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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/17/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are amended. Claims 1 and 9 are independent claims. Claims 9-20 are withdrawn. Claims 21-23 are newly added. Claims 1-8 and 21-23 are currently examined on the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “inclined gas holes” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 and 21-23 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The term “coarse” and “large” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “high” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The recited in claim 22 “…particles that are not more than 500 µm size … ultrafine metal particles…” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear with respect to the relationship between “particles that are not more than 500 µm size” and “ultrafine metal particles”. Also, the term “ultrafine” in claim 22 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, the metes and bounds of claim 22 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. Claims 23 are rejected because they depend on claim 22.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang Gemei (CN 109183144 A, machine translation, “Zhang”) and further in view of Sylvain et al (US 20190193164 A1, “Sylvain”) and Boswell et al (US 4915729 A, “Boswell”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a method for forming block crystals of a metal compound, comprising forming a liquid flow of a source metal (abstract, 0009, 0057, 0062, 0075, 0076, 0090, 0081, 0100, 0105, 0106, claim 1); fragmentating/crushing (breaking) the liquid flow in a fragmentation system (device) to generate droplets (particles) of the source metal (abstract, 0010, 0018, 0032, 0058, 0063, 0064, 0069, 0078, 0084, 0092, 0093, 0099, claim 1); superfine/ultra fine droplets/grain (particles) being processed/discharged/guided using ultra fine droplets/grains outlet/ports (particle selector) (0025, 0027-0029, 0071, 0072, 0087, 0102 and claim 4), and larger droplets (coarse particles) that are too large to pass through the outlet/ports (particle selector) pass to a bottom portion of the fragmentation chamber having an outlet for discharging coarse particles (large droplet/unfragmented) (0071 and 0078); introducing the selected super/ultra fine particles/ droplets/ grains into a reaction system (growth chamber) comprising a reactive gas that is reactive with the selected particles/ droplets/grains (abstract, 0011, 0032, 0059, 0065, 0069, 0079, 0094, 0099, 0109, 0110, claim 1), thereby forming grains (particles) of the metal compound and the block crystals of the metal compound in the growth chamber (abstract, 0011, 0012, 0032, 0060, 0067, 0069, 0081, 0082, 0084, 0096, 0097, 0099, 0111, 0112, claim 1).
Zhang teaches selecting particles as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach at least 85% of the particles that pass through the particle selector are not more than 500 μm in size. However, Sylvain teaches a method, wherein powders/particles are filtered/sieved/selected with a filter/sieve (selector), and 90% of the particles are less than 25 μm in size (0076, 0077, 0080, 0081, 0103, 0155 and table 2B). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Zhang per teachings of Sylvain in order to provide particles with suitable size for further application (Sylvain 0002 and 0006).
Zhang/Sylvain teaches the coarse particles being selected and discharged/ passed as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach a collection tank. However, Boswell teaches a method, wherein a collecting reservoir/tank is used to collect particles with difference sizes (col 6 lines 28-62; col 7 line 60 to col 8 line 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Zhang/Sylvain per teachings of Boswell in order to provide desired size for further application (Boswell abstract, col 1 lines 1-23; col 6 lines 28-62; col 7 line 60 to col 8 line 7). Furthermore, regarding the fragmentation device, particle selector and collection tank limitations, it is apparatus limitations in a process claim. Unless the apparatus limitations affect the process in a manipulative sense, they may have little weight in the process claims. In re Leeson Corp. 185 USPQ 156; In re Tarczy-Hornoch 158 USPQ 141, 150; In re Edwards 128 USPQ 387; Stalego v. Heymes 120 USPQ 473, 478 (CCPA); Ex parte Hart 117 USPQ 193; In re Freeman 44 USPQ 116 (CCPA); In re Sweeney 72 USPQ 501 (CCPA).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang/Sylvain/Boswell teaches that the breaking comprises applying a high-pressure gas to said liquid flow (Zhang 0017, 0063, 0064).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang/Sylvain/Boswell teaches that an inert gas is argon (Zhang 0091).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang/Sylvain/Boswell teaches that said source metal is gallium (Zhang 0069).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang/Sylvain/Boswell teaches that said source metal is gallium (a single metal) (Zhang 0069).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang/Sylvain/Boswell teaches that source metal is a combination of metals (Zhang 0061, 0062); and forming the liquid metal comprises increasing the temperature of the combination of metals above a melting point of a metal with a highest melting point in the combination of metals (Zhang 0015, 0061, 0062).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang/Sylvain/Boswell teaches that said source metal is gallium, wherein said reactive gas is nitrogen or ammonia, and wherein said metal compound is gallium nitride (Zhang 0069-0073, 0079, 0080).
Regarding claim 21, Zhang/Sylvain/Boswell teaches that forming the liquid flow of the source metal comprises placing (introducing) the source metal into a container of a liquefaction system (smelting furnace) (Zhang abstract, 0009, 0014, claim 1); forming a vacuum in the smelting furnace and increasing a temperature of the smelting furnace above a melting point of the source metal to form the liquid flow of the source metal (Zhang abstract, 0009, 0057, 0062, 0075, 0076, 0090, 0081, 0100, 0105, 0106, claim 1);.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang/Sylvain/Boswell teaches that the breaking the liquid flow is performed without a solvent (Zhang abstract, 0063, 0069, 0071, 0084, 0099).
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Zhang/Sylvain/Boswell teaches passing the particles through the particle selector and selecting the particles that are not more than 500 µm size and the particles selector as addressed above, and further teaches an outlet for ultrafine metal particles (Zhang 0073), a plurality of inclined gas holes that point away from the atomization (fragmentation) device (Sylvain fig 2, 0078, 0083-0094; Boswell figs 1-5 col 5 lines 60-66; col 6 lines 15-65, col 8 lines 35-55); and when passing the particles through the particle selector, an inert gas/atomization gas is injected into the inclined gas holes (Sylvain fig 2, 0078, 0083-0094; Boswell figs 1-5 col 5 lines 60-66; col 6 lines 15-65, col 8 lines 35-55), similar way to create the pressure differential as instantly claimed. Therefore, it would have been reasonably expected to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the pressure differential would have been created in Zhang/Sylvain/Boswell. A rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson' s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950). See MPEP 2143.02.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because the arguments do not apply to the new ground rejection provided above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hua Qi whose telephone number is (571)272-3193. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/HUA QI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights