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 .
Response to Amendment and Status of Claims
New: claims 3-6
Pending and under examination: claims 1-6
Rejected: claims 1-6
The amendment obviates the previous 112(b) and 102 rejections, which are hereby withdrawn. However, the claims remain rejected under 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The arguments regarding the new limitations are not found persuasive because the prior art references render obvious the new limitations under 103, as discussed in the new 103 rejections below.
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 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (NPL; “Injection molding of tungsten powder treated by jet mill with high powder loading: A solution for fabrication of dense tungsten component at relative low temperature”; Int. Journal of Refractory Metals and Hard Materials 62; 17 October 2016; pp. 42-46; of record).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a tungsten powder being subjected to a jet milling treatment, wherein said jet milled tungsten powder has a D50 obtained through laser diffraction of 3.02 μm and a tap density of 8.47 g/cm3 (see Li: Tables 1 & 2). By assuming that after jet milling treatment that results in obtaining a tungsten powder comprising primary particles, the values of FSSS and D50 are equal, limitations of claim 1 are met, as a= 3.02 μm, and y = 8.1574, being < 8.47 g/cm3, meeting the claimed “an FSSS average particle size of the tungsten-containing powder as obtained by an FSSS method is defined as a (μm) and a density TD, which is an inverse number of a tap volume of the tungsten-containing powder, is defined as p (g/cm3), a relational expression of p ≥ 0.37a+7.04 is satisfied when a range of the FSSS average particle size a is 0.5 μm ≤ a ≤ 5.0 μm”.
With regard to the claimed “wherein a density variation of the tungsten-containing powder is in a range from 0.05 g/cm3 to 0.20 g/cm3, and wherein a density variation of a sintered material obtained by press molding and sintering the tungsten-containing powder at 1300-1900°C for 3 hours is in a range from 0.05 g/cm3 to 0.20 g/cm3”, the Examiner notes that the claim is directed to a tungsten containing powder, not a sintered compact. The limitation in the last paragraph of claim 1 is a contingent limitation (see “…of a sintered material obtained by press molding and sintering the tungsten-containing powder…”) – it is contingent upon press molding and sintering, and as such, the density variation of the sintered material is not a required limitation. Moreover, although Li does not explicitly teach this limitation, Li teaches a substantially similar material and process of producing the material, as well as certain properties/characteristics of the material, such that it is prima facie expected that the density variation is the same or substantially similar to the claimed ranges. Specifically, Li teaches a small variation in the particle size distribution ranges (D10 = 1.36 µm, D50 = 2.13 µm, D90 = 3.19 µm; see Abstract), which suggests a uniform particle size, ergo, suggests a uniform density variation because density variation is defined by voids which are defined by particle size/shape. The relative density 97.3% (see Table 2 on page 45) which demonstrates a near absence of voids. The shape of the particles is near spherical (see “4. Conclusions” on page 45). Li further teaches that the powder is sintered at 1900°C after injection molding (see section “2.2. Experimental procedures” on page 43).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize Li to achieve a small density variation in the powder such as that claimed, as doing so would ensure that a sintered product made from the powder has a dense microstructure with no cracks (see section “3.5.” on page 45 of Li).
Regarding claims 3-4, Li discloses a tungsten powder being subjected to a jet milling treatment, wherein said jet milled tungsten powder has a D50 obtained through laser diffraction of 3.02 μm and a tap density of 8.47 g/cm3 (see Li: Tables 1 & 2). By assuming that after jet milling treatment that results in obtaining a tungsten powder comprising primary particles, the values of FSSS and D50 are equal, limitations of claims 3 and 4 are met, as a= 3.02 μm, and y = 8.1574, being < 8.47 g/cm3, meeting the claimed “an FSSS average particle size of the tungsten-containing powder as obtained by an FSSS method is defined as a (μm) and a density TD, which is an inverse number of a tap volume of the tungsten-containing powder, is defined as p (g/cm3), a relational expression of p ≥ 0.37a+7.04 is satisfied when a range of the FSSS average particle size a is 0.5 μm ≤ a ≤ 2.51 μm or 3.78 μm ≤ a ≤ 5.0 μm” in claim 3, and “size a is 0.5 μm ≤ a ≤ 2.03 μm or 4.60 μm ≤ a ≤ 5.0 μm” in claim 4.
Specifically, in regards to the limitation meeting the above ranges, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05 I.). Moreover, in Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1322, 73 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the patent claim at issue was directed to a weight plate having 3 elongated openings that served as handles for transporting the weight plate. Multiple prior art patents each disclosed weight plates having 1, 2 or 4 elongated openings. 392 F.3d at 1319, 73 USPQ2d at 1226. The court stated that the claimed weight plate having 3 elongated openings fell within the "range" of the prior art and was thus presumed obvious.
As such, absent an indication, evidence, or technical reasoning as to the range “0.5 μm ≤ a ≤ 2.51 μm or 3.78 μm ≤ a ≤ 5.0 μm” in claim 3 and “size a is 0.5 μm ≤ a ≤ 2.03 μm or 4.60 μm ≤ a ≤ 5.0 μm” in claim 4 being non-obvious over Li’s teaching of “a”=3.02, which falls within the “range” of the claimed invention, Li renders the limitation obvious. Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected (MPEP 716.02).
Claims 2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (CN 109553925 A: Espacenet English machine translation cited and previously attached; of record).
Regarding claim 2, Liang discloses a tungsten-containing powder (Abstract), and further discloses “200g of spheroidized tungsten powder with an average Fischer particle size of 20 µm and a tap density of 10.5g/cm3”; Therefore, a = 20 µm, y = 10.24 being 10.5 g/cm3 (see Example 10 in [0052]). Therefore, a= 20 μm, and y = 10.24, being < 10.5 g/cm3, which meets the claimed “an FSSS average particle size of the tungsten-containing powder as obtained by an FSSS method is defined as a (μm) and a density TD, which is an inverse number of a tap volume of the tungsten-containing powder, is defined as p (g/cm3 ), a relational expression of p ≥ 0.09a+8.44 is satisfied when a range of the FSSS average particle size a is 5.0 μm < a ≤ 30 μm”.
With regard to the claimed “wherein a density variation of the tungsten-containing powder is in a range from 0.05 g/cm3 to 0.20 g/cm3, and wherein a density variation of a sintered material obtained by press molding and sintering the tungsten-containing powder at 1300-1900°C for 3 hours is in a range from 0.05 g/cm3 to 0.20 g/cm3”, the Examiner notes that the claim is directed to a tungsten containing powder, not a sintered compact. The limitation in the last paragraph of claim 1 is a contingent limitation (see “…of a sintered material obtained by press molding and sintering the tungsten-containing powder…”) – it is contingent upon press molding and sintering, and as such, the density variation of the sintered material is not a required limitation. Moreover, although Liang does not explicitly teach this limitation, Liang teaches that the mixture is uniformly mixed and compacted [0031].
Furthermore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize Liang to achieve a small density variation in the tungsten powder, as doing so would ensure that a product made from the powder has a high density with high strength and plasticity of a composite material made from the powder (Abstract).
Regarding claims 5-6, Liang discloses a tungsten-containing powder (Abstract), and further discloses “200g of spheroidized tungsten powder with an average Fischer particle size of 20 µm and a tap density of 10.5g/cm3”; Therefore, a = 20 µm, y = 10.24 being 10.5 g/cm3 (see Example 10 in [0052]). Therefore, a= 20 μm, and y = 10.24, being < 10.5 g/cm3, which meets the claimed “an FSSS average particle size of the tungsten-containing powder as obtained by an FSSS method is defined as a (μm) and a density TD, which is an inverse number of a tap volume of the tungsten-containing powder, is defined as p (g/cm3 ), a relational expression of p ≥ 0.09a+8.44 is satisfied when a range of the FSSS average particle size a is 5.0 μm < a ≤ 15.3 μm or 21 μm < a ≤ 30 μm” in claim 5 and “size a is 5.0 μm < a ≤ 14.2 μm or 25 μm < a ≤ 30 μm” in claim 6.
Specifically, in regards to the limitation meeting the above ranges, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05 I.). Moreover, in Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1322, 73 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the patent claim at issue was directed to a weight plate having 3 elongated openings that served as handles for transporting the weight plate. Multiple prior art patents each disclosed weight plates having 1, 2 or 4 elongated openings. 392 F.3d at 1319, 73 USPQ2d at 1226. The court stated that the claimed weight plate having 3 elongated openings fell within the "range" of the prior art and was thus presumed obvious.
As such, absent an indication, evidence, or technical reasoning as to the range size a is 5.0 μm < a ≤ 15.3 μm or 21 μm < a ≤ 30 μm” in claim 5 and “size a is 5.0 μm < a ≤ 14.2 μm or 25 μm < a ≤ 30 μm” in claim 6 being non-obvious over Liang’s teaching of “a”=20, which falls within the “range” of the claimed invention, Liang renders the limitation obvious. Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected (MPEP 716.02).
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 Adil Siddiqui whose telephone number is (571)272-8047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM CST.
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 Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/ADIL A. SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735