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 .
Election/Restrictions
During a telephone conversation with Robert Madayag on November 4, 2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of the species Li (first structure) and the species Ag (second structure), claims 1-10 and 18-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 11-12, 14-15 and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
“...wherein the alkali metal comprise lithium…” should recite “…wherein the alkali metal comprises lithium…” for purposes of clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 18-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “near” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” 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. In claim 18, the use of the term “near” in combination with the ranges as claimed, i.e., "or below a melting point of an alkali metal" renders the claim indefinite because there is nothing in the specification to provide any indication as to what range is covered by the term "near" See MPEP 2173.05(b).
In the instant scenario, the specification fails to make clear what would or would not be covered by the range of “near or below a melting point of an alkali metal”. There is not any disclosure of how much the range may vary from the endpoints, and no examples of materials outside the endpoint examples. The term “near or below a melting point of an alkali metal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide 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.
Claims 19-20 also rejected due to dependency on claim 18.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 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, 3-4 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (CN 112820847A) in view of Keil et al. (DE 102018219153A1) and Singh et al. (US 2015/0027615) as evidenced by Yamauchi et al. (US2016/0156013). The English machine translations of Xie et al. and Keil et al. are attached and referenced below.
Regarding Claim 1, Xie et al. teaches a process for lithium coating a slurry onto a metal current collector (Para. [0005]) for a negative electrode (Para. [0036]) (i.e. a method of depositing a structure on a lithium ion battery anode), wherein the particles are accelerated by a zoom nozzle (i.e. accelerating particles & in cold spraying, the temperature concurrent with accelerating particles or spraying is known to be equal to or less than softening point of the powder of the material, see Para. [0002] Yamauchi et al.) using nitrogen gas as a carrier (i.e. in a working gas) (Para. [0005]), wherein the nozzle is a convergent-divergent nozzle (see Fig. 1), to a speed of 300-1200 m/s (Para. [0005]) wherein the particle size is less than 15 micrometers (Para. [0047]) (i.e. the particles having a diameter overlapping with the claimed range of 0.5 micrometers to about 50 micrometers) wherein the anode material is annealed at 500-800 degrees Celsius in an inert gas (i.e. heating or cooling the particles in the working gas) (Para. [0034]) and cold spraying using the nozzle (Para. [0052]) (i.e. ejecting the particles in the working gas from a nozzle outlet of the convergent-divergent nozzle, the particles ejected at the process velocity) wherein the particles impact the substrate surface in a solid state (i.e. wherein at least a portion of the particles are in solid phase when ejected from the convergent-divergent nozzle and depositing a first a structure on the LIB anode) (Para. [0005]). 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Xie et al. does not teach the process velocity is from about a critical velocity of the particles to an erosion velocity of the LIB anode, the particles comprising an alkali metal, the alkali metal comprises lithium.
However, Keil et al. teaches a cold gas spraying process (Para. [0009]) wherein the coating material is transported by a carrier gas and the speed for transporting the coating material (I.e. process velocity) must be higher than the critical speed but at the same time lower than the erosion speed (i.e. is from about a critical velocity of the particles to an erosion velocity) (Para. [0015]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process velocity of Xie et al. to incorporate the teaching of a process velocity being higher than the critical speed but at the same time lower than the erosion speed, as such a process velocity would provide bonding of the accelerated particles of the coating material to a coating surface, but at the same time prevent more coating material from being eroded than is applied (Para. [0015]). Thus, incorporating the teaching of Keil et al. would provide a process velocity that is from about a critical velocity of the particles to an erosion velocity of the LIB anode.
Xie et al. does not teach the particles comprising an alkali metal, the alkali metal comprises lithium.
However, Singh et al. teaches forming layers on a surface by cold spraying (Para. [0043]) for energy storage devices (Para. [0005]) wherein an anode electrode material is lithium titanium oxide (Para. [0060]) (i.e. the particles comprising an alkali metal, wherein the alkali metal comprises lithium).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the lithium particles for their as an anode active material (Para. [0060]) as taught by Singh et al., with the particle of Xie et al. which are also anode material (i.e. anode active materials) (Para. [0007]), as combing equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose. See MPEP §2144.06(I).
Regarding Claim 3, Xie et al. as modified by Keil et al. and Singh et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Xie et al. further teaches the particles impact the substrate surface in a solid state (Para. [0005]) (i.e. wherein substantially all of the particles ejected from the outlet are in the solid phase).
Regarding Claim 4, Xie et al. as modified by Keil et al. and Singh et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Xie et al. further teaches preheating the feed powder and heat and pressurizing the feed gas (Para. [0051]) wherein prior to accelerating the particle in a nozzle (Para. [005]) the method comprises introducing a flow of working gas from a working gas inlet to a nozzle flow path of the convergent-divergent nozzle and a powder feeder (Para. [0046]) comprising a feeding gas (Para. [0050], [0051])) (i.e. introducing particles entrained in a carrier gas streaming through a particle inlet to the flow of the working gas, the particle inlet located between the working gas inlet and a nozzle inlet of the convergent-divergent nozzle) (see Annotated Xie et al. – Fig. 1 below).
Annotated Xie et al. – Fig. 1
PNG
media_image1.png
341
601
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Xie et al. as modified by Keil et al. and Singh et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Xie et al. does not teach a mask is patterned on the anode prior to depositing the structure.
However, Singh et al. teaches fabrication of Li-ion batteries on a surface of interest by spraying component paints onto stencil masks (Para. [0011], [0048]) (i.e. wherein a mask is patterned on the anode prior to depositing the structure).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method Xie et al. to incorporate the teaching of the mask as taught by Singh et al., as it would allow for layers with desired shapes being achieved (Para. [0048]), adding functionality.
Regarding Claim 9, Xie et al. as modified by Keil et al. and Singh et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Xie et al. further teaches the anode active material comprises a Si-Cu coating (i.e. the LIB comprises an alloy comprising a Group IV element).
Xie et al. does not teach the particles comprising lithium.
However, Singh et al. teaches forming layers on a surface by cold spraying (Para. [0043]) for energy storage devices (Para. [0005]) wherein an anode electrode material is lithium titanium oxide (Para. [0060]) (i.e. the particles comprising an alkali metal, wherein the alkali metal comprises lithium).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the lithium particles for their as an anode active material (Para. [0060]) as taught by Singh et al., with the particle of Xie et al. which are also anode material (i.e. anode active materials) (Para. [0007]), as combing equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose. See MPEP §2144.06(I).
Regarding Claim 10, Xie et al. as modified by Keil et al. and Singh et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Xie et al. further teaches cold spraying in an inert gas atmosphere (Para. [0010]).
Xie et al. does not explicitly teach cold spraying wherein the working gas comprises argon.
However, Keil et al. teaches a cold gas spraying process (Para. [0009]) wherein the coating material is transported by a carrier gas such as argon (Para. [0015]).
The substitution of argon as the carrier gas (i.e. working gas) as taught by Keil et al. for the inert gas (i.e. working gas) of Keil et al., would achieve the predictable result of providing an inert gas capable of carrying the to-be-deposited particles in cold spraying (see Keil et al. – Para. [0015]) and Xie et al. – Para. [0010]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to substitute argon as the carrier gas (i.e. working gas) as taught by Keil et al. for the inert gas (i.e. working gas) of Keil et al., as the substitution would achieve the predictable result of providing an inert gas capable of carrying the to-be-deposited particles in cold spraying (see Keil et al. – Para. [0015]) and Xie et al. – Para. [0010]). 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.).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (CN 112820847A) in view of Keil et al. (DE 102018219153A1) and Singh et al. (US 2015/0027615) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hong et al. (US 2021/0104720).
Regarding Claim 2, Xie et al. as modified by Keil et al. and Singh et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Xie et al. does not teach repeating the accelerating, heating or cooling, and ejecting operations to deposit a second structure over at least a portion of the first structure, the second structure and the first structure comprising different elements of the period table of elements wherein the different element comprises Ag.
However, Hong et al. teaches an electrode material (i.e. first structure) that is cold spray doped with a doping material wherein the cold spray method (i.e. accelerating, heating or cooling, and ejecting operation to deposit a second structure over at least a portion of the first structure, the first structure and the second structure comprising a different element of the period table of elements) wherein the doping material may be silver (Para. [0055]) (i.e. wherein the different element and/or second structure comprises Ag).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Xie et al. to incorporate the teaching of the cold spray method to deposit a second structure such as Ag as taught by Hong et al., as such a method can prepare electrode composition with improved properties (Para. [0005]). Thus, providing a method further comprising repeating the accelerating, heating or cooling and ejecting operations to deposit a second structure over at least a portion of the second structure.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (CN 112820847A) in view of Keil et al. (DE 102018219153A1) and Singh et al. (US 2015/0027615) as evidenced by Yamauchi et al. (US2016/0156013) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (CN 111424274A). The English machine translation of Chen et al. is attached and is referenced below.
Regarding Claim 5, Xie et al. as modified by Keil et al. and Singh et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Xie et al. does not teach wherein the LIB anode is oriented vertically in free-span or supported on a moveable substrate.
However, Chen et al. teaches a cold spraying process comprising a substrate with a moving speed (Para. [0023]) (i.e. supported on a moveable substrate support).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method comprising the LIB anode substrate as taught by Xie et al. to incorporate the teaching of supporting the LIB anode on a moveable substrate as such a process would provide abundant active sites on the substrate surface, forming a high-strength bond between the substrate and deposited particles (Para. [0052]).
Regarding Claim 6, Xie et al. as modified by Keil et al., Singh et al. and Chen et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 5 as explained above.
Xie et al. further teaches the nozzle scans back and forth once on the surface of the copper foil substrate to obtain the negative electrode material (Para. [0019]) (i.e. moving the convergent-divergent nozzle relative to the LIB anode).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (CN 112820847A) in view of Keil et al. (DE 102018219153A1) and Singh et al. (US 2015/0027615) as evidenced by Yamauchi et al. (US2016/0156013) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2019/0348705A), referred to hereinafter as Chen ‘705.
Regarding Claim 7, Xie et al. as modified by Keil et al. and Singh et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Xie et al. does not teach the first structure has a thickness of about 0.5 micrometers to about 30 micrometers; an edge transition of about 3 mm or less; or combinations thereof.
However, Chen ‘705 teaches coating an anode active material such as lithium metal (Para. [0088], [0095]), wherein the lithium metal layer can be between 20 microns and 600 microns in thickness (Para. [0095]) (i.e. overlapping with a claimed thickness of about 0.5 micrometers to about 30 micrometers).
The combination of the lithium metal layer having a thickness between 20 microns and 600 microns as an anode active material layer as taught by Chen ‘705, with the first structure forming the anode active material of Xie et al. would yield the predictable result of forming an anode active material layer on a lithium-ion battery anode (see Chen ‘705 – Para. [0095] and Xie et al. – Para. [0007]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine of the lithium metal layer having a thickness between 20 microns and 600 microns as an anode active material layer as taught by Chen ‘705, with the first structure forming the anode active material of Xie et al., as the combination would yield the predictable result of forming an anode active material layer on a lithium-ion battery anode (see Chen ‘705 – Para. [0095] and Xie et al. – Para. [0007]). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (CN 112820847A) in view of Keil et al. (DE 102018219153A1), Singh et al. (US 2015/0027615) and Chen et al. (US 2019/0348705A), referred to hereinafter as Chen ‘705 as evidenced by Yamauchi et al. (US2016/0156013).
Regarding Claim 18, Xie et al. teaches a process for coating a slurry onto a metal current collector (Para. [0004]) for a negative electrode (Para. [0036]) by cold spraying (Para. [0012]) (i.e. a method of depositing a structure on an anode) (i.e. an inert gas [working gas] heated to temperature of equal to less than the melting point of powder of the material as evidenced by Yamauchi et al. in Para. [0002]), wherein prior to accelerating the particle in a nozzle (Para. [005]) the method comprises introducing a flow of working gas from a working gas inlet to a nozzle flow path of the convergent-divergent nozzle and a powder feeder (Para. [0046]) comprising a feeding gas (Para. [0050], [0051])) (i.e. introducing particles entrained in a carrier gas streaming through a particle inlet to the flow of the working gas, the particle inlet located between the working gas inlet and a nozzle inlet of the convergent-divergent nozzle) (see Annotated Xie et al. – Fig. 1 above) wherein the particle size is less than 15 micrometers (Para. [0047]) (i.e. the particles having a diameter overlapping with the claimed range of 0.5 micrometers to about 50 micrometers) wherein the particles are accelerated by a zoom nozzle (i.e. accelerating particles & in cold spraying, the temperature concurrent with accelerating particles or spraying is known to be equal to or less than softening point of the powder of the material, see Para. [0002] Yamauchi et al.) and cold spraying using the nozzle (Para. [0052]) (i.e. ejecting the particles in the flow of heated working gas from a nozzle outlet of the convergent-divergent nozzle, the particles ejected at the process velocity) wherein the particles impact the substrate surface in a solid state (i.e. wherein at least a portion of the particles are in solid phase when ejected from the convergent-divergent nozzle and depositing a first a structure on the LIB anode) (Para. [0005]). 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Xie et al. does not teach the process velocity is from about a critical velocity of the particles to an erosion velocity of the LIB anode, the particles comprising an alkali metal, the alkali metal comprises lithium, or the alkali-metal containing structure having a thickness of about 0.5 micrometers to about 30 micrometers.
However, Keil et al. teaches a cold gas spraying process (Para. [0009]) wherein the coating material is transported by a carrier gas and the speed for transporting the coating material (I.e. process velocity) must be higher than the critical speed but at the same time lower than the erosion speed (i.e. is from about a critical velocity of the particles to an erosion velocity) (Para. [0015]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process velocity of Xie et al. to incorporate the teaching of a process velocity being higher than the critical speed but at the same time lower than the erosion speed, as such a process velocity would provide bonding of the accelerated particles of the coating material to a coating surface, but at the same time prevent more coating material from being eroded than is applied (Para. [0015]). Thus, incorporating the teaching of Keil et al. would provide a process velocity that is from about a critical velocity of the particles to an erosion velocity of the LIB anode.
Xie et al. does not teach the particles comprising an alkali metal, the alkali metal comprises lithium.
However, Singh et al. teaches forming layers on a surface by cold spraying (Para. [0043]) for energy storage devices (Para. [0005]) wherein an anode electrode material is lithium titanium oxide (Para. [0060]) (i.e. the particles comprising an alkali metal, wherein the alkali metal comprises lithium).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the lithium particles for their as an anode active material (Para. [0060]) as taught by Singh et al., with the particle of Xie et al. which are also anode material (i.e. anode active materials) (Para. [0007]), as combing equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose. See MPEP §2144.06(I).
Xie et al. does not teach the alkali-metal containing structure has a thickness of about 0.5 micrometers to about 30 micrometers.
However, Chen ‘705 teaches coating an anode active material such as lithium metal (Para. [0088], [0095]), wherein the lithium metal layer can be between 20 microns and 600 microns in thickness (Para. [0095]) (i.e. overlapping with a claimed thickness of about 0.5 micrometers to about 30 micrometers).
The combination of the lithium metal layer having a thickness between 20 microns and 600 microns as an anode active material layer as taught by Chen ‘705, with the first structure forming the anode active material of Xie et al. would yield the predictable result of forming an anode active material layer on a lithium-ion battery anode (see Chen ‘705 – Para. [0095] and Xie et al. – Para. [0007]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine of the lithium metal layer having a thickness between 20 microns and 600 microns as an anode active material layer as taught by Chen ‘705, with the first structure forming the anode active material of Xie et al., as the combination would yield the predictable result of forming an anode active material layer on a lithium-ion battery anode (see Chen ‘705 – Para. [0095] and Xie et al. – Para. [0007]). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 19, Xie et al. as modified by Keil et al., Singh et al. and Chen ‘705 teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 18 as explained above.
Xie et al. does not teach the particles comprising an alkali metal, the alkali metal comprises lithium.
However, Singh et al. teaches forming layers on a surface by cold spraying (Para. [0043]) for energy storage devices (Para. [0005]) wherein an anode electrode material is lithium titanium oxide (Para. [0060]) (i.e. the particles comprising an alkali metal, wherein the alkali metal comprises lithium).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the lithium particles for their as an anode active material (Para. [0060]) as taught by Singh et al., with the particle of Xie et al. which are also anode material (i.e. anode active materials) (Para. [0007]), as combing equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose. See MPEP §2144.06(I).
Regarding Claim 20, Xie et al. as modified by Keil et al., Singh et al. and Chen ‘705 teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 18 as explained above.
Xie et al. does not explicitly teach cold spraying wherein the working gas comprises argon.
However, Keil et al. teaches a cold gas spraying process (Para. [0009]) wherein the coating material is transported by a carrier gas such as argon (Para. [0015]).
The substitution of argon as the carrier gas (i.e. working gas) as taught by Keil et al. for the inert gas (i.e. working gas) of Keil et al., would achieve the predictable result of providing an inert gas capable of carrying the to-be-deposited particles in cold spraying (see Keil et al. – Para. [0015]) and Xie et al. – Para. [0010]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to substitute argon as the carrier gas (i.e. working gas) as taught by Keil et al. for the inert gas (i.e. working gas) of Keil et al., as the substitution would achieve the predictable result of providing an inert gas capable of carrying the to-be-deposited particles in cold spraying (see Keil et al. – Para. [0015]) and Xie et al. – Para. [0010]). 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.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571 272-1481. 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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729