing between precipitates in order for the distribution to be considered widely distributed.
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, 10, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuse (WO2022215468A1). Kuse is cited in prior office action(s). References to Kuse are directed to the examiner supplied English language translation which accompanied the office action mailed June 17, 2025.
Regarding claim 1, Kuse discloses a copper alloy powder for a metal AM process which is used for the metal AM process (abstract, claim 2, [0001], [0013]). Kuse discloses that the copper alloy powder comprises a copper alloy containing M where M is either Zr alone or Zr in combination with at least one other element selected from a group which includes Cr among the group’s members [0013-14], [0020]; therefore, Kuse discloses a copper alloy powder comprising Cr and Zr. Kuse discloses that the composition of M which encompasses a combination of Zr and Cr is 0.1 to 10% [0013], [0021], and preferably 0.1 to 5.0%, more preferably 0.1 to 2.0%, and even more preferably 0.2 to 2.0% [0021]. The broad composition range of 0.1-10% disclosed by Kuse [0013], [0021] encompasses and the narrow ranges disclosed by Kuse [0021] encompass or narrowly overlap a copper alloy having a composition containing 0.5 mass% or more and 1.5 mass% or less of Cr and 0.02 mass% or more and 0.2 mass% or less of Zr. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Kuse discloses a balance of copper and impurities (abstract, claim 1, [0013]). Copper (Cu) and impurities are the only elements which Kuse discloses as the balance (abstract, claim 1, [0013]); therefore, the balance disclosed by Kuse is a balance consisting of copper and impurities.
Kuse discloses a compound (oxide) entirely covering, and thereby formed on a surface of a copper alloy particle constituting the copper alloy powder [0031], and Kuse discloses M in this outermost layer [0031]; therefore, Kuse discloses a compound (oxide) comprising M. Kuse discloses that M comprises Zr and Cr [0013-14], [0021]. An oxide compound comprising Cr and Zr as disclosed by Kuse [0013-14], [0031] is a Cr compound; therefore, Kuse discloses a Cr compound layer including a Cr-containing compound is formed on a surface of a copper alloy particle constituting the copper alloy powder [0031]. Kuse discloses that aging an article formed of the alloy powder results in M or compounds of coper and M to form on grain boundaries, and thereby to some extent distribute, on grain boundaries [0045-47]. Kuse further discloses that the alloy powder itself is supersaturated [0020], [0036], thereby disclosing precipitation as thermodynamically stable, and Kuse discloses forming the alloy particles themselves by consolidating molten alloy constituents by gas atomization [0051]. Considering Kuse discloses forming the powder by a gas atomization process [0051], which requires at least bringing the alloy to a molten temperature; considering Kuse discloses that precipitates are thermodynamically stable (in disclosing the alloy is supersaturated [0020], [0036]), and considering Kuse discloses that precipitates of M or copper-M compounds form on grain boundaries [0045-47], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that at least some amount of M or copper-M compound precipitate on grain boundaries throughout the copper alloy particles, disclosed by Kuse, as applied above. Precipitates of M and copper-M particles throughout the powder particles, include precipitates on surface grains of those same particles. Kuse discloses that M comprises Zr and Cr [0013-14], [0021]; therefore, copper-M precipitates on grain boundaries include compounds of Cr which are precipitates. As the Cr-compound layer disclosed by Kuse is on the particle surface [0031] any Cr-compound precipitate which forms on the surface would be included in that layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the Cr-compound containing layer disclosed by Kuse [0031] includes a Cr-compound which is a precipitate containing Cr.
Regarding claim 2, an oxide compound comprising Cr and Zr as disclosed by Kuse [0013-14], [0031] comprises oxygen by definition of an oxide; there, Kuse discloses that the layer comprising the Cr compound, as applied to claim 1, further includes oxygen.
Regarding claim 3, Kuse discloses a compound (oxide) entirely covering, and thereby formed on a surface of a copper alloy particle constituting the copper alloy powder [0031], and Kuse discloses M in this outermost layer [0031]; therefore, Kuse discloses a compound (oxide) comprising M. Kuse discloses that M comprises Zr and Cr [0013-14], [0021]. An oxide compound comprising Cr and Zr as disclosed by Kuse [0013-14], [0031] is a Zr compound; therefore, Kuse discloses a Zr-containing compound is formed, and thereby distributed, on a surface of a copper alloy particle constituting the copper alloy powder [0031].
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Kuse discloses that aging an article formed of the alloy powder results in M or compounds of coper and M to form on grain boundaries, and thereby to some extent distribute, on grain boundaries [0045-47]. Kuse further discloses that the alloy powder itself is supersaturated [0020], [0036], thereby disclosing precipitation as thermodynamically stable, and Kuse discloses forming the alloy particles themselves by consolidating molten alloy constituents by gas atomization [0051]. Considering Kuse discloses forming the powder by a gas atomization process [0051], which requires at least bringing the alloy to a molten temperature; Kuse discloses that precipitates are thermodynamically stable (in disclosing the alloy is supersaturated [0020], [0036], and Kuse discloses that precipitates of M or copper-M compounds form on grain boundaries [0045-47], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, that at least some amount of M or copper-M compound precipitate on grain boundaries throughout the copper alloy particles, disclosed by Kuse, as applied to claim 1 above. Precipitates of M and copper-M particles throughout the powder particles, include precipitates on surface grains of those same particles. Kuse discloses that M comprises Zr and Cr [0013-14], [0021]; therefore, copper-M particles on grain boundaries include compounds of Cr and compounds of Zr.
Regarding claim 10, Kuse discloses that a 50% cumulative particle diameter D50 based on a volume, which is measured by a laser diffraction and scattering method, is set to be in a range of 10 μm to 100 μm [0034-35] which lies within the claimed range of 5 µm or more and 120 µm or less.
Regarding claim 14, Kuse discloses that the copper alloy powder includes Si: 0% to 0.2%; and P: 0% to 0.2% (abstract, [0013]), which overlaps the amounts recited in claim 14. Further, Kuse discloses that M is either Zr alone or Zr in combination with at least one selected from the group consisting of Cr, Fe, Ni, and Nb [0013-14], [0020] Kuse discloses that the composition of M is 0.1 to 10% [0013], [0021], and preferably 0.1 to 5.0%, more preferably 0.1 to 2.0%, and even more preferably 0.2 to 2.0% [0021]; therefore, even in embodiments disclosed by Kuse comprising Cr, the overall composition is open to additional amounts of Fe, Ni, or Nb in amounts overlapping claimed ranges. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 15, Kuse discloses that precipitates of M or copper-M compounds form on grain boundaries [0045-47]. As stated above in applying Kuse to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that at least some amount of M or copper-M compound precipitate on grain boundaries throughout the copper alloy particles, disclosed by Kuse, as applied above. Precipitates of M and copper-M particles throughout the powder particles, include precipitates on surface grains of those same particles; therefore, Cr-containing precipitates as applied to claim 1 are formed on a copper crystal grain boundary and a copper crystal grain surface on the surface of the copper alloy particle constituting the copper alloy powder
Claim(s) 6-7, 11-12, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuse (WO2022215468A1) as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Furukawa (WO2019239655A1). Furukawa is cited in the IDS filed February 11, 2025. References are directed to the examiner supplied English language translation, which accompanied prior office action(s).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Kuse discloses that precipitates which form may be precipitates of M [0045-47], and Kuse discloses that M comprises Zr and Cr [0013-14], [0020]; therefore, Kuse is open to precipitated compounds which contain Cr2Zr. Kuse does not disclose that precipitates contain Cr2Zr.
Furukawa teaches a copper alloy powder for a metal AM, which is used for the metal AM (claim 1, [0001], [0013]). Furukawa teaches the copper alloy powder comprises 0.010 to 1.50% Cr, 0.010 to 1.40% Zr, and the balance consisting of copper and unavoidable impurities [0013]. Furukawa teaches controlling compositions to avoid overly coarsening Cr2Zr precipitates [0020-21], and that the object formed by additively manufacturing the powder has Cr2Zr precipitates [0031]. Note Cr2Zr appears as "Cr<sub>２</sub>Zr” in the English language translation. Furukawa teaches that rapid solidification of the alloy still forms precipitates [0017].
Both Furukawa and Kuse teach a copper alloy powder for a metal AM with overlapping compositions. Kuse discloses reasons for deliberately forming precipitates in such a copper alloy [0045-47], and Kuse discloses forming the alloy powder by gas atomization [0051] which is a rapid solidification process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that at least some of the M precipitates which Kuse discloses form throughout the copper alloy [0045-47] contain Cr2Zr because Furukawa teaches that Cr2Zr precipitates are the Cr and Zr compounds that form in such an alloy [0013], [0020-21], [0031]. Furukawa teaches that such precipitates form in a process comprising rapid solidification of the alloy [0017], and the gas atomization by which Kuse forms the alloy powder [0051] is a process comprising rapid solidification of molten droplets into powder particles.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Kuse discloses that a 50% cumulative particle diameter D50 based on a volume, which is measured by a laser diffraction and scattering method, is set to be in a range of 10 μm to 100 μm [0034-35]. Kuse discloses that the particle size distribution is calculated up to 100% [0035]; therefore, the powder particles disclosed by Kuse have some D10 and D90 distributions, but Kuse is silent on the values of the D10 and D90 distributions.
Furukawa teaches a copper alloy powder for a metal AM, which is used for the metal AM (claim 1, [0001], [0013]). Furukawa teaches the copper alloy powder comprises 0.010 to 1.50% Cr, 0.010 to 1.40% Zr, and the balance consisting of copper and unavoidable impurities [0013]. Furukawa teaches that the powder has 50% particle size (d50) of 10 to 40 μm; a 10%particle size (d10) of 1 to 30 μm, and a 90% particle size (d90) of the cumulative particle size distribution of 30 to 70 μm [0013], [0027-28]. Furukawa teaches that the particle size distribution is measured on a volume basis [0013] measured by a laser diffraction and scattering method [0038]. Furukawa teaches that the particle size distribution improves the bulk density of the product additively manufactured with the taught powder [0027-28].
Both Furukawa and Kuse teach a copper alloy powder for a metal AM with overlapping compositions. The d50 disclosed by Kuse of 10 μm to 100 μm [0034-35] encompasses the d50 taught by Furukawa of 10-40 µm [0013]. Kuse considers the effects on the density of the additively manufactured article in determining particle size distribution [0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the powder disclosed by Kuse, as applied to claim 1, with a powder particle size distribution comprising a 50% particle size (d50) of 10 to 40 μm; a 10%particle size (d10) of 1 to 30 μm, and a 90% particle size (d90) of the cumulative particle size distribution of 30 to 70 μm [0013], [0027-28] because Furukawa teaches that such a distribution improves the density of an article additively manufactured with the powder comprising that distribution [0027-28]. A d10 of 1-30 23 µm lies entirely within the range recited in claim 11, and a d90 of 30-70 µm lies entirely within the range recited in claim 12.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Kuse in view of Furukawa is silent on the size and distribution of Cr2Zr precipitates. Precipitate shape and distribution are material properties that are inseparable from the chemical composition of the material. See MPEP2112.01(II). When the claimed and prior art products are substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP.2112.01(I). The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer See MPEP2112(I). Kuse discloses forming powder particles by melting alloy constituents and atomizing with argon [0036], [0051-53]. Furukawa teaches forming particles by melting alloy constituents and atomizing with inert gas [0038]. Considering the powder composition disclosed by Kuse [0013-14], [0020-21] and Furukawa [0013]; considering Furukawa’s teachings of avoiding coarsening precipitates [0020-21]; considering Furukawa’s teachings that such precipitates form in rapid solidification [0017]; considering Kuse discloses that the alloy particles are supersaturated [0020], [0036], and considering the steps of specifically producing the powder taught by Kuse [0036], [0051-53] and Furukawa [0038], the combined teachings of Kuse in view of Furukawa establish a sound basis for believing that the powder disclosed by Kuse in view of Furukawa would comprise fine, dot-shaped distributed on the surface of the copper alloy particle constituting the copper alloy powder. As it is not clear how far precipitates must be spaced in view of the present disclosure in order to be considered widely distributed (see above rejection under 35 USC 112(b)), and a distribution is necessarily either even or uneven, fine, dot-shaped distributed on the surface of the copper alloy particle meet the additional limitations recited in both claim 16 and claim 17.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuse (WO2022215468A1) as applied to claims 1, 3, and 5 above, and further in view of Inoue (US20140205492). Inoue is cited in prior office action(s).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Kuse discloses that precipitates which form may be precipitates of M [0045-47], and Kuse discloses Zr as an essential constituent of M [0013-14], [0020]; therefore, Kuse discloses precipitating some compound of copper (Cu) and zirconium (Zr). Kuse does not disclose the copper-zirconium compound contains Cu8Zr3.
Inoue teaches a copper-zirconium alloy comprising 0.3-1.4 wt% (0.2-1.0 at.%) Zr [0034]. Inoue teaches precipitating compounds of zirconium and copper [0004], [0012]. Inoue teaches that balancing the proportion of the dispersed phase in the alloy determines the electrical conductivity and strength of the alloy [0035]. Inoue teaches that the copper-zirconium phase preferably comprises Cu8Zr3 [0012-14], [0032-33]. Inoue teaches that proportion of copper-zirconium phases other than Cu8Zr3 are reduced [0033].
Both Inoue and Kuse teach copper alloys which form compounds of copper and zirconium. The compounds of copper and zirconium disclosed by Kuse [0045-47] must necessarily comprise some proportion of copper (Cu) atoms to zirconium (Zr) atoms.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Cu8Zr3 as the copper-zirconium compound disclosed by Kuse [0020], [0036], [0045-47], [0051] because the copper-zirconium compound disclosed by Kuse [0020], [0036], [0045-47], [0051] must necessarily have some proportion of copper to zirconium, and Inoue teaches that a Cu8Zr3 dispersed phase in the copper alloy determines the electrical conductivity and strength of the alloy [0035].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC 103 over Kuse (WO2022215468A1), applicant argues that “That is, the Cr compound layer is made from precipitates containing Cr and the Cr compound layer is different from an oxide film which covers an entire surface of the copper alloy powder”. This argument is not persuasive because Kuse discloses that precipitates form in the alloy [0045-47], particularly noting that precipitates form from the alloy with heat [0045]. Kuse further teaches that the alloy powder is supersaturated [0020-21], [0036], thereby indicating that a separate phase is thermodynamically preferred by definition of supersaturated. Kuse discloses that the precipitate is “a compound of Cu and the element M” [0045], and that M comprises Cr [0020-21]. Kuse also discloses forming the powder by cooling from a molten state [0051-53], which necessarily requires heating alloy constituents to arrive at the molten state. Considering Kuse discloses a supersaturated alloy which forms Cr precipitates upon heating, the disclosure of Kuse in view of the physical reality of supersaturated precipitate-forming compositions is sufficient to establishes that the Cr compound layer (a layer of Cr oxide is a Cr compound layer) formed on a surface of a copper alloy particle constituting the copper alloy powder disclosed by Kuse [0031] including at least some Cr-containing compound, which is precipitates containing Cr. The oxide layer disclosed by Kuse [0031] comprising at least some amount of a Cr-containing precipitate is not a modification of Kuse because Kuse teaches that those compositions form such precipitates [0045-47].
Claim 1 does not exclude a Cr compound layer comprising both Cr oxide and a Cr precipitate. Applicant’s arguments with reference to claim 2 admit that the compound layer may comprise an oxide. As worded, claim 1 requires that a Cr-compound layer exists on the surface and that the Cr-compound layer to some extent include some Cr-containing compound, which is precipitates containing Cr. Any small amount of a Cr containing precipitate in the Cr oxide layer rendered obvious by Kuse [0020-21], [0031] meets this limitation.
Further, Kuse discloses that the oxide layer is a compound of M and oxygen [0031]. Kuse therefore discloses that some amount of M is in a different phase from the alloy overall alloy particle, thereby disclosing that M precipitates out of the Cu alloy.
Arriving at an alloy particle comprising Cr precipitates from a prior art reference (Kuse) which discloses that the alloy forms M precipitates [0020-21], [0045-47] does not amount to undue experimentation.
As applicant also argues that cited reference in combination would not lead one of skill in the art to the precipitates, applicant is reminded that Furukawa (WO2019239655A1) [0013], [0017], [0020-21], [0031] also teaches that such an alloy powder forms Cr-containing precipitates.
Arguments that nothing in the cited art would have lead one of ordinary skill in the art to the features of new claims 15-17 without undue experimentation are not persuasive because Kuse discloses that the precipitation occurs on the grain boundaries [0045-47], and Furukawa teaches avoiding coarsening the precipitates [0020-21]. The composition, precipitation, and process limitations disclosed by Kuse in view of Furukawa, applied above is sufficient to establish a sound basis for believing that some, fine precipitates would form in the particles disclosed by the combination of Kuse in view of Furukawa.
Applicant acknowledges rejection of dependent claims but does not argue limitations specifically recited in dependent claims in relation to prior art.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN P O'KEEFE whose telephone number is (571)272-7647. The examiner can normally be reached MR 8:00-6:30.
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.
/SEAN P. O'KEEFE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/ SPE, Art Unit 1738