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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 3-5, 9-11, 13 and 14 are amended. Claims 1 and 9 are independent claims. Claims 9-20 are withdrawn. Claims 1-8 are currently examined on the merits.
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.
Claim 2 is 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 “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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang Gemei (CN 109183144 A, machine translation, “Zhang”), or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a method for forming block crystals of a metal compound, comprising placing (introducing) a source metal into a container of a liquefaction system (smelting furnace) (abstract, 0009, 0014, claim 1); forming a vacuum in said smelting furnace and increasing a temperature of said smelting furnace above a melting point of said source metal to form a liquid flow of said source metal (abstract, 0009, 0057, 0062, 0075, 0076, 0090, 0081, 0100, 0105, 0106, claim 1); fragmentating/crushing (breaking) said liquid flow to generate droplets (particles) of said 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 (0025, 0027-0029, 0071, 0072, 0087, 0102 and claim 4); and introducing said selected super/ultra fine particles/ droplets/ grains into a reaction system (growth chamber) comprising a reactive gas that is reactive with said selected particles/droplets/grains (abstract, 0011, 0032, 0059, 0065, 0069, 0079, 0094, 0099, 0109, 0110, claim 1), thereby forming said block crystals of said metal compound (abstract, 0011, 0012, 0032, 0060, 0067, 0069, 0081, 0082, 0084, 0096, 0097, 0099, 0111, 0112, claim 1).
Zhang teaches the superfine/ultra fine droplets/grain (particles) being processed/ discharged/guided using ultra fine droplets/grains outlet/ports as addressed above, Even if it is not clearly envisaged that the outlet/ports is a particle selector, it still would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date that outlet/ ports could be considered as a particle selector selecting particles using the particle selector are within the teachings of Zhang, because only superfine/ultra fine droplets/grain/particles can be discharged/guided into the reaction system through the fine droplets/grains outlet/ports for further forming the block crystals of said metal compound as described in Zhang. Furthermore, regarding the particle selector limitation, it is an apparatus limitation 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 teaches applying a high-pressure gas to said liquid flow (0017, 0063, 0064).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang teaches that the breaking said liquid flow is performed without a solvent (abstract, 0063, 0069, 0071, 0084, 0099).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang teaches that an inert gas is argon (0091).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang teaches that said source metal is gallium (0069).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang teaches that said source metal is gallium (a single metal) (0069).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang teaches increasing said temperature of said smelting furnace above a melting point of a metal with a highest melting point in a combination of metals (0015, 0061, 0062).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang teaches that said source metal is gallium, wherein said reactive gas is nitrogen or ammonia, and wherein said metal compound is gallium nitride (0069-0073, 0079, 0080).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because the arguments do not apply to the new ground rejection provided above.
Applicant' s arguments with respect to the term “high” under 35 U.S.C. l 12(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph have been considered, but not found persuasive, because the term “high” is not defined by [0047] as applicant asserted, e.g., 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. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 2 are not readily ascertainable, and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant' s arguments that Zhang fails to teach or suggest "selecting particles of step (c) using a particle selector” have been considered, but not found persuasive. As addressed above, Zhang teaches the superfine/ultra fine droplets/grain (particles) being processed/ discharged/guided using ultra fine droplets/grains outlet/ports as addressed above, Even if it is not clearly envisaged that the outlet/ports is a particle selector, it still would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date that outlet/ports could be considered as a particle selector selecting particles using the particle selector are within the teachings of Zhang, because superfine/ ultra fine droplets/grain/particles (particles with size being selected) can be discharged/ guided into the reaction system through the fine droplets/grains outlet/ports for further forming the block crystals of said metal compound as described in Zhang. Furthermore, regarding the particle selector limitation, it is an apparatus limitation 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).
In response to applicant' s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it is examiner' s position that a prima facie case of obviousness is well-established per teachings of the instantly cited reference.
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 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