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 .
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.
Claims 1-2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunmead (US 5,942,204) (cited in IDS) in view of Scoggins (US 2018/0358619).
Regarding claim 1, Dunmead teaches Hafnium carbide powder for plasma electrodes, wherein
the hafnium carbide powder is represented by a chemical formula HfCx (where x=0.5 to 1.0) (See col.4, lines 12-20 “The transition metal carbide is a carbide of a transition metal selected from the group consisting of: Ti, Zr, Hf, V, Nb, Ta, Cr, Mo, and W where the transition metal carbide has a stoichiometry corresponding to the following transition metal carbides: monotungsten carbide (WC), monotitanium carbide (TiC), monotantalum carbide (TaC), monovanadium carbide (VC), monohafnium carbide (HfC), monozirconium carbide (ZrC), mononiobium carbide (NbC), dimolybdenum carbide (Mo2 C) or trichromium dicarbide (Cr3 C2).”), and
a content of carbon particles contained as impurities in the hafnium carbide powder is at least 0.01% by mass and less than 0.05% by mass (See col.4, lines 58-61 “ the amount of free carbon is less than about 0.2 percent, more preferably less than about 0.1 percent and most preferably less than about 0.05 percent by weight of the transition metal carbide.”).
Dunmead does not explicitly teach a content of carbon particles contained as impurities in the hafnium carbide powder is less than or equal to 0.03% by mass, and the carbon particles have particle size of 5 μm to 10 μm.
However, Scoggins teaches in the same field of endeavor of material of electrodes, comprising carbon particles have particle size of 5 μm to 10 μm (See para.[0022] “The carbon materials of the present disclosure can be in the form of hard carbon material or graphitic carbon powders, with a particle size d50 that may be in a range of from 1 to 15 μm in various embodiments. In other embodiments, the particle size d50 may be in a range of from 2 to 10 μm, or in a range of from 3 to 8 μm, or in a range of from 4 to 6 μm, or in other suitable range, as may be advantageous in a given implementation of such carbon materials.”)
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the content of carbon particles contained as impurities in the hafnium carbide powder of Dunmead to be less than or equal to 0.03%, and to modify the carbon particle size to 5 μm to 10 μm as taught by Scoggins, in order to manufacture an electrode with desired material, since the content and the size of carbon particles contained as impurities in the hafnium carbide powder is nothing more than a result effective variable able to be optimized in order to achieve a recognized result, such as to provide a Hafnium carbide powder having desired characteristic, and discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 2, Dunmead teaches the hafnium carbide powder has an average particle size of 0.5 μm to 2 μm (See col.5, lines 1-4 “The particle size of the transition metal carbide, typically, has an average size by number of at most about 1.5 micrometers in diameter. Preferably the average size is at most about 1 micrometer, more preferably at most about 0.8 micrometer and most preferably at most about 0.6 micrometer to at least about 0.05 micrometer, more preferably at least about 0.1 and most preferably at most about 0.2 micrometer in diameter.”).
Regarding claim 12, the modification of Dunmead and Scoggins does not explicitly teach a content of carbon particles contained as impurities in the hafnium carbide powder is less than or equal to 0.02% by mass.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the content of carbon particles contained as impurities in the hafnium carbide powder of Dunmead to be less than or equal to 0.02%, in order to manufacture an electrode with desired material, since the content and the size of carbon particles contained as impurities in the hafnium carbide powder is nothing more than a result effective variable able to be optimized in order to achieve a recognized result, such as to provide a Hafnium carbide powder having desired characteristic, and discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. In this case, the remarks do not provide any specific reasons as to why either the findings of fact or the legal conclusion of obviousness is allegedly in error, and merely amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRIS Q LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-8241. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/CHRIS Q LIU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761