Detailed Office Action
Notice of Pre-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 Amendments
The amendment filed on 01/11/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 – 8 remain pending. Claims 9 – 13 have been newly added and find support in at least [0048, 0044, 0036, 0033]. Claims 7 – 8 remain withdrawn. Claims 1 – 6 and 9 – 13 are under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/10/25, 11/05/25, 12/05/25, 1/23/26, and 1/30/26 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final on 07/11/25. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 01/11/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of co-pending application 19/102,917 and 19/102,948 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 6 and 12 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zeng (Tensile Properties of Additively Manufactured C-18150 Copper Alloys, NPL, 2021)
Regarding claims 1 – 3, Zeng teaches additively manufacturing a copper alloy [Title]. Zeng teaches an example in which chromium content is 0.77 wt%, which meets the claimed range of claim 1 of 0.1 – 1.5 mass% [Section 2.1]. Zeng also teaches that the alloy example has a zirconium content of 0.05 wt%, which meets the limitation of an alloy element other than Cr [Section 2.1]. Zeng does not disclose the presence of other elements but given that Zeng teaches an identical composition of using C18150 alloy [Section 2.1] as that disclosed in [Table 1 and 2] of the instant invention and that impurities are naturally present in metal/metal alloys, there is a reasonable expectation to an ordinarily skilled artisan that impurities/additives (such as Ni or Si noted in Table 1) would be present in small/minute quantities as claimed.
Zeng does not explicitly teach that a Cr compound layer is formed on the surface of the copper alloy particle which contains Cr containing precipitates, that said compound layer contains oxygen (claim 2), or that the/a Cr compound is distributed on a crystal grain boundary in a whole of the copper particle (claim 3). However, Zeng teaches a substantially identical composition to the claimed composition (Zeng teaches a C18150 alloy [Section 2.1], which is also disclosed in [Table 1 and 2] of the instant invention). Furthermore, Zeng discloses forming the copper alloy particles via a substantially identical method/process (i.e. gas atomization with argon), see Zeng [Section 2.1] and instant invention [0076].
Therefore, there is a reasonable expectation to a person of ordinary skill in the art that Zeng would possess/meet the limitations of a Cr compound layer that contains Cr containing precipitates, formed on the surface of the copper alloy particle, that said compound layer contains oxygen (claim 2), and that the/a Cr compound is distributed on a crystal grain boundary in a whole of the copper particle (claim 3).
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, in this case composition and process of making, a prima facie case of anticipation is established (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (See MPEP 2112.01)).
"[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962))
Regarding claims 4 – 6, Zeng teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Zeng teaches that the example [Section 2.1] has a D10 of 19 µm, which meets the claimed range of claim 4, a D50 of 29.1 µm, which meets the claimed range of claim 5, and a d90 of 45 µm, meeting the claimed range of claim 6.
Regarding claims 12 – 13, Zeng teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Zeng does not explicitly teach that precipitates containing Cr compound are formed in a crystal grain boundary and a surface of the copper alloy powder (claim 12), or the shape or dispersion of the Cr-containing precipitates on the surface (claim 13).
However, Zeng teaches a substantially identical composition to the claimed composition (Zeng teaches a C18150 alloy [Section 2.1], which is also disclosed in [Table 1 and 2] of the instant invention). Furthermore, Zeng discloses forming the copper alloy particles via a substantially identical method/process (i.e. gas atomization with argon), see Zeng [Section 2.1] and instant invention [0076].
Therefore, there is a reasonable expectation to a person of ordinary skill in the art that Zeng would possess/meet the limitations of a claims 12 and 13.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, in this case composition and process of making, a prima facie case of anticipation is established (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (See MPEP 2112.01)).
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1 – 6 and 9 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polkham (“Laser Powder Bed Fusion of CuNi2SiCr alloy…”, cited with IDS of 12/05/25, NPL, date 10/11/2022 see IDS 12/5/25).
Regarding claims 1 – 3, Polkham teaches a gas-atomized copper alloy powder [page 43, section 7.1] which can be used for additive manufacturing [title]. Polkham teaches an example composition of CuNi2SiCr (i.e. C18000), which is also disclosed in the instant invention, in which chromium content is 0.45 mass%, the nickel content is 2.61 wt%, the silicon content is 0.51 wt%, and the iron content is 0.08 wt% (an additive element), and an oxygen content is 0.05 wt% [page 42], which falls outside the claimed range of the total of the additive and impurity being 0.07 mass% or less.
Polkham does not explicitly teach that a Cr compound layer is formed on the surface of the copper alloy particle that contains a Cr containing precipitate, that said compound layer contains oxygen (claim 2), or that the/a Cr compound is distributed on a crystal grain boundary in a whole of the copper particle (claim 3). However, Polkham teaches a substantially identical composition to the claimed composition (C18000). Furthermore, Polkham discloses forming the copper alloy particles via a substantially identical method/process (i.e. gas atomization), see Polkham [page 43] and instant invention [0076].
Therefore, there is a reasonable expectation to a person of ordinary skill in the art that Polkham would possess/meet the limitations of a Cr compound layer formed on the surface of the copper alloy particle with Cr containing precipitates, that said compound layer contains oxygen (claim 2), and that the/a Cr compound is distributed on a crystal grain boundary in a whole of the copper particle (claim 3).
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, in this case composition and process of making, a prima facie case of obviousness is established (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (See MPEP 2112.01)).
With regards to the content of Fe, “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.") (MPEP 2144.05 I)
Regarding claims 4 – 6, Polkham teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Polkham teaches that the powder has a D10 of 19.7 µm, a D50 of 31.4 µm, and a D90 of 48.8 µm [Page 45], which meets the claimed ranges of claims 4 – 6.
Regarding claim 9, Polkham teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Polkham teaches that the powder contains an iron content of 0.08 wt%, which falls outside the claimed range of the one or more elements being 0.07 mass% or less.
However, “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.") (MPEP 2144.05 I)
Regarding claims 10 – 13, Polkham teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Polkham does not explicitly teach that a CrSi compound is formed in the Cr-containing layer is formed on the surface of the copper alloy particle, that the oxygen content of the powder forms oxide of Cr, Cu, and Ni (claim 11), that precipitates containing Cr compound are formed in a crystal grain boundary and a surface of the copper alloy powder (claim 12), or the shape or dispersion of the Cr-containing precipitates on the surface (claim 13).
However, Polkham teaches a substantially identical composition to the claimed composition (i.e. C18000). Furthermore, Polkham discloses forming the copper alloy particles via a substantially identical method/process (i.e. gas atomization), see Polkham [page 42] and instant invention [0076]. As noted, Polkham discloses both the presence of silicon and chromium in amounts that meet the claimed compositon (and the alloy Polkham uses, C18000, is the same as the inventive example of Table 1,2). Moreover, chromium, copper, silicon, and nickel naturally oxidize in contact with oxygen/air and as such, chromium, copper, silicon, and nickel on the exterior/surface of the powder would form respective oxides. This is evidenced by Polkam which explicitly notes on Page 42 that the powder oxidized in storage.
Therefore, given that the substantially identical composition, method, and other considerations noted above, there is a reasonable expectation to a person of ordinary skill in the art that Polkham would possess/meet the limitations of a claims 10 – 13.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, in this case composition and process of making, a prima facie case of obviousness is established (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (See MPEP 2112.01)).
With regards to the content of Fe, “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.") (MPEP 2144.05 I)
Claims 1 – 4 and 9 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuze (JP2022160961, using espacenet translation cited with OA on 06/16/2025)
Regarding claims 1 – 2, Kuze teaches a copper alloy powder for additive manufacturing [0013], wherein the copper alloy powder can contain Zr and Cr [0014] in an amount of 0.1 – 2.0 mass% [0021], which overlaps with the claimed range of Zr and Cr. Kuze also teaches that the copper alloy powder can contain silicon in an amount of 0.2 mass% or less [0023], which falls within the claimed range.
Kuze discloses that a content of phosphorous is 0.2 mass% or less [0024], which overlaps with the claimed of the additive element. Kuze does not teach the presence of impurities which is interpreted as essentially ~0 mass%. Additionally to this, the mere purity of a product by itself does not render the product nonobvious (See MPEP 2144.04 VII)
Kuze teaches that the surface of the copper powder contains an oxide film with a copper element and “M”, wherein M can be Zr and Cr [0031], meeting the claimed limitation of a Cr compound layer formed on the surface, and wherein said compound contains oxygen (claim 2).
With regards to the overlapping ranges taught, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected overlapping ranges as disclosed. Selection of overlapping ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP § 2144.05 I). “In the case where the claimed ranges "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)”
Regarding claim 3, Kuze teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Kuze does not explicitly teach that a chromium oxide containing compound distribution on a grain boundary.
However, Kuze teaches a copper powder containing Cr (as well as a chromium compound) and additionally, the copper alloy particles of Kuze are produced via a substantially identical method/process (i.e. gas atomization), see Kuze [0051] and instant invention [0076].
Therefore, there is a reasonable expectation to a person of ordinary skill in the art that Kuze would possess/meet the limitation of the Cr compound (chromium oxide) being distributed on a crystal grain boundary in a whole of the copper particle.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, in this case composition and process of making, a prima facie case of anticipation/obviousness is established (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (See MPEP 2112.01)).
Regarding claim 4, Kuze teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Kuze teaches that the D50 is 10 – 80 µm [0034], which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 9, Kuze teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Kuze discloses that a content of phosphorous is 0.2 mass% or less [0024], which meets “P” and overlaps with the claimed range of one or more elements.
Regarding claims 10 – 13, Kuze teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Kuze does not explicitly teach that a CrSi compound is formed in the Cr-containing layer is formed on the surface of the copper alloy particle, that the oxygen content of the powder forms oxide of Cr, Cu, and Ni (claim 11), that precipitates containing Cr compound are formed in a crystal grain boundary and a surface of the copper alloy powder (claim 12), or the shape or dispersion of the Cr-containing precipitates on the surface (claim 13).
However, Kuze teaches a copper alloy powder containing Zr, Cr, and Ni [0014] in an amount of 0.1 – 2.0 mass% [0021], silicon [0023] and additionally, the copper alloy particles of Kuze are produced via a substantially identical method/process (i.e. gas atomization), see Kuze [0051] and instant invention [0076]. Kuze discloses both the presence of silicon and chromium. Moreover, chromium, copper, silicon, and nickel naturally oxidize in air and as such, chromium, copper, silicon, and nickel on the exterior/surface of the powder would form respective oxides.
Therefore, given the composition of Kuze, the substantially identical method of making, and the other considerations noted above, there is a reasonable expectation to a person of ordinary skill in the art that Kuze would possess/meet the limitations of a claims 10 – 13.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, in this case composition and process of making, a prima facie case of obviousness is established (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (See MPEP 2112.01)).
Claims 5 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuze (JP2022160961, using espacenet translation cited with OA on 06/16/2025), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Nishino (WO2019/239655, using espacenet translation)
Regarding claims 5 – 6, Kuze teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Kuze does not teach the D10 or D90 of the copper alloy powder.
Nishino teaches a copper alloy powder [0001] which can be used for additive manufacturing [0007]. Nishino teaches that the copper alloy contains chromium and zirconium [0013]. Nishino teaches that the copper alloy powder has a d10 particle size of 1 to 30 µm, which falls within the claimed range, and d90 particle size of 30 to 70 µm [0025], which falls within the claimed range.
Nishino describes that by setting the d10 particle size and d90 particle size to said ranges, it becomes possible to improve the bulk density of the powder layer [0027 and 0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have controlled the D10 and D90 particle size range of Kuze to 1 – 30 µm and 30 – 70 µm, respectively, as taught by Nishino. Kuze and Nishino are directed to the same field of endeavor of copper alloy powders containing Zr and Cr for additive manufacturing. Furthermore, Kuze does not disclose a D10 or D90. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation of success in applying the teachings of Nishino to Kuze. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to increase bulk density of the powder layer, as disclosed by Nishino.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/11/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous rejection in view of Nishino (WO2019239655).
However, upon further consideration, a new rejection is made of:
Claims 1 – 6 and 9 – 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polkham (“Laser Powder Bed Fusion of CuNi2SiCr alloy…”, cited with IDS of 12/05/25, NPL, date 10/11/2022 see IDS 12/5/25).
Applicant argues that Zeng does not disclose the conditions of argon atomization process and therefore, the process is not identical to the method. This is not found persuasive. [0083] of the instant invention states that ingot possessing the composition of C18000 and C18150 were melted down and atomized using argon gas. Likewise, Zeng teaches C18150 alloy powder formed via gas atomization using argon gas. Therefore, the instant invention and Zeng teach substantially identical methods of producing powder and possesses the same alloy (C18150). Therefore, a reasonable expectation exists to an ordinarily skilled artisan that Zeng would meet the limitations as described above.
Moreover, applicant states that Zeng does not disclose how the raw copper alloy is made (i.e. step (x) and (y) described on page 3 and 4 of remarks). Applicant states that the copper alloy powder achieves the properties of claim 1 because it is manufactured by the method including steps (x) to (z) above. This is not found persuasive. First, the steps of (x) and (y) are directed to producing the raw material that is then smelted down, not producing the powder itself. Applicant has not provided evidence that these steps result in the properties of claim 1 (or other claims). Moreover, because steps (x) and (y) result in a copper alloy with the same composition as Zeng, that is then melted down (same as Zeng) and subjected to argon gas atomization (same as Zeng), a reasonable expectation exists that Zeng would possess the claimed characteristics/properties of the powder. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Additionally, the examiner notes that although Zeng, Polkham, or Kuze do not expressly discuss the surface characteristics/properties of the powder, "[T]he 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." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999).(MPEP 2112 I).
Applicant argues that Kuze teaches an oxide film, not precipitates. This is not found persuasive. Kuze teaches an oxide film which is resultant from the formation of compounds of oxygen and “M” elements as well as copper [0012, 0029 – 0031]. These individual oxide compounds containing elements from the powder meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of “precipitates” given they are precipitated from the copper alloy by a reaction with oxygen. These compounds form across the surface as oxygen reacts with the metal elements of the powder, ultimately forming a film/coating around the powder, meeting the claimed limitation of the precipitates being spread uniformly. Additionally, as stated above, while Kuze does not expressly describe the surface characteristics/properties of the copper alloy powder, Kuze teaches a composition that meets the claimed composition and teaches producing the powder by a substantially identical method (gas atomization). Therefore, a reasonable expectation exists that Zeng would possess the claimed characteristics/properties of the powder.
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 Austin M Pollock whose telephone number is (571)272-5602. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (11 - 8 ET).
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.
/AUSTIN POLLOCK/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738