Detailed Office Action
Notice of Pre-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
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Restriction/Election
Applicant’s election of Group, Claims 1 – 6 in the reply filed on 10/31/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. § 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 – 6 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “above a melting point of the molten metal” is indefinite. The phrase is unclear because a molten metal is above its temperature. For purposes of examination, the phrase is interpreted as above a melting point of the metal.
The term “compact” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term 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. For purposes of examination, any material is interpreted as hard.
The term “hard” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term 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. For purposes of examination, any material is interpreted as hard.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §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, 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 6,444,009) as evidenced by Sgrott (NPL, “Influence of Inter-Particles Interactions…”, 2019), in view of Doublet (US2023/0356296) and in further view of Akimoto (US 8,734,562)
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches a method of producing metallic alloy powders [Title]. Liu teaches that the method includes the steps of:
First, a step of providing super-heated metal liquid droplets [Col 5, line 45 – 50] and combining them with an inert gas that also passes through the heating zone [Fig 1a, 6, 10], meeting the claimed limitation carrying droplets of molten metal with a carrier gas above a melting point of molten metal.
The molten droplets then travel through another area where a second stream of gas is introduced and particles are solidified from the exterior surface inward [Col 12, line 33 – 45].
As shown in Fig 1A, a reactive gas can be introduced during formation of droplets (“6” in Fig 1A) as well as after solidification/during quenching (“13” in Fig 1A). Wherein reactive gas can contain oxygen or sulfur, meeting the claimed limitation of oxygen-group element [Col 6, line 40 – 45] and the metal material can be pure nickel or a nickel alloy [Col 13, line 27 – 29 and line 57 – 60], meeting the claimed limitation of forming a nickel compound containing the oxygen group element.
Liu teaches that following the atomization and reaction, the powders are contacted with a cooling inert gas to rapidly cool to powders, prevent them from agglomerating, and slow their speed [Col 8, line 36 – 47; “18a” and “18b” in Fig 1b], meeting the claimed limitation of mixing the high-temperature solid particles with a fluid and rapidly quenching. Wherein the metal material can be pure nickel or pure copper or alloys thereof and heated to a temperature of 3000 – 5000°C [Col 13, line 27 – 29 and line 57 – 60]. This meets the claimed range/limitation of the average temperature of the particles and carrier being above 500°C.
Lastly, the powders are transferred to a cyclone separator [Fig 1a and Fig 1b] which are water cooled [Col 11, line 10 – 13], wherein “water cooling” temperatures overlap with the claimed “room temperature”, to separate the powder from the gas.
Meeting the claimed limitation of dispersing the alloy powder with a chemical passivation layer in a fluid in a shell at room-temperature.
Wherein cyclone separators are machines which use vortexed gas to separate powders from gas, meeting the claimed limitation of rotating the fluid carrying the alloy powder in the container by pressure.
Moreover, as evidenced by Sgrott (NPL)(which discusses the performance of cyclone separators), within cyclone separators interparticle collisions and particle-side wall collisions natural occur as a result of the process in cyclone [see at least page 23 and abstract, page 11]. As such, while Liu does not expressly state that the passivation layer is densified in the cyclone separator, given that identical processes of interparticle and particle-side wall collisions occur there is a reasonable expectation to a person of ordinary skilled in the art that the densification of passivation layers on the powders would naturally occur.
Liu does not explicitly state the “metal content” of the metal droplets, however, Liu teaches/reasonably suggests that pure nickel [Col 13, line 29, 59] can be used as the metal material which would be essentially 100% metal with impurities, meeting the claimed range. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have performed routine optimization of the method of Liu by using starting material as close to pure as possible (i.e. maximizing the nickel content to 100%) because increasing the purity of the starting product reduces the likelihood of impurities in the final desired product.
Liu does not explicitly teach the temperature of the particles following quenching nor the content of reactive gas component (i.e. oxygen or sulfur) in the alloy powder.
Doublet teaches a device/method for producing metal powders via atomization [Title] including introducing an active component via a carrier gas during solidification of the droplets [0015- 0016]. Doublet teaches that as the particles reach the bottom of the atomization device [Fig 1a], a gas buffer is provided to slow and cool the particles by injecting cool inert gas below 30°C, which meets the claimed limitation of a fluid at room temperature, and keeping the buffer to a temperature below 100°C [0111 – 0112], wherein this meets/overlaps with the claimed range. This cools the particles/carrier gas and slows the particles prior to reaching the bottom where they may be deformed [0109, 0114].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have controlled the cooling temperature of inert gas (18a,18b) used for cooling and speed reduction in the method/device of Liu to a temperature of less than 30°C (as taught by Doublet) such that the gas/cooling area where the particles are quenched and slowed to have a temperature of less than 100°C, as taught by Doublet. Liu and Doublet are in the same field of endeavor of atomization of metal/metal alloy material with the introduction of a component to powder during the atomization process. Moreover, both Liu and Doublet disclose using an inert gas to slow and rapidly cool the metal particles before they reach the bottom of atomization device. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in controlling the buffer region to be less than 100°C in order to cool the particles/carrier gas to approximately this temperature, slow their speed, and thus increase sphericity of particles.
Liu in view of Doublet does not explicitly teach the content of reactive gas component (i.e. oxygen or sulfur) in the alloy powder.
Akimoto teaches a nanosized nickel powder with an oxidized surface layer containing sulfur [Abstract] and nickel oxide [Col 6, line 5 – 10]. Akimoto teaches that the powder has low activity despite being fine and also attains beneficial properties such as good sintering behavior and high oxidation resistance [Col 3, line 40 – 43]. Akimoto teaches that both oxygen and sulfur can be added to the nickel powder through reaction with a gas [Col 8, line 44 – 46; Col 7, line 24]. Akimoto teaches that the content of oxygen and sulfur should be 0.1 – 4 wt% and 0.01 – 0.2 wt% respectively [Col 6, line 33 – 35; Col 6, line 59 – 62], wherein the total of the combination falls within the claimed range of “oxygen group elements”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of Liu in view of Doublet and combined it with the teachings of Akimoto to produce the nickel powder disclosed therein. Lie as-modified is directed to producing nanosized particles with an outer protective layer that can contain oxygen and sulfur [Col 6, line 10 – 12] and Akimoto is directed to a nanosized powder with a protective layer of sulfur and oxygen. Moreover, Lie teaches that the metal powders produced can be a pure metal or metal alloys including nickel [Col 13, line 27 – 29 and line 57 – 60] and Akimoto teaches that the sulfur and oxygen components can be attached/added to the nickel powder by a reaction with a gas [Col 8, line 44 – 46; Col 7, line 24]. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings to achieve predictable results. Further still, an ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to use the method of Liu as-modified to produce the powder of Akimoto because Liu as-modified provides a method of producing both the nanosized particles themselves as well as their desired coating/protective layer in a singular process.
With regards to the overlapping ranges taught, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected overlapping ranges as disclosed. Selection of overlapping ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP § 2144.05 I). “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)”
Regarding claim 2, Liu in view of Doublet and Akimoto teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Liu teaches that the metal material can be pure nickel or pure copper or alloys thereof, meeting the claimed limitation [Col 13, line 27 – 29 and line 57 – 60].
Regarding claim 3, Liu in view of Doublet and Akimoto teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Liu teaches that the gas used to carry the molten droplets [Fig 1a, “6”] can be argon (inert gas) or nitrogen (reactive gas) [Col 7, line 63 – 65 and Col 12, line 10 – 20], meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 4, Liu in view of Doublet and Akimoto teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Liu teaches that the second stage atomizing step which the fluid can be water or gas, including inert gas [Col 6, line 3 – 10].
Regarding claim 5, Liu in view of Doublet and Akimoto teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Liu teaches that the reactive gas can be oxygen or sulfur [Col 6, line 10 – 12], meeting the claimed limitation.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 6,444,009) in view of Doublet (US2023/0356296) and Akimoto (US 8,734,562), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Xie (CN112872349, using espacenet translation) and as evidenced by Neikov (NPL, Atomization and Granulation)
Regarding claim 6, Liu in view of Doublet and Akimoto teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Liu teaches that the particles produced are nanosized [title], typically less than 1 µm [Col 14, line 60 – 62], which overlaps with the claimed range and Akimoto teaches that the nickel powder is preferably 0.1 – 0.5 µm, which also overlaps with the claimed range [Col 5, line 53 – 54].
Wherein gas atomization generally produces spherical powders as evidenced by Neikov [Page 2], Liu shows that the powders produced are generally spheroidal [Fig 3], and Akimoto teaches the nickel powders are spherical [Col 5, line 52], meeting the claimed limitation.
Akimoto teaches that the content of oxygen and sulfur should be 0.1 – 4 wt% and 0.01 – 0.2 wt% respectively [Col 6, line 33 – 35; Col 6, line 59 – 62], wherein the total of the combination falls within the claimed range of “oxygen group elements”. Moreover, the nickel content would be ~99.89 wt% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range, based on the oxygen and sulfur content. Liu teaches that the penetration of the reactive gas into the nanometer-sized droplets is limited by ensuring the surface of droplets solidify upon contact with the reactive gas [Col 12, line 37 – 43]. Moreover, Liu [Col 12, line 41] teaches that the outer layer formed is to protect the core powder and Akimoto teaches that the oxygen and sulfur decrease towards the inside of the powder [Fig 2]. As such, the method of Liu in view of Doublet and Akimoto reasonably suggests the oxygen and sulfur are essentially only present on the surface passivation layer.
Akimoto teaches the covering layer is “thin” but Liu in view of Doublet and Xie does not expressly teach a total thickness [Col 6, line 10]. Akimoto notes that other impurities including carbon can be present [Col 6, line 30 – 32] but Liu in view of Doublet and Akimoto does not expressly teach a content of non-metal, non-oxygen group elements.
Xie teaches a nano-nickel powder containing a shell layer comprising oxygen and sulfur used as a protective layer that has both passivation and anti-agglomeration functions [0010, n0007]. Xie teaches that nickel powder is covered with a layer of sulfur and oxygen in order to achieve passivation and anti-agglomeration as well as increased temperature resistance [n0007]. Xie teaches that the particles are 0.01 – 0.6 µm and the protective layer is 0.5 – 6 nm, which overlaps with the claimed range [0010]. Xie discloses that carbon is present and should be controlled to be 0.2 – 2 wt% with the protective layer [n0023], wherein the content relative to the whole powder would be less than 2%, which overlaps with the claimed range. Wherein Xie also teaches that that layer contains other non-metal and non-oxygen group elements such as hydrogen [0010].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of Liu in view of Doublet and Akimoto and combined it with the teachings of Xie to control the thickness of the protective layer to be 0.5 – 6 nm and the carbon content in the layer and powder to be less than 2 wt%. Lie as-modified is directed to producing nanosized particles with an outer protective layer that can contain oxygen, sulfur and can also control carbon content [Col 6, line 10 – 12] and Xie is directed to a nanosized powder with a protective layer of sulfur and oxygen as well as the presence of carbon. Moreover, Lie teaches that the metal powders produced can be a pure metal or metal alloys including nickel [Col 13, line 27 – 29 and line 57 – 60] and Xie is directed to nickel powder with a passivated/protective surface layer. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings to achieve predictable results. Further still, an ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to control the content of carbon as well as other impurity elements in order to ensure the quality of the protective layer such that the underlying powder was not oxidized/reacted.
Selection of overlapping ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP § 2144.05 I). “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)”
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US2021/0197265 – Formation of copper alloy powder with passivation layer and separation via cyclone
US2019/0022750 – Formation of copper/copper alloy nanopowder with passivation layer
US 9,926,197 – Producing compound nanopowder with oxides or sulfides
US2008/0105083 – Producing ultrafine metal/metal alloy powder with passivation layer formation
US 5,073,409 – production of environmentally stable metal/metal alloy powders
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN POLLOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-5602. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (8 - 5).
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, Sally Merkling can be reached on (571) 272-6297. 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.
/AUSTIN POLLOCK/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738