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 Amendment filed April 29, 2025 has been entered. Claims 13-32 ar pending in this application, with claims 13-22 withdrawn from consideration as directed to a non-elected invention. Thus claims 23-32 are examined herein.
Rejections -- 35 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.
Claims 23-26 and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita et al. (US 2015/0291439) in view of Watanabe et al. (WO 2019/146414, and its English translation attached hereto).
Kinoshita discloses a method of producing fine particles by introducing a
feedstock (e.g. a copper compound) into a gas-phase process such as a thermal
plasma in accord with instant claim 24 (see Kinoshita para [0036-0044], and cooling
using a quenching gas containing an inert gas (see Kinoshita para [0060]). The
Kinoshita method further includes dispersing those particles in an organic solvent (see Kinoshita para [0123]), which would result in “supplying a surface treating agent to the fine particle bodies”. Further, the organic solvent of Kinoshita is within the scope of instant claims 25 and 26. This step of Kinoshita would only be workable if conducted “in a temperature region in which the surface treating agent is not denatured”. With respect to “transforming the feedstock into a mixture in a gas phase state by means of the gas phase process” in claim 23 and similar language in claims 29-32, Kinoshita para [0044] indicates that the thermal plasma flame has a higher temperature than the boiling point of the copper compound feedstock so the copper compound is easily converted into a gas phase state.
With respect to claims 29 and 30, Kinoshita para [0048] indicates the feedstock can be supplied into the plasma by dispersing it into a state of primary particles, considered equivalent to “the feedstock being dispersed in a particulate form”. With respect to claims 31 and 32, alternatively Kinoshita para [0052-0054] discloses an
embodiment where the feedstock is dispersed in liquid to obtain a slurry which is
transformed into droplets and supplied into the plasma, in accord with the claimed
method.
Kinoshita discloses supplying the surface treating agent (the organic solvent) by dispersing the particles in the solvent, as opposed to transforming that agent into droplets and spraying it to the particles as required by claim 23 as amended. Watanabe is directed to producing copper particles in a thermal plasma flame, i.e. Watababe is in a similar field of endeavor. Watanabe indicates it was known in the art, at the time of filing of the present invention, to supply a treating agent (specifically an organic acid) to the particles by forming a solution of the acid into droplets and spraying the solution into the chamber that contains the particles. Note particularly page 6 as well as the bottom of page 8 of the translation of Watanabe. This disclosure of Watanabe would have rendered it obvious for one practicing the method of Kinoshita to substitute a droplet spraying method of applying the organic solvent (as in Watanabe) for the dispersing in a solvent method of Kinoshita.
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Kinoshita et al. in view of Watanabe et al., as above, and further in view of Boulos et al. (US 2007/0221635).
Kinoshita, discussed supra, employs a copper compound feedstock such as
copper oxide as opposed to the presently claimed “copper powder”. Boulos is directed
to producing nanoscale powders using a plasma, i.e. Boulos is in a similar field of
endeavor. Boulos indicates the known equivalence in the art of producing copper
powder and copper oxide powder via such a method; compare Boulos para [0028]
(copper powder) and [0031] (copper oxide powder). This disclosure of Boulos et al.
would have rendered it obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method suggested by the combination of Kinoshita et al. and Watanabe et al. by using a copper powder feedstock as claimed.
Response to Arguments
In remarks filed April 29, 2025, Applicant states that Kinoshita fails to disclose supplying the surface treating agent by the method as now recited in present claim 23 as amended. In response, the examiner believes that the newly applied Watanabe reference above speaks directly to this newly claimed method of supplying the treating agent.
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 GEORGE WYSZOMIERSKI whose telephone number is (571) 272-1252. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm Eastern time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks, can be reached on 571-272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, 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
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.
/GEORGE WYSZOMIERSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733 June 26, 2025