DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 03/31/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-9, and 12-13 remain pending in the application and are presented for examination on the merits. Claims 4, 10, and 11 have been canceled. No new claims have been added. Applicant's amendments to the specification have overcome the drawing and specification objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 01/09/2026. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 01/09/2026. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) and 112(d) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 01/09/2026.
Claim Interpretation
Amended claim 1 recites “wherein, when the first cooling water spraying nozzle is provided in plurality, the plurality of first cooling water spraying nozzles have the same spraying angle, and the first cooling water spraying nozzle and the second cooling water spraying nozzle have different spraying angles depending on their heights”. This limitation is interpreted as a contingent clause. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See MPEP 2111.04(II). In this case, the claimed spraying angles are interpreted as a required structure in case a plurality of nozzles is provided in the claimed apparatus.
Regarding the claimed spraying angle of claim 1, the instant specification recites “the cooling water sprayed from the spraying nozzle is sprayed in the form of a flat fan, and a central angle of the fan is defined as a spraying angle” ([0060]). The term “spraying angle” is interpreted as synonymous with “spray angle” which is a well-known term in the nozzle arts defining the angle formed by the spread of an ejected liquid. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “spraying angle” of claim 1 includes the spray angle of any shape, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, and is not limited to only angles formed when spraying in the form of a flat fan as defined in the instant specification unless Applicant intends to redefine the term “spraying angle”. See MPEP 2111.01.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Amended claim 1 now contains the limitation “are alternately arranged along a circumferential direction of the chamber.” The instant specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter, i.e., “are alternately arranged along a circumferential direction of the chamber.” The instant specification recites “the first and second cooling water spraying nozzles 21 and 22 may be alternately disposed” ([0065]), but does not specify that the nozzles are “alternately arranged along a circumferential direction of the chamber” (emphasis added).
The claimed feature is shown in Figs. 1-3 and an amendment to the specification to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter will not constitute new matter.
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 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0246131 A1 of Watanabe (as cited in IDS mailed 06/23/2023 and in prior Office action) in view of US 3663206 A of Lubanska (as cited in prior Office action) and further in view of KR 1426008 B1 of Song (as cited in prior Office action).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe teaches a metal powder manufacturing device for manufacturing a metal powder (Abstract, reads on the claimed apparatus for manufacturing metal powder). Watanabe teaches a feed for supplying a molten metal, allowing passage of the molten metal, and spouting a fluid into the channel to form droplets caused by contact between the molten metal and the fluid ejected from the orifice, which results in cooled and solidified droplets in order to manufacture metal powder ([0010], reads on the claimed a molten metal, broken up in a form of liquid droplets and the falling, is cooled).
Watanabe teaches a fluid spout unit (3, Figs. 1-2, [0059]-[0064]) with an orifice (34) which ejects water to the first channel ([0065]-[0068], orifice of fluid spout unit reads on the claimed first cooling water spraying nozzle). Watanabe teaches water also stably spouts from an ejection outlet (68, Fig. 1) through orifice (64, orifice 64 is part of nozzle 6 as described in [0096] and reads on the claimed second cooling water spraying nozzle) and that the ejection outlet is installed on the wall of cylinder (9A, cylinder reads on the claimed chamber and installation of the outlet on wall of cylinder reads on the claimed nozzles disposed on an internal wall of the chamber).
Watanabe therefore reads on the limitation an apparatus for manufacturing metal powder comprising a chamber in which a molten metal, broken up in a form of liquid droplets and then falling, is cooled, wherein the chamber comprises cooling water spraying nozzles disposed on an internal wall of the chamber to cool the broken-up molten metal, wherein the cooling water spraying nozzles comprise a first cooling water spraying nozzle of claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
813
1083
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Fig. 1 from Watanabe showing the nozzle configuration with associated heights and angles.
As seen in Fig. 1 (reproduced and annotated herein), the fluid spout unit of Watanabe is provided at a first height and the nozzle is provided at a second height lower than the first height in a vertical direction. The inclination angle formed by the nozzle is greater than the inclination angle of the fluid spout unit. The configuration of the fluid spout units and nozzles of Watanabe therefore reads on the limitations a first cooling water spraying nozzle, forming a first angle of inclination θ11, with the internal wall of the chamber in a vertical direction and provided at a first height, and a second cooling water spraying nozzle forming a second angle of inclination θ12, greater than the first angle of inclination θ11, in a vertical direction with respect to the internal wall of the chamber and provided at a second height, lower than the first height of claim 1, and wherein the first cooling water spraying nozzle and the second cooling water spraying nozzle are disposed at different heights of claim 1.
Regarding the plurality of first cooling nozzles of claim 1, Watanabe teaches, as seen in Fig. 1, that there are 2 nozzles at each height, one on each side of the apparatus, therefore teaching a plurality of nozzles provided at a first height. Watanabe also teaches nozzles may be provided as a plurality of nozzles arranged in the vertical direction ([0115]).
Additionally, adding another nozzle at the same height would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention since it is well known in the art that increasing fluid will increase cooling and therefore obtain metal powder in a highly amorphous state, as taught by Watanabe ([0016]-[0019]). Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.04 VI B.
Watanabe therefore reads on the limitation the first cooling water spraying nozzle is provided in plurality of claim 1.
Regarding the alternately arranged nozzles of claim 1, Watanabe teaches the fluid spout unit 3 and the nozzle 6 may be in contact with each other, or may also be set away from each other ([0111], 3 reads on claimed first nozzle and 6 reads on claimed second nozzle).
Regarding the spraying angle of claim 1, Watanabe teaches the water ejected from orifices 34 and 64 is ejected as a liquid jet with a shape such that a vertex thereof points downward and is approximately conical ([0069], [0089], Fig. 1). Watanabe further teaches the location of lowest pressure may change in accordance with the shapes and angles of orifice 34 ([0064]).
However, Watanabe does not explicitly disclose wherein the first cooling water spraying nozzle and the second cooling water spraying nozzle are alternately arranged along a circumferential direction of the chamber of claim 1, and the plurality of first cooling water spraying nozzles have the same spraying angle, and the first cooling water spraying nozzle and the second cooling water spraying nozzle have different spraying angles depending on their heights of claim 1.
Regarding the alternately arranged nozzles of claim 1, Lubanska teaches a method of shattering a freely falling liquid stream by means of downwardly directed jets which strike the stream at a common impact zone. The jets issue from two or more nozzle systems (Abstract). Lubanska and Watanabe are considered analogous art since they are all in the metal powder manufacturing arts, all comprise a chamber and multiple spray nozzles using water, and all make metal powder from cooling molten metal.
Lubanska teaches a stream of molten metallic material (1, Fig. 1) flowing from the outlet (2, Fig. 1) of a tundish (3, Fig. 1) falls through the central apertures of a pair of nozzle rings (4, Fig. 1) and (5, Fig. 1) of the same pitch circle diameter (col. 1, lines 49-52). Lubanska teaches that nozzle ring (4, Fig. 1) includes four equally spaced nozzles (8, Fig. 1, reads on the claimed first cooling water spraying nozzle) and nozzle ring (5, Fig. 1) includes nozzles (11, Fig. 1, reads on the claimed second cooling water spraying nozzle) located at different levels (col. 1, lines 52-53, Fig. 1, nozzle 11 is at a height lower than the height of nozzle 11 as shown in Fig. 1 and therefore nozzle 8 reads on the claimed first cooling water spraying nozzle and nozzle 11 on the claimed second cooling water spraying nozzle). Lubanska further teaches the rings (4 and 5, Fig. 1) may alternatively be so related in azimuth that each nozzle (8, reads on claimed first nozzle) is situated vertically above a portion of the ring (5, Fig. 1) mid-way between a pair of the nozzles (11, Fig. 1, reads on claimed second nozzle) in order to avoid interference between the boundaries of the jets of the two nozzle systems (col. 1, lines 64-71, this arrangement results in the nozzles at the different heights and are considered “alternately arranged”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the nozzle arrangement of Watanabe with the nozzle arrangement of Lubanska to avoid interference between the boundaries of the jets of the two nozzle systems, as taught by Lubanska.
Modified Watanabe therefore reads on the limitation wherein the first cooling water spraying nozzle and the second cooling water spraying nozzle are alternately arranged along a circumferential direction of the chamber of claim 1.
Regarding the spraying angle of claim 1, Watanabe teaches it is preferable that the nozzle eject the second fluid, the fluid assuming a conical shape, converging downward so that the liquid jet is ejected covering the entire bore of the third channel, causing the liquid jet to hit the dispersion liquid without missing, thereby reliably changing the course of the dispersion liquid and consequently, multiple particles of primary powder are cooled down evenly, providing a chemically homogeneous amorphous state, i.e., a disorder in the positions of atoms of the metal powder being formed ([0014]-[0016]).
Since Watanabe necessarily has a spraying angle despite not disclosing it and Watanabe teaches the second nozzle preferably hits the dispersion liquid and cools down multiple particles evenly, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand the spraying angle of the second nozzle should be greater than the angle of the first nozzle to optimize the amount of particles cooled down evenly to provide a chemically homogeneous amorphous state, as taught by Watanabe.
Additionally, or alternatively, Song teaches an atomizing nozzle used in a powder manufacturing device for various functional powders including pure metals and alloys (Abstract). Song and Watanabe are considered analogous art since they are both similarly concerned with manufacturing metal powder via atomization and both comprise a chamber and multiple nozzles for cooling molten metal.
Song teaches that multiple nozzles are installed in duplicate by overlapping each other vertically, but the spray angle (81a) of the multiple second injection nozzles (5) located below is made larger than the spray angle (81) of the annular first injection nozzle (5) located above, so that the distance between the intersections (87)(87a) for the cooling medium (31a) sprayed from the annular first and second injection nozzles (5)(7) is 30 mm or less to perform primary and secondary cooling thereby increasing cooling effect, reducing microsegregation, and making it possible to easily control the size and shape of the powder (claim 1, [0027], Fig. 5, Abstract; first injection nozzle reads on claimed first nozzle and second injection nozzle reads on claimed second nozzle; 81 reads on claimed plurality of first cooling water spraying nozzles have the same spraying angle; 81a reads on claimed second cooling water spraying nozzle have different spraying angles depending on their heights since 81a is larger than the spray angle of the first nozzle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the spray angles of the nozzles of Watanabe with the spraying angles of Song to perform primary and secondary cooling thereby increasing cooling effect, reducing microsegregation, and making it possible to easily control the size and shape of the powder, as taught by Song.
Modified Watanabe therefore reads on the limitation the plurality of first cooling water spraying nozzles have the same spraying angle, and the first cooling water spraying nozzle and the second cooling water spraying nozzle have different spraying angles depending on their heights of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, modified Watanabe teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as described above.
Watanabe teaches, as seen in Fig. 1, that there are 2 nozzles at each height, one on each side of the apparatus, therefore teaching a plurality of nozzles provided at a first height. Watanabe also teaches nozzles may be provided as a plurality of nozzles arranged in the vertical direction ([0115]).
Additionally, adding another nozzle at the same height would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention since it is well known in the art that increasing fluid will increase cooling and therefore obtain metal powder in a highly amorphous state, as taught by Watanabe ([0016]-[0019]). Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.04 VI B.
Modified Watanabe therefore reads on the limitation wherein a plurality of first cooling water spraying nozzles is provided at the first height of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, modified Watanabe teaches the apparatus of claim 2 as described above.
As seen in Fig. 1 (reproduced and annotated herein), the fluid spout unit of Watanabe is provided at a first height and the nozzle is provided at a second height lower than the first height in a vertical direction. The inclination angle formed by the nozzle is greater than the inclination angle of the fluid spout unit. The configuration of the fluid spout units and nozzles of Watanabe reads on the claimed θ11 < θ12.
However, Watanabe does not explicitly disclose wherein θ11 < θ12 < … < θ1n where among cooling water spraying nozzles each having a height lower than an (n-1)th height (n being a positive integer greater than 2), at least one cooling water spraying nozzle having a highest position is an n-th cooling spraying nozzle, and an angle between a spraying direction of the n-th cooling water spraying nozzle and the internal wall of the chamber in a vertical direction is an n-th angle θ1n.
Song teaches an atomizing nozzle used in a powder manufacturing device for various functional powders including pure metals and alloys (Abstract). Song and Watanabe are considered analogous art since they are both similarly concerned with manufacturing metal powder via atomization and both comprise a chamber and multiple nozzles for cooling molten metal.
Song teaches a third injection nozzle (9, Fig. 3, reads on the claimed at least one cooling water spraying nozzle having a highest position is an n-th cooling spraying nozzle) is installed below the first and second nozzles (5 and 7 respectively, Fig. 3, reads on the claimed first and second nozzle), and the injection angle (81b, Fig. 3, reads on the claimed n-th angle θ1n) and intersection point (87b, Fig. 3) of the nozzles can be configured, and in this case, the fine particle powder is cooled three times, so that cooling is performed three times while passing through the multiple nozzles ([0020], Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of modified Watanabe to add a third nozzle and adjust the angles to further increase cooling of the metal particles, as taught by Song.
Modified Watanabe therefore reads on the limitation all the limitations of claim 3.
Regarding claim 8, modified Watanabe teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as described above.
Watanabe teaches the ejection pressure of the fluid is between 5 to 20 MPa (claim 6, [0020], [0108], 5-20 MPa is equivalent to 50-200 bar and therefore reads on the claimed 80 bar to 150 bar). 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2144.05 I.
Modified Watanabe therefore reads on the limitation wherein a cooling water spray pressure of the cooling water spraying nozzles is 80 bar to 150 bar of claim 8.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0246131 A1 of Watanabe (as cited in IDS mailed 06/23/2023 and in prior Office action) in view of US 3663206 A of Lubanska (as cited in prior Office action) and further in view of KR 1426008 B1 of Song (as cited in prior Office action), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP H059513 A of Nitta (as cited in prior Office action).
Regarding claim 5, modified Watanabe teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as described above.
However, modified Watanabe is silent to a shielding plate provided on the internal wall of the chamber to protect each of the cooling water spraying nozzles.
Nitta teaches a method for preventing sticking and clogging of molten metal to fluid injection nozzle and protective guide thereof (Title). Nitta is considered analogous art since it is similarly concerned with a metal powder manufacturing apparatus which has a chamber, nozzles, and the apparatus produces powder by cooling molten metal.
Nitta teaches installing a protective guide (6, Fig. 1, reads on claimed shielding plate) in the chamber to cover the water injection nozzle (5, Fig. 1, reads on claimed cooling water spray nozzle) ([0016], claim 1, Fig. 1). Nitta teaches using the protective guide greatly reduces the adhesion of molten metal to the nozzle and resulting blockage of the nozzle from molten metal adhesion ([0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of modified Watanabe by including the shielding plate of Nitta to prevent adhesion of molten metal to the nozzles and resulting nozzle blockages, as taught by Nitta.
Modified Watanabe therefore reads on all the limitations of claim 5.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0246131 A1 of Watanabe (as cited in IDS mailed 06/23/2023 and in prior Office action) in view of US 3663206 A of Lubanska (as cited in prior Office action) and further in view of KR 1426008 B1 of Song (as cited in prior Office action), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2017/0239731 A1 of Kaneta (as cited in prior Office action).
Regarding claim 6, modified Watanabe teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as described above.
Watanabe teaches, as seen in Fig. 1, an upper portion of the chamber (where fluid spout unit 3 is located) is larger than a lower portion of the chamber (where nozzle 6 is located along cylinder 9A).
However, modified Watanabe does not explicitly disclose wherein an internal diameter in an upper portion of the chamber is one to three times an internal diameter in a lower portion of the chamber.
Kaneta teaches a metal powder production apparatus with a molten metal supply section and a fluid jet section (Abstract). Kaneta is considered analogous art since it is similarly concerned with a metal powder manufacturing apparatus which has a chamber, nozzles, and the apparatus produces powder by cooling molten metal.
Kaneta teaches the internal diameter in a lower portion of the chamber is set to 15% to 85% of the internal diameter in an upper portion of the chamber ([0083], d2 and d1 respectively in Fig. 1). This arrangement results in an internal diameter in an upper portion of the chamber is 1.17 to 6.67 times an internal diameter in a lower portion of the chamber (d2 = 0.15d1 would be equivalent d1=6.67d2, and d2 = 0.85d1 would be equivalent d1=1.17d2).
Kaneta teaches when the internal diameter of the chamber decreases between the upper and lower portion, the cooling liquid is concentrated and results in further spheroidization of the metal powder ([0083], cooling liquid may be water). Kaneta further teaches that if the internal diameter of the lower portion is too small, the amount of cooling liquid would decrease and cooling or spheroidization of the powder would be insufficient while too large of a diameter would allow for too much powder metal powder to fall resulting in insufficient spheroidization ([0087]-[0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the chamber diameters of modified Watanabe, such as within the claimed ranges, to optimize the diameters to allow for enough cooling of the metal powder to achieve adequate spheroidization, as taught by Kaneta.
Modified Watanabe therefore reads on all the limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, modified Watanabe teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as described above.
However, modified Watanabe does not explicitly disclose wherein a length of the chamber is one to five times an internal diameter in an upper portion of the chamber.
Kaneta teaches the length of the upper portion of the chamber is set to 1 to 7 times the internal diameter of the upper portion of the chamber to ensure sufficient flying distance of the molten metal and therefore sufficient spheroidization by preventing the flying time from being excessively long ([0097]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the chamber length of modified Watanabe with the length of Kaneta, such as within claimed ranges, to ensure sufficient flying distance of the molten metal and therefore sufficient spheroidization by preventing the flying time from being excessively long, as taught by Kaneta.
Modified Watanabe therefore reads on all the limitations of claim 7.
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0246131 A1 of Watanabe (as cited in IDS mailed 06/23/2023 and in prior Office action) in view of US 3663206 A of Lubanska (as cited in prior Office action) and further in view of KR 1426008 B1 of Song (as cited in prior Office action), as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of JP 2019/019348 A of Isaki (as cited in prior Office action) and “Experimental and computational analysis of a water spray; application to molten metal atomization” of Asgarian (as cited in prior Office action).
Regarding claims 9 and 13, Watanabe teaches the apparatus of claims 1 and 2 respectively, as described above.
Watanabe teaches, as seen in annotated Fig. 1 above and further depicted in Fig. 2, an inclination angle of orifice 34 that is acute with respect to the vertical direction and overlaps with the claimed range of 10-60°. From annotated Fig. 1, the inclination angles appear to be in a range of approximately 5-20° for θ11 and 30-50° for θ12 with θ11 depicted as a narrower angle than θ12.
Since Watanabe does not explicitly disclose the inclination angles, it would have been necessary and obvious to look to the prior art for exemplary inclination angles used in nozzles for manufacturing metal powder. Isaki teaches a metal powder manufacturing apparatus where molten metal flows downward and an injection nozzle that injects water to the molten metal powder (Abstract). Isaki and Watanabe are considered analogous art since they are similarly concerned with manufacturing metal powder by cooling molten metal and both comprise a chamber and multiple spray nozzles using water. Isaki teaches the angle of the nozzle may be adjusted using a universal joint and that the cooling water may be sprayed at angles other than 90° to control the distance between the cooling water and the flowing molten metal powder to control the particle size of the resulting metal powder ([0059]-[0062]). Figure 7 of Isaki shows potential nozzle angles with respect to the vertical axis pointing upwards or downwards.
One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the nozzle angle based on their desired particle size and would reasonably expect to position the nozzle at a first angle of inclination of 10°-60° for the nozzle to point downwards and enable the formation of fine powders, as taught by Isaki.
Modified Watanabe therefore reads on the limitations wherein the first angle of inclination is 10° to 60° of claim 9.
Regarding the spraying angle of claim 9 and the flat fan of claim 13, Watanabe teaches the water ejected from orifices 34 and 64 is ejected as a liquid jet with an approximately conical shape ([0069], [0089], Fig. 1).
Asgarian teaches nozzles with a flat fan spray (Introduction, Experiments, and Results and Discussion sections, reads on the claimed form of a flat fan).
Regarding the spraying angle of claim 9, it would have been necessary and obvious to look to the prior art for exemplary spraying angles used in apparatuses for manufacturing metal powder. Asgarian teaches an analysis of water sprays applied to molten metal atomization (Title). Asgarian and Watanabe are considered analogous art since they are similarly concerned with making metal powder from molten metal by cooling with water sprays. Asgarian teaches the characteristics of the water sprays, such as droplet size distribution, have a significant influence on the particle size distribution and morphology of the metal powder (Abstract). Asgarian teaches there are well-known types of nozzle configurations, such as annular nozzles and open v-jet nozzles, which commonly result in flat-fan sprays (Introduction section). Asgarian teaches the flat fan spray may have spreading angles β of, for example, 25°, 33.5° and 39.8° (Fig. 4 shows β angle which reads on claimed spraying angle and Tables in Experiments section and Results and Discussion section showcase examples of angles). Asgarian teaches the angles increase with increasing pressure (text above Table 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the approximately conical shape of the water of Watanabe with the flat fan spray shape and angles of 25-39.8° of Asgarian to form a conventional spray configuration for metal atomization and influence particle size distribution and powder morphology, as taught by Asgarian.
Asgarian teaches spreading angles of 25-39.8° (Tables of Experimental and Results and Discussion sections), which overlap with the claimed ranges of claim 9.
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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2144.05 I.
Additionally, the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
In this case, since both cone and flat fan sprays are well-known nozzle configurations in the metal powder manufacturing arts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the nozzles to have either shape when ejecting cooling water.
Modified Watanabe therefore reads on the limitations wherein the spraying angle of the first cooling water spraying nozzle ranges from 30° to 90° of claim 9, and wherein the plurality of first cooling water spraying nozzles are configured to spray cooling water in a form of a flat fan of claim 13.
Modified Watanabe therefore reads on all the limitations of claims 9 and 13.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0246131 A1 of Watanabe (as cited in IDS mailed 06/23/2023 and in prior Office action) in view of US 3663206 A of Lubanska (as cited in prior Office action) and further in view of KR 1426008 B1 of Song (as cited in prior Office action), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2019/019348 A of Isaki (as cited in prior Office action).
Regarding claim 12, Watanabe teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as described above.
Watanabe teaches, as seen in annotated Fig. 1 above and further depicted in Fig. 2, an inclination angle of orifice 34 that is acute with respect to the vertical direction and overlaps with the claimed range of 10-60°. From annotated Fig. 1, the inclination angles appear to be in a range of approximately 5-20° for θ11 and 30-50° for θ12 with θ11 depicted as a narrower angle than θ12.
Since Watanabe does not explicitly disclose the inclination angles, it would have been necessary and obvious to look to the prior art for exemplary inclination angles used in nozzles for manufacturing metal powder. Isaki teaches a metal powder manufacturing apparatus where molten metal flows downward and an injection nozzle that injects water to the molten metal powder (Abstract). Isaki and Watanabe are considered analogous art since they are similarly concerned with manufacturing metal powder by cooling molten metal and both comprise a chamber and multiple spray nozzles using water. Isaki teaches the angle of the nozzle may be adjusted using a universal joint and that the cooling water may be sprayed at angles other than 90° to control the distance between the cooling water and the flowing molten metal powder to control the particle size of the resulting metal powder ([0059]-[0062]). Figure 7 of Isaki shows potential nozzle angles with respect to the vertical axis pointing upwards or downwards.
One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the nozzle angle based on their desired particle size and would reasonably expect to position the nozzle at a first angle of inclination of 10°-60° for the nozzle to point downwards and enable the formation of fine powders, as taught by Isaki, and obtain a difference between a first and second inclination angle, such as within the claimed 5-15°.
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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2144.05 I.
Modified Watanabe therefore reads on the limitations wherein a difference between the first angle of inclination θ11 and the second angle of inclination θ12 ranges from 5° to 15° of claim 12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1 is patentable because cited references do not disclose or suggest at least the above-emphasized features, in combination with other elements of the claim (remarks, pages 13-23).
In response, the Examiner notes that the above-emphasized features (namely first and second nozzle at different heights and are alternately arranged, and when a plurality of first nozzles is provided, the first nozzles have the same spraying angle and the first and second nozzle have different spraying angles depending on their height) are the amended limitations of the claim set filed on 03/31/2026. The amended claims are rejected in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections in this Office action.
Applicant argues that claim 1 is not merely directed to a simple modification of nozzle angles or a selection of spray type and rather, it is characterized by a coordinated configuration (remarks, page 18).
In response, this argument is not persuasive because “modifying” nozzle angles and spray types has the same result as selecting nozzles “by a coordinated configuration”. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consult patents and other literature in the metal powder making arts to make or improve their invention. See 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections in this Office action for motivation provided for each combination of references.
Applicant argues that Watanabe and the instant invention differ not only in structural configuration but also in technical function and design intent (remarks, page 21).
In response, this argument is not persuasive because the prior art reads on the structure of the claimed apparatus (see 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections in this Office action) as currently amended. The prior art rejections previously set forth in Non-Final Rejection mailed 01/09/2026 relied on Watanabe and Asgarian for claim 1, and in this Office action, rely on Watanabe, Lubanska, and Song. Claim amendments required the new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office action. Nonetheless, Watanabe, Asgarian, Lubanska, and Song are considered analogous art since they are all in the metal powder manufacturing arts, all comprise a chamber and multiple spray nozzles using water, and all make metal powder from cooling molten metal. The references used are all in the same field of endeavor of making metal powder and are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor since they are similarly concerned with cooling molten metal to make metal powder. See MPEP 2141.01(a). In this case, all the references serve similar technical functions and design intents.
Applicant argues that the Examiner’s reasoning is based on an improper hindsight reconstruction (remarks, pages 21-22).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, the arguments are drawn to a rejection of claim 1 over Watanabe and Asgarian, rather than the rejection of amended claim 1 over Watanabe, Lubanska and Song set forth in this Office action. Notwithstanding, the prior art presented in this Office action is considered analogous art. Watanabe, Asgarian, Lubanska, and Song are considered analogous art since they are all in the metal powder manufacturing arts, all comprise a chamber and multiple spray nozzles using water, and all make metal powder from cooling molten metal. The references used are all in the same field of endeavor of making metal powder and are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor since they are similarly concerned with cooling molten metal to make metal powder. See MPEP 2141.01(a).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYELA ALDAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0309. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Thursday: 10 am - 7 pm and alternate Friday: 10 am - 6 pm.
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.
/M.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights