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 .
The preliminary amendment filed 2/24/2025 has been entered. Claim 10 has been canceled. New claims 13-16 have been added. Claims 1-9 and 11-16 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: “Cu64O”, “Cu8O”, and “Cu2O” should each be written in their proper subscripted form of “Cu64O”, “Cu8O”, and “Cu2O”, respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-8 are 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the resultant" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is also noted that claim 1 recites, “mixing the raw material particles with a solution containing an amine compound and a complexing agent” (emphasis added) on lines 6-7, and given the claimed “amine compound” and claimed “complexing agent” are so broadly defined that the amine compound may be a complexing agent and/or the complexing agent may be an amine compound, claims 1-5 and 7-8 are further indefinite given that one having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention and could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement, e.g., can a single amine complexing agent, such as an amino-containing carboxylic acid, be utilized to satisfy both the claimed amine compound and the claimed complexing agent or do the claims necessarily require two different compounds?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101/35 USC § 112
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed recitation of a use, without setting forth any steps involved in the process, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e. results in a claim which is not a proper process under 35 U.S.C. 101. See for example Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd.App.1967) and Clinical Products, Ltd. v. Brenner, 255 F. Supp. 131, 149 USPQ 475 (D.D.C. 1966).
Claims 15 and 16 are also 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.
Claim 15 recites, “A production method for a bonded body using the slightly oxidized copper-coated copper particles according to claim 9” (emphasis added), however, it is first noted that the claim fails to set forth any active steps involved in said production method given that “using” in this case is not an active step in the production method, and thus results in a claim which is not a proper process under 35 U.S.C. 101. It is also noted that the claim is indefinite because it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually being practiced, e.g., how are the copper particles actually being used or what is involved with respect to the “using” of said copper particles in terms of the production method for the bonded body. Hence, one having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention and could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement.
Similarly, claim 16 recites, “A production method for a sintered compact using the slightly oxidized copper-coated copper particles according to claim 9” (emphasis added), and given that claim 16, as in claim 15, fails to recite any active steps involved in said production method nor how the particles are actually being used or what is involved with respect to the “using” of said copper particles in terms of the production method for the sintered compact, claim 16 results in a claim which is not a proper process under 35 U.S.C. 101, and one having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention and could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-2, 4-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nonomura (WO2023/191024A1, also printed as US2025/0214180A1, please refer to the US document for the below cited sections). Nonomura discloses oxide-containing copper particles containing Cu, Cu2O, and Cu64O, as well as a paste composition for forming a bonding layer (Abstract), or a diluted composition thereof (Paragraphs 0057-0060), and a sintered body of the copper particles, particularly as a bonding layer (Paragraphs 0065-0067 and 0072); wherein the particles are produced by reducing a copper compound (Paragraph 0037), particularly a copper oxide (Paragraphs 0038-0039), with a reducing compound, particularly a hydrazine derivate (Paragraphs 0047-0048), in an organic solvent in the presence of a shape stabilizer selected from the group consisting of an amine compound, a carboxylic acid, and a phosphoric acid ester, or that may be a combination of an amine compound and a carboxylic acid (Paragraphs 0040-0043) at a reduction reaction temperature of -20°C to 140°C, for 20 to 360 minutes (Paragraph 0053). Nonomura discloses working examples wherein cuprous oxide particles, a specific amino-functional alcohol compound, a specific carboxylic acid compound, and hydrazine monohydrate as a reducing agent are mixed in 1-propanol and reacted to produce plate-shaped or substantially spherical particles, wherein the shape and content of Cu, Cu2O, and Cu64O thereof are dependent upon the selected amine compound and carboxylic acid utilized (Examples). Nonomura discloses at least one example reading upon the instantly claimed production method as recited in instant claim 1 given the order of the reactants to be mixed with Comparative Example 1 specifically utilizing cuprous oxide (Cu2O) particles (FRC-05B) obtained from Furukawa Chemicals Co., Ltd. as raw material particles (reading upon the claimed “preparing raw material particles having, at least on a surface thereof, a copper oxide including…Cu2O” as in instant claim 1, and more particularly “made of a copper oxide including…Cu2O” as instant claim 2 and “wherein the copper oxide contained in the raw material particles is Cu2O” as in instant claim 4, wherein FRC-05B is known to have a particle size within the average particle diameter range as recited in instant claim 8); mixed with 3-amino-1-propanol as the amine compound, acetic acid as the carboxylic acid as in instant claims 5-6, and hydrazine monohydrate as the reducing agent, resulting in substantially spherical copper particles comprising 0.1 mass% Cu64O and 0.7 mass% Cu2O, at least one surfaces thereof, with a particle diameter (thickness and major axis) of 202 nm (Examples); and given that Nonomura does not conduct the reaction under vacuum or inert conditions, the Examiner takes the position that it is evident that the reaction disclosed by Nonomura is conducted under an atmosphere of air and hence an “oxygen-containing atmosphere” as instantly claimed such that Nonomura discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to anticipate instant claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8.
Claims 9, 11-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yong (The mechanism of alkylamine-stabilized copper fine particles towards improving the electrical conductivity of copper films at low sintering temperature). Yong discloses copper fine particles comprising a copper fine particle as a core and an oxidized surface/shell comprising Cu8O nanorods or nanoparticles on the surface of the copper fine particle produced from alkylamine-stabilized copper fine particles with a size distribution of the copper fine particles ranging from 130 nm to 330 nm with an average diameter of 280 nm (falling within the claimed range as recited in instant claim 11), and with the produced copper oxide, e.g., Cu8O, Cu2O, and CuO, nanoparticles/nanorods formed thereon having an average particle diameter within the claimed range as evidenced by the SEM images; and given that Yong also discloses copper fine particle inks and sintered films produced from the prepared copper fine particles (Entire document, particularly Experimental section, Results and discussion, and Figs. 2-7) reading upon the broadly claimed “bonding material”, “paste” and “ink” comprising said particles as in instant claims 12-14, as well as the broadly claimed “production method for a sintered compact” as in instant claim 16, Yong anticipates instant claims 9, 11-14, and 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Alternatively, claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8 as well as claims 3, 7, 9, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonomura, as applied above to claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8 and further discussed below.
The teachings of Nonomura are discussed in detail above and although the Examiner is of the position that the reference is anticipatory with respect to instant claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8 for the reasons discussed in detail above, the Examiner alternatively takes the position that given that Nonomura does not teach that the reaction is conducted under vacuum or in an inert atmosphere, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect that the reduction reaction is conducted under ambient atmosphere or air reading upon the claimed “oxygen-containing atmosphere” as instantly claimed. Further, with respect to the claimed “then adding a reducing agent”, given the order of the reactants taught by Nonomura in the examples and/or that the selection of any order of adding ingredients and/or performing process steps is prima facie obviousness as discussed in MPEP 2144.04 IV, the Examiner alternatively takes the position that the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8 would have been obvious over the teachings of Nonomura.
With respect to instant claim 3, although Nonomura does not teach that the starting copper compound is provided in the form of copper oxide-coated copper raw material particles comprising a copper raw material particle as a core and a copper oxide film containing one or more of Cu and Cu2O as a shell, Nonomura does teach that the copper compound as the starting material may be “copper oxide (CuO), cuprous oxide (Cu2O), copper hydroxide (Cu(OH)2), and the like, which disperse as particles in a solvent” (Paragraph 0080), and given that Nonomura teaches that when heating a solvent in which a copper compound is dispersed or dissolved, metal nuclei of copper fine particles are reduced from the copper compound forming copper fine particles coated with the carboxylic acid, and given that the claimed invention does not require any particular content of (metallic) copper as the “core” of the raw material particles, and that CuO particles containing some content of metallic copper therein are known functionally equivalent CuO containing particles or “and the like” as taught by Nonomura, absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 3 would have been obvious over the teachings of Nonomura, particularly given that it is prima facie obviousness to simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
With respect to instant claim 7, as noted above, Nonomura teaches that temperature for the reduction reaction is from -20°C to 140°C, overlapping the claimed 50C or lower range and hence rendering the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 7 obvious over the teachings of Nonomura.
With respect to independent claims 9 and 11-16, as noted above, Nonomura teaches that the oxide-containing copper particles may be formed into a paste as in instant claim 13, or a diluted paste reading upon the broadly claimed “ink” of instant claim 14, that is then provided as a bonding material as in instant claim 12 between two components to form a bonding layer that is sintered by a sintering process to form a sintered bonded body as in instant claims 15-16 (Entire document, particularly as noted above and Examples), and given that the method of producing the oxide-containing particles as taught by Nonomura is substantially the same as the method utilized to produce the claimed “slightly oxidized copper-coated particles” of instant claims 9 and 11, the Examiner takes the position that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the oxide-containing copper particles produced by a method as taught by Nonomura to exhibit a core-shell structure as recited in instant claims 9 and 11, particularly in light of the working examples and figures thereof; and/or one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to utilize routine experimentation to determine the optimum raw materials and reaction conditions as in the invention taught by Nonomura to provide the desired oxide-containing copper particles, including morphology, composition, and particle size(s) as taught by Nonomura, for a particular end use thereof, such that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 9 and 11, as well as instant claims 12-16 would have been obvious over the teachings of Nonomura given that it is prima facie obviousness to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Thursdays from 10:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/MONIQUE R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights