DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 23 April 2026 has been entered. Claims 13-23, 25-27, 29, 31, and 33-34 remain pending in the application. Claims 13-22 have been withdrawn. Claims 1-12, 24, 28, 30, and 32 have been canceled. New claims 33 and 34 have been added. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 23 December 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 23, 25, 26, 29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2015291439 of Kinoshita further in view of US20150352210 of Wang.
Claim 23 claims a fine particle production method for producing fine particles using feedstock by means of a thermal plasma flame generated in a plasma torch. Kinoshita discloses a method for producing fine particles by introducing a feedstock (e.g. a copper compound) into a gas phase process such as a thermal plasma, Para.[0036-0044]. Claim 23 also claims transforming the feedstock into a mixture and cooling the mixture using a quenching gas containing an inert gas. Kinoshita 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, Para.[0044]. Kinoshita also teaches cooling using a quenching gas containing an inert gas, Para.[0060]. Kinoshita further discloses dispersing those particles in an organic solvent, Para.[0123], which would result in “supplying a surface treating agent to the fine particle bodies”. This step of Kinoshita would only be workable if conducted “in a temperature region in which the surface treating agent is not denatured” , which would read upon the limitation of claim 23 of the instant application.
Instant claim 23 also requires a step of spraying the surface agent onto the fine particle bodies in droplet form and a step of collecting the fine particles in a temperature region in which the surface treating agent is not denatured. Kinoshita does not teach transforming the surface agent into droplets and spraying the particles.
Wang teaches an invention related to particle functionalization, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Wang teaches that particles can be functionalized as they are generated, which can eliminate adverse interaction between the particles and air. For example, as particles are traveling, a coating material can be sprayed to form a mist or aerosol, and the particles can react with the molecules of the coating material as they pass through, Para.[0037]. Wang also discloses that the particles can be collected after being surface modified, Para.[0082]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the gas-phase process, occurring in a temperature range where the surface agent is not denatured, that is disclosed in Kinoshita with the spraying method of applying the surface treating agent and collection of particles taught by Wang in order to obtain the properly functionalized powder and to eliminate adverse interactions between the particles and air. Thus, Kinoshita and Wang cover all limitations of claim 23.
Claims 25 and 26 further limit claim 23 by restricting the surface treating agent to include specific components. Kinoshita discloses a dispersion containing cuprous oxide fine particles of the invention dispersed in an organic solvent, Para[0123]. Thus, Kinoshita in view of Wang reads on all limitations of claims 25 and 26.
Claim 29 further limits claims 23 by stating the feedstock is dispensed in particulate form. Kinoshita indicates the feedstock can be supplied into the plasma by dispersing it into a state of primary particles, Para.[0048] considered equivalent to “the feedstock being dispersed in particulate form” in the instant application. Therefore, Kinoshita in view of Wang reads on all limitations of claims 29.
Claim 31 further limits claims 23 by stating that the feedstock is dispersed in liquid to obtain a slurry, and the slurry is transformed into droplets and supplied into the thermal plasma flame. Kinoshita discloses an embodiment where the feedstock is dispersed in liquid to obtain a slurry which is transformed into droplets and supplied into the plasma, Para.[0052-0054]. Therefore, Kinoshita in view of Wang reads on all limitations of claims 31.
Claims 27, 33, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2015291439 of Kinoshita in view of US20150352210 of Wang further in view of US20070221635 of Boulos.
Claim 27 further limits claims 23 by requiring the feedstock to be a copper powder. While Kinoshita employs a copper compound feedstock such as copper oxide, Kinoshita does not specify that it must be a copper powder. Boulos teaches the production of nanoscale powders using plasma in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention. Boulos indicates the known equivalence in the art of producing copper powder and copper oxide powder via such a method, Para.[0028]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kinoshita in view of Wang by using a copper powder feedstock as claimed. Thus, Kinoshita, Wang, and Boulos cover all limitations of claim 27.
Claim 33 further limits claim 23 by claiming that the quenching gas is argon gas.
Kinoshita teaches that the supply method, supply position and the like of the cooling gas are not particularly limited as long as the stabilization of the thermal plasma flame is not hindered. Therefore, the cooling gas taught by Kinoshita would encompass Argon.
Wang teaches argon as a carrier gas, Para[0041, 0123]. Wang discloses that the carrier gas can also function as a cooling gas, Para[0041]. Therefore, Wang teaches argon as a quenching/cooling gas.
Boulos teaches that the quench gas flow rate was set at 400 slpm (pure Argon) and the quench gas injection temperatures were set at 700 K (Case 1), 1000 K (Case 2) and 1200 K (Case 3) respectively, Para[0048]. Thus, Boulos teaches argon as a quenching gas.
Therefore, based on the teachings of Kinoshita, Wang, and Boulos, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Argon as the cooling gas to quench the particles. Thus, Kinoshita, Wang, and Boulos cover all limitations of claim 33.
Claim 34 further limits claim 23 by claiming that the quenching gas contains a hydrocarbon gas having 4 or less carbon atoms.
Kinoshita teaches that the supply method, supply position and the like of the cooling gas are not particularly limited as long as the stabilization of the thermal plasma flame is not hindered. Therefore, the cooling gas taught by Kinoshita would encompass hydrocarbons.
Boulos teaches that the quench gas may further comprise a carburizing agent such as acetylene or methane, Para[0047]. Boulos discloses that the present invention relates to an improved process and apparatus for the preparation of nanopowders in which the particle morphology, the particle size distribution, and the agglomeration of particles is readily controlled and which process is easily scalable, Para[0008]. Thus, based on the teachings of Kinoshita and Boulos, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a hydrocarbon, like the methane taught by Boulos, in the quenching gas in order to improve the preparation of nanopowders. Therefore, Kinoshita, Wang, and Boulos cover all limitations of claim 34.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that (remarks, page 7 of 9) it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the spraying of the particles as taught by Wang to the method disclosed by Kinoshita because in addition to spraying, Wang also teaches dispersing the particles in water or an organic solvent. This is not persuasive because Wang teaches that implementations can include any or all of the following features: The process can further comprise drying the deposited particles, thereby yielding functionalized metal particles in a dry form. In some implementations, the process can further comprise dissolving the support containing deposited particles in a suitable solvent, thereby dispersing the particles in water or an organic solvent. Suitable organic solvents can be selected based upon the material used to formulate the support. Illustrative organic solvents include, but are not limited to, chloroform, 2-butanone, methanol, ethanol, benzene, and the like, Para[0012]. Thus, the dispersion of the particles in water or an organic solvent is optional and not required by Wang. Furthermore, Wang teaches that particles can be functionalized as they are generated, which can eliminate adverse interaction between the particles and air. For example, as particles are traveling, a coating material can be sprayed to form a mist or aerosol, and the particles can react with the molecules of the coating material as they pass through, Para.[0037]. Thus, Wang provides clear motivation for incorporating the spraying of the surface agent into the method disclosed by Kinoshita.
Applicant argues that (remarks, page 8 of 9) it is not obvious to apply Wang to Kinoshita because it is difficult to apply cuprous oxide to the substrate in particle form as taught by Wang. This is not found persuasive because Wang teaches that particles can form particle assemblies once they have contacted the collection substrate, Para[0079]. Therefore, Wang specifically teaches applying the particles on a substrate. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the spraying taught by Wang to the method of Kinoshita. The rejection is maintained.
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 JACOB BENJAMIN STILES whose telephone number is (571)272-0598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (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 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JACOB BENJAMIN STILES/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights