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 Claims 1-5, and 7-16 are pending, of which claims 12-14 remain withdrawn from consideration. Amendment has overcome the rejection of claim 2 under 35 USC 112(d) and of dependent claim 2 under 35 USC 103.
Claim Interpretation
Paragraph [0001] of the specification defines “metal AM” as “metal additive manufacturing”; therefore, all claimed instances of “metal AM” will be interpreted as “metal additive manufacturing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 as amended claims “any one or both of the CrSi-based compound and the NiSi-based compound are precipitated on a copper crystal grain surface, and not on the copper crystal grain boundary, of the surface of the copper alloy particle constituting the copper alloy powder.” The disclosure is insufficient to show that an inventor or a joint inventor, at the time of filing, was in possession of a copper alloy powder wherein any one or both of the CrSi-based compound and the NiSi-based compound are precipitated on a copper crystal grain surface and that same any one or both of the CrSi-based compound and the NiSi-based compound are precipitated is not precipitated on the copper crystal grain boundary, of the surface of the copper alloy particle.
Paragraph [0036], of the present disclosure, which applicant cites for support for the amendment states “The copper alloy powder for the metal AM of the present embodiment is an aggregate of particles constituted with a copper alloy containing Cr, Si, and Ni, and any one or both of a CrSi-based compound containing Cr and Si and a NiSi-based compound containing Ni and Si are precipitated on a copper crystal grain boundary of a surface of a copper alloy particle constituting the copper alloy powder for the metal AM. In the copper alloy powder for the metal AM of the present embodiment, it is preferable that any one or both of the CrSi-based compound containing Cr and Si and the NiSi-based compound containing Ni and Si are also precipitated on the copper crystal grain of the surface of the copper alloy particle constituting the copper alloy powder [emphasis added].”
Paragraph [0044], of the present disclosure which applicant cites for support for the amendment states “Any one or both of the CrSi- based compound containing Cr and Si and the NiSi-based compound containing Ni and Si are dispersed on both of a copper crystal grain boundary and a copper crystal grain (a copper crystal grain surface) [emphasis added].”
Applicant appears to point to Figs. 3A-3F of the present disclosure for support for claim 2. Paragraph [0108] of the present disclosure, which describes Figs. 3A-3F states “FIGS. 3A and 3B, it is found that, on the particle outermost surface before ion etching, the Cr-based precipitate is distributed on the copper crystal grain boundary and on the copper crystal grain (copper crystal grain surface) [emphasis added] in an island shape”.
All embodiments of the alloy particle described in the disclosure as filed precipitate Any one or both of the CrSi- based compound containing Cr and Si and the NiSi-based compound containing Ni and Si on the grain boundaries when the precipitates form. The disclosure as filed is not sufficient to show that an inventor or joint inventor at the time of filing was in possession of alloy particles wherein precipitates are present on grain surface yet somehow those same precipitates are absent from the grain boundaries. The disclosure as filed does not present grain boundary precipitation as an alternative to grain surface precipitation, nor does the disclosure suggest that grain surface precipitation may occur without grain boundary precipitation. It is clear from the disclosure as filed that “Any one or both of the CrSi- based compound containing Cr and Si and the NiSi-based compound containing Ni and Si” refers to a choice between the CrSi- based compound and the NiSi-based compound, as indicated by claim 1 as originally filed and not a choice between precipitate locations.
While examples indicate that measurements can determine the presence or absence of the precipitates, the examples do not show an example wherein precipitates are present on a copper crystal grain surface, and absent from copper crystal grain boundary, of the surface of the copper alloy particle constituting the copper alloy powder.
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, 3-5, 7-8, 11, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li’764 (CN111151764A). Li’764 is cited in prior office action(s). References to Li’764 are directed to the examiner supplied English language translation, which accompanied prior office action(s).
Regarding claim 1, Li’764 discloses a copper alloy powder for a metal AM, which is used for the metal AM (abstract, [0004-05]). Li’764 discloses that the copper alloy powder comprises a copper alloy containing Cr, Si, and Ni, as alloy elements (abstract, claim 1, [0010]). Li’764 discloses that the copper alloy has a composition containing Cr in a range of 0-0.5 mass%, Si in a range of 0.4-1.5 mass%, and Ni in a range of 1-5 mass% (claim 1, [0010]), which overlaps/encompasses Cr in a range of 0.1 mass% or more and 0.8 mass% or less, Si in a range of 0.4 mass% or more and 0.8 mass% or less, Ni in a range of 1.8 mass% or more and 3.0 mass% or less. 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). Li’764 discloses that the balance is Cu (claim 1, [0010]), that the alloy comprises some, low amount of impurities (abstract, [0018]), and Li’764 does not disclose any further essential constituents of the alloy, thereby disclosing a balance of copper and impurities.
Li’764 discloses that the copper alloy powder are copper alloy powder particles (abstract, claim 1, [0012]). Li’764 discloses that the Si and Ni in a CuNiSi alloy form the compound Ni2Si, and that the solubility of NI2Si in the alloy is 0.5% at room temperature [0004]; therefore, at least some NiSi-based compound precipitate containing Ni and Si will form in the alloy powder disclosed by Li’764. Li’764 is silent on where the compounds precipitate with respect to the surface or metallurgical grains of the alloy. Intermetallic precipitates formation is a material property that is inseparable from the chemical composition of the material and the process of manufacturing 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). Li’764 discloses producing the powder from molten alloy components by inert gas atomization [0012] with low amounts of oxygen and nitrogen (abstract, [0014], [0018]). The present disclosure attributes compound distribution to atomizing molten alloy materials with low amounts of oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and sulfur (paragraph [0068] of the present disclosure), and the present disclosure forms the powder from molten alloy components by inert gas atomization [0067]. Considering the readiness of such an alloy to form a NiSi-based compound disclosed by Li’764 [0004]; considering the low solubility of such a compound disclosed by Li’764 [0004], and considering Li’764 discloses producing the alloy powder by inert gas atomization with low amounts of oxygen and nitrogen (abstract, [0012], [0014], [0018]), Li’764 establishes a sound basis for believing that at least one NiSi-based compound containing Ni and Si is on at least one copper crystal grain boundary of at least one surface of the copper alloy particle constituting the copper alloy powder disclosed by Li’764.
Regarding claim 3, Li’764 discloses that the Si and Ni in a CuNiSi alloy form the compound Ni2Si, and that the solubility of NI2Si in the alloy is 0.5% at room temperature [0004]; therefore, at least some NiSi-based compound precipitate containing Ni and Si will form in the alloy powder disclosed by Li’764. Li’764 is silent on where the compounds are located within some surface layer of copper particles. Intermetallic precipitates formation is a material property that is inseparable from the chemical composition of the material and the process of manufacturing 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). Li’764 discloses producing the powder from molten alloy components by inert gas atomization [0012] with low amounts of oxygen and nitrogen (abstract, [0014], [0018]). The present disclosure attributes compound distribution to atomizing molten alloy materials with low amounts of oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and sulfur (paragraph [0068] of the present disclosure), and the present disclosure forms the powder from molten alloy components by inert gas atomization [0067]. Considering the readiness of such an alloy to form a NiSi-based compound disclosed by Li’764 [0004]; considering the low solubility of such a compound disclosed by Li’764 [0004], and considering Li’764 discloses producing the alloy powder by inert gas atomization with low amounts of oxygen and nitrogen (abstract, [0012], [0014], [0018]), Li’764 establishes a sound basis for believing that some layer containing the at least one NiSi-based compound containing Ni and Si is formed on the surface of the copper alloy particle.
Regarding claim 4, Li’764 discloses that the particles comprise a low amount of oxygen and that oxygen leads to oxide formation on the particles (abstract, [0014], [0018]), thereby disclosing that particles comprise at least impurity amounts of oxygen. The presence of oxygen in a particle is a material property that is inseparable from the chemical composition of the material and the process of manufacturing 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). Within the present disclosure both the raw material and an article manufactured from the powder have a low oxygen content of preferably 10 ppm or less (paragraph [0066], [0069] of the present disclosure). Li’764 discloses producing the powder from molten alloy components by inert gas atomization [0012], and the present disclosure forms the powder from molten alloy components by inert gas atomization (paragraph [0067] of the present disclosure). Considering the oxygen properties which Li’764 discloses for the powder particle [0014], [0018], the chemical composition disclosed by Li’764 [0010], and the powder production method disclosed by Li’764 [0012], Li’764 establishes a sound basis for believing that a surface layer of the coper alloy powder particles disclosed by Li’764 applied above comprises oxygen in at least some trace amounts.
Regarding claim 5, Li’764 discloses NISi compounds as precipitates [0004]. As metallurgical precipitates are separate phases, NiSi compounds would be observable on grain boundaries of the alloy particles. As the precipitates structurally would be present on grain boundaries regardless of how the precipitates are observed, the copper alloy particles with precipitate NiSi particles disclosed by Li’764 would meet the structure wherein, in a cross-sectional observation of the copper alloy particle constituting the copper alloy powder, the NiSi-based compound are distributed on the copper crystal grain boundary.
Regarding claim 7, when the limitations of claim 7 are incorporated into claim 2, the limitations on the compound state: any one or both of the CrSi-based compound and the NiSi-based compound are precipitated on a copper crystal grain of the surface of the copper alloy particle constituting the copper alloy powder, wherein the CrSi-based compound contains Cr3Si. As worded, claim 7 may be met by a NiSi-based compound regardless of whether or not the alloy itself comprises Cr3Si. Li’764 discloses that such CuNiSi alloy form the compound Ni2Si [0004], which is a NiSi-based compound.
If claim 7 were limited to require a Cr3Si compound, Li’764 is silent on the presence of Cr3Si. The chemical identity of a precipitated intermetallic is a material property that is 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). Li’764 discloses producing the powder from molten alloy components by inert gas atomization [0012] with low amounts of oxygen and nitrogen (abstract, [0014], [0018]). The present disclosure states “in the present embodiment, as described above, since the atomizing treatment is performed using the molten alloy derived from the copper alloy raw material, in which the amount of the impurity element (excluding O, H, S, and N) is sufficiently reduced, Cr or Si is suppressed from being consumed by reacting with the impurity element (excluding 0, H, S, and N), and the CrSi-based compound containing Cr and Si and the NiSi-based compound containing Ni and Si can be precipitated on at least the copper crystal grain boundary of the particle surface of the copper alloy powder” (paragraph [0068] of the disclosure as filed). Considering the chemical composition disclosed by LI’764 [0010] and the low oxygen and nitrogen content disclosed by Li’764 (abstract, [0014], [0018]), Li’764 establishes a sound basis for believing that the silicon would of the alloy would be consumed by the Cr and Ni of the alloy disclosed by Li’764 [0010], thereby establishing a sound basis for believing that at least trace amounts of Cr3Si would precipitate on grain boundaries.
Regarding claim 8, Li’764 discloses that the NiSi-based compound Ni2Si forms in such copper alloys [0004]. Li’764 is silent on whether any Ni5Si2 forms. The chemical identity of a precipitated intermetallic is a material property that is 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). Li’764 discloses producing the powder from molten alloy components by inert gas atomization [0012] with low amounts of oxygen and nitrogen (abstract, [0014], [0018]). The present disclosure states “in the present embodiment, as described above, since the atomizing treatment is performed using the molten alloy derived from the copper alloy raw material, in which the amount of the impurity element (excluding O, H, S, and N) is sufficiently reduced, Cr or Si is suppressed from being consumed by reacting with the impurity element (excluding 0, H, S, and N), and the CrSi-based compound containing Cr and Si and the NiSi-based compound containing Ni and Si can be precipitated on at least the copper crystal grain boundary of the particle surface of the copper alloy powder” (paragraph [0068] of the disclosure as filed). Considering the chemical composition disclosed by LI’764 [0010] and the low oxygen and nitrogen content disclosed by Li’764 (abstract, [0014], [0018]), Li’764 establishes a sound basis for believing that the silicon would of the alloy would be consumed by the Cr and Ni of the alloy disclosed by Li’764 [0010], thereby establishing a sound basis for believing that at least trace amounts of NI5Si2 would precipitate on grain boundaries.
Regarding claim 11, Li’764 discloses a powder particle size distribution is
≤
15μm account for 15%, 15μm-70μm account for 25%, 70μm-150μm account for 55%,
≥
150μm account for 5% ([0013], [0032], paragraph [0028] of Chinese-language original). Li’764 classifies by sieving [0013] which classifies according to volume. Li’764 therefore discloses a D15 cumulative distribution of 15 µm, a D40 cumulative distribution (15+25=40) of 70 µm, and a D95 cumulative distribution of 150 µm ([0013], [0032], paragraph [0028] of Chinese-language original). As the D90 cumulative distribution necessarily lies between the D40 distribution and the D95 distribution, a 90% cumulative particle diameter D90 based on a volume of the powder particles disclosed by Li’764 lies somewhere within a range of 70-150 µm, which lies entirely within the claimed range of 10 µm or more and 150 µm or less. As the structure of the powder particles having a D90 cumulative distribution measured according laser diffraction and scattering method is the distribution itself, in disclosing a 90% cumulative particle size distribution which lies somewhere in the range of 70-150 µm, Li’764 meets some structure of a 90% cumulative particle diameter D90 based on a volume, which is measured by a laser diffraction and scattering method, in a range of 10 µm or more and 150 µm or less.
Claim 16 as worded defines which portion of a grain is considered a surface, wherein any one or both of a CrSi-based compound containing Cr and Si and a NiSi-based compound containing Ni and Si is precipitated. Li’764 discloses that the particles are spherical (title, abstract, [0002]), and a sphere has an outermost surface by the geometric definition of a sphere. Li’764 discloses a powder particle size distribution is
≤
15μm account for 15%, 15μm-70μm account for 25%, 70μm-150μm account for 55%,
≥
150μm account for 5% ([0013], [0032], paragraph [0028] of Chinese-language original); therefore particles disclosed by Li’764 have a diameter greater than 100 nm; therefore, some geometric region a from the outermost surface of the copper alloy particle disclosed by Li’764 to a depth of 100 nm of the particles disclosed by Li’764 exists because this region may be geometrically defined for any sphere greater than 100 nm. Considering the readiness of such an alloy to form a NiSi-based compound disclosed by Li’764 [0004]; considering the low solubility of such a compound disclosed by Li’764 [0004], and considering Li’764 discloses producing the alloy powder by inert gas atomization with low amounts of oxygen and nitrogen (abstract, [0012], [0014], [0018]), Li’764 establishes a sound basis for believing that at least one NiSi-based compound containing Ni and Si is on at least one copper crystal grain boundary of at a depth from the outermost surface to 100 nm of the copper alloy particle constituting the copper alloy powder disclosed by Li’764.
Claim(s) 4, 9, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li’764 (CN111151764A) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Kuse (WO2022215468A1). References to Kuse are directed to the examiner-supplied English language translation.
Regarding claim 4, in the event that claim 4 requires more than trace amounts of oxygen in the layer, Li’764 does not disclose oxygen within a contiguous layer on the surface of copper alloy powder particles.
Kuse teaches a copper alloy powder for a metal AM process which is used for the metal AM process (abstract, claim 2, [0001], [0013]). Kuse teaches 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 and Ni among the group’s members [0013-14], [0020]. Kuse teaches that the alloy may further comprise Si [0013]. Kuse teaches a balance of copper and impurities (abstract, claim 1, [0013]). Kuse teaches a compound (oxide) layer (film) entirely covering, and thereby formed on a surface of a copper alloy particle constituting the copper alloy powder [0031], and Kuse teaches M in this outermost layer [0031]. Kuse teaches that the oxide film makes it possible to significantly reduce the laser light reflectance, making it easier to produce higher density objects in an additive manufacturing process [0031].
Both Kuse and Li’764 teach a copper alloy powder for metal additive manufacturing.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the copper alloy powder particles disclosed by Li’764 with an oxide film because Kuse teaches that providing such an oxide film makes it easier to produce higher density objects in an additive manufacturing process [0031], thereby improving the powder disclosed by Li’764 for the powder’s intended use (abstract, [0004-05]). As Kuse teaches that such an outermost oxide layer comprises a compound M and oxygen [0031], Kuse teaches that M may comprise Cr and Ni [0013], and Li’764 discloses that CuNiSi alloys readily precipitate NISi based compounds, the oxide layer on the powder particle surface disclosed by LI’764 in view of Kuse would comprise a NiSi-based compound and oxygen.
Regarding claim 9, Li’764 discloses a powder particle size distribution is
≤
15μm account for 15%, 15μm-70μm account for 25%, 70μm-150μm account for 55%,
≥
150μm account for 5% ([0013], [0032], paragraph [0028] of Chinese-language original). Li’764 classifies by sieving [0013] which classifies according to volume. Li’764 therefore discloses a D15 cumulative distribution of 15 µm, a D40 cumulative distribution (15+25=40) of 70 µm, and a D95 cumulative distribution of 150 µm ([0013], [0032], paragraph [0028] of Chinese-language original). While the D50 cumulative distribution of the particle size distribution disclosed by Li’764 would lie within the range of 70-150 µm, Li’764 does not disclose the value of the D50 cumulative distribution.
Kuse teaches 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 teaches that if the average particle size of the copper alloy powder of the present invention is 10 μm or more, the powder has excellent flowability, whereas on the other hand, if it exceeds 100 μm, the relative density of the obtained shaped object decreases [0034].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the powder particles disclosed by Li’764 with 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, because Kuse teaches that such a range balances powder particle flowability and the relative density of the product additively manufactured with copper alloy powder [0034-35]. 10 µm to 100 µm lies within the claimed range of 5 µm or more and 120 µm or less.
Regarding claim 15, Li’764 does not disclose that the copper alloy contains an additive according to one of those recited in claim 15.
Kuse teaches 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 and Ni among the group’s members [0013-14], [0020]. Kuse teaches that a particularly preferred component is Zr because a Zr compound is present, particularly excellent electrical conductivity is obtained [0020]. Kuse teaches that the composition of M which encompasses a combination of Zr, Ni, 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]. Kuse further teaches that such copper alloys comprise 0-0.2% P [0024].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add Zr to the copper alloy powder disclosed by Li’764 applied to claim 1 above in order to attain the favorable electrical conductivity which Kuse teaches for such alloys [0020]. In adding Zr, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the Zr such that the total of Zr, Cr, and Ni is within the 0.1 to 10% range taught by Kuse [0013], [0021]. Li’764 discloses Cr in a range of 0-0.5 mass%, and Ni in a range of 1-5 mass% (claim 1, [0010]); therefore, in order to attain a range of 0.1-10% M by adding zirconium, the amount of zirconium (Zr) added ranges from 0 to 9%, which encompasses the claimed range of 0.07 mass% or less. Further, considering Kuse teaches 0-0.2% P as an additive element and teaches the results of adding 0-0.2% P to a copper alloy powder for metal additive manufacturing [0024], one of ordinary skill in the art would have regarded the addition of 0-0.2% P to the copper alloy powder disclosed by Li’764 as an obvious combination of known alloy constituents to predictably yield the results taught by Li’764 for adding P [0024]. A range of 0-0.2% P encompasses the claimed range. 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).
Claim(s) 9-11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li’764 (CN111151764A) as applied to claim 1 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.
Regarding claims 9-11, Li’764 discloses an example wherein a powder particle size distribution is
≤
15μm account for 15%, 15μm-70μm account for 25%, 70μm-150μm account for 55%,
≥
150μm account for 5% ([0013], [0032], paragraph [0028] of Chinese-language original). Li’764 classifies by sieving [0013] which classifies according to volume. Li’764 therefore discloses a D15 cumulative distribution of 15 µm, a D40 cumulative distribution (15+25=40) of 70 µm, and a D95 cumulative distribution of 150 µm ([0013], [0032], paragraph [0028] of Chinese-language original). Given the distribution disclosed by Li’764, the D10 cumulative distribution is some value less than 10 µ, and both the D50 and D90 distribution are within the range of 70-150 µm, but Li’764 does not disclose values of D10, D50, or D90 cumulative 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 further teaches that the alloy may comprise 0.01 to 1.0% Si and 0.01 to 1.0% Ni [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] and 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 Li’764 and Furukawa teach copper alloy powders for metal additive manufacturing which may comprise Cr, Ni, and Si.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the powder disclosed by Li’764, 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 because Furukawa teaches that such a distribution improves the density of an article additively manufactured with the powder comprising that distribution [0013], [0027-28]. A d50 of 10-40 µm lies entirely within the range recited in claim 9. A d10 of 1-30 23 µm lies entirely within the range recited in claim 10, and a d90 of 30-70 µm lies entirely within the range recited in claim 11.
Regarding claim 15, Li’764 does not disclose that the copper alloy contains an additive according to one of those recited in claim 15.
Furukawa teaches the copper alloy powder comprises 0.010 to 1.40% Zr [0013]. Furukawa teaches that zirconium (Zr) has the effect of improving heat resistance, and is also an important element that can significantly increase the light absorptance of laser light [0021]. Furukawa further teaches that the copper alloy powder may comprise Pb: 0.01-1.0%, Bi: 0.01-1.0%, Ca: 0.01-1.0%, Te: 0.01-1.0%, Sn: 0.01-1.0%, Mg: 0.01-1.0%, Ag: 0.01-1.0% or Mn: 0.01-1.0% [0013], [0022], and that these elements may be added to improve light absorption [0022].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add Zr, Pb, Bi, Ca, Te, Sn, Mg, Ag, or Mn to the copper alloy powder disclosed by Li’764 applied to claim 1 above because Furukawa teaches that such additions improve light absorption in an additive manufacturing process [0013], [0021-22]. The ranges for Zr, Pb, Bi, Ca, Te, Sn, Mg, Ag, or Mn overlap the range of 0.07 mass% or less. 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Portion of applicant’s remarks arguing support for the amendment to claim 2 is noted; however, none of the portions which applicant argues supports the amendment to claim 2 discloses both precipitates precipitated on a copper crystal grain surface, and excluding precipitates precipitated on the copper crystal grain boundary, of the surface of the copper alloy particle constituting the copper alloy powder.
Regarding rejections of claim 1 over Li’764 (CN111151764A), applicant argues that Li’764 does not disclose that a state of the compound Ni2Si is the Ni2Si precipitate. This argument is not persuasive because Li’764 discloses that the Ni2Si compounds form from solution when solubility decreases [0004]. Compounds which drop out of solution due to decreased solubility are by definition precipitates. Li’764 also discloses that these compounds result in age hardening. Metallurgically age hardening is a process whereby a solid solution hard compounds precipitate from a solid solution.
Arguments that Li does not disclose that a purity of copper used as a raw material of a copper alloy ingot, the O concentration, the H concentration, the S concentration, and the total amount of the impurity element other than Cu in the copper alloy ingot. Are not persuasive because in the actual steps of making the powder from a molten state, Li’764 discloses performing the steps inert protective gas of 99.999% high-purity argon gas specifically to avoid forming unwanted compounds [0014]. The disclosure of Li’764 is at least sufficient to render obvious pure feed material in the process disclosed by Li’764. Further, applicant’s arguments are not supported by results showing that an impure feed material would fail to meet a limitation wherein any one or both of a CrSi-based compound containing Cr and Si and a NiSi-based compound containing Ni and Si are precipitated on a copper crystal grain boundary of a surface of a copper alloy particle constituting the copper alloy powder. Any amount of one or both of a CrSi-based compound containing Cr and Si and a NiSi-based compound containing Ni and Si are precipitated on a copper crystal grain boundary of a surface of a copper alloy particle constituting the copper alloy powder would meet this limitation, and every example in the present disclosure for which precipitates were examined has at least some CrSi-based compound containing Cr and Si and a NiSi-based compound containing Ni and Si are precipitated on a copper crystal grain boundary of a surface of a copper alloy particle constituting the copper alloy powder. If every example to some meets this limitation, this limitation would appear to necessarily flow from gas atomizing a powder having the claimed composition. See MPEP 2112.
In view of the composition disclosed by Li’764 (claim 1, [0010]), The disclosure by Li’764 that Ni2Si compounds have a low solubility in the alloy [0004], and the process conditions disclosed by Li’764 [0010], [0014], [0018], Li’764 establishes a sound basis for believing that at least one NiSi-based compound containing Ni and Si is on at least one copper crystal grain boundary of at least one surface of the copper alloy particle constituting the copper alloy powder disclosed by Li’764. As applicant has not shown any conditions which would fail to result in at least some CrSi- or NiSi-based compound containing Ni and Si is on at least one copper crystal grain boundary of at least one surface of the copper alloy particle constituting the copper alloy powder, the evidence of record still supports the position that the powder disclosed by Li’764 would include at least one precipitate encompassed by the ranges of claimed precipices.
Arguments that Li does not disclose features to obtain a high laser absorption, to obtain a high reproducibility of the microstructure of the formed body manufactured by the metal AM, and to stably manufacture the high-quality additive manufacturing product with less structural defects such as voids is not persuasive because applicant does not support this argument of unexpected results with data commensurate in scope with the claimed copper alloy powder. See MPEP 716.01 and 716.02 for further guidance on presenting evidence of nonobviousness.
Applicant argues for dependent claims over prior art by reference to dependence on independent claim 1. These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons given above with respect to claim 1.
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