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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 2-7 & 11-17 in the reply filed on 03/30/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the Examiner should also, relying on prior art, establish/demonstrate that the product as claimed can be made by another different process...” (Applicants’ response, page 5).
Applicants’ argument is deemed persuasive, thus the nonelected claims 1, 8, & 10 have been rejoined with the elected claims.
Status of Application
2. This application is a 371 of PCT/CN2022/114374, which was filed on 08/24/2022.
Claim 8 has been amended.
Claim 9 has been canceled.
Claims 1-8 & 10-17 are currently pending in this application and under consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/24/2026 has been made of record and entered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
An initialed copy of the IDS accompanies this office action.
Specification
4. The examiner has not checked the specification to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors (grammatical, typographical, and idiomatic). Cooperation of the applicant(s) is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant(s) may become aware of in the specification, in the claims and in any further amendment(s) that applicant(s) may file.
Applicant(s) is also requested to complete the status of the copending applications referred to in the specification by their Attorney Docket Number or Application Serial Number, if any.
The status of the parent application(s) and/or any other application(s) cross-referenced to this application, if any, should be updated in a timely manner.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 2-3, 6, 8, & 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
A. In claim 2, line step (1), “fluotantalic” should change to --fluorotantalic--.
B. In claim 3, line 2, “fluotantalic” should change to --fluorotantalic--.
C. In claim 6, last line, --is-- should be inserted before “a muffle furnace”.
D. In claim 8, the status identifier is improper since the claim has been amended to delete “preferably” in line 2.
E. In claim 12, line 2, “fluotantalic” should change to --fluorotantalic--.
F. In claim 13, line 2, “fluotantalic” should change to --fluorotantalic--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) (Second Paragraph)
6. 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 2-8 & 10-17 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.
A. Regarding claim 2, step (1), the phrase “then stopping introducing ammonia” is unclear and not particularly point out what is intended.
B. Claim 2 recites the limitation “the calcined sample" in step (4). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
C. Regarding claim 3, ammonia is used as a precipitator in claim 2, however the instant claim is broadened to now including a Markush group of the precipitator. This is improper.
D. Claim 4 recites the limitation “the aging time in step (2)" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no aging step in step (2) of claim 2.
E. Claims 7 & 17 recite the limitation "high-temperature calcination" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Even though the claims define that the high-temperature heat treatment is 1200-1500oC and 1200-1400oC, however this term is not used in claim 2 therefore the use of this term in the claim is inconsistent.
F. Claims 7 & 17 recite the limitation "the sintering heat treatment atmosphere" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
G. Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “the sintering heat treatment atmosphere includes vacuum, inert atmosphere, and atmospheric atmosphere”. It is unclear whether all of the listed atmospheres are required to carry out the heat treatment or only one of them. According to page 4 of the instant specification, the heat treatment atmosphere includes, but is not limited to, vacuum, inert atmosphere, and atmospheric atmosphere, with vacuum is being more preferred.
*Claims 5-6, 8, & 11-16 are rejected because they depend on rejected claim 2 and they do not cure the indefiniteness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
7. 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(s) 1 & 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN104386751 (A), hereinafter “CN ‘751”.
CN ‘751 discloses a tantalum pentoxide powder (Ta2O5) having a purity of 99.99% (see [0004] & [0008]). The disclosed tantalum pentoxide powder does not appear to contain any carbon because no carbon was used during the production of the product.
CN ‘751 teaches the same product as claimed thus the claimed tantalum pentoxide powder is anticipated by the reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)/103
8. 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.
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over CN104386751 (A), hereinafter “CN ‘751”.
CN ‘751 discloses a tantalum pentoxide powder (Ta2O5) having a purity of 99.99% (see [0004] & [0008]). The disclosed tantalum pentoxide powder does not appear to contain any carbon because no carbon was used during the production of the product.
Recitation of product-by-process in the instant claims is noted. While the product of the reference might not be made by the same process, the product disclosed appears to be the same as claimed. It has been held that the patentability of the product and its method of production are separately determined. Thus, even though the process limitations in the claims are not disregarded, they have no bearing on the patentability of the claims product per se. See In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Brown, 173 USPQ 688, 688 (CCPA 1977); In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1977). See also MPEP 2113.
The claimed tantalum pentoxide powder is disclosed by CN ‘751 thus the instant claim is unpatentable over the reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
A. Claim(s) 2-5, 8, & 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 104386751 (A), hereinafter “CN ‘751” in view of CN 217120272 U, hereinafter CN ‘272”.
The claimed invention relates to a tantalum pentoxide powder (Ta2O5) and a method of preparation thereof from fluorotantalic acid (H2TaF7) by precipitation, filtering and washing, and then solid-liquid separation, drying, calcining, and heat treatment (as recited in the instant claim 2).
CN ‘751 broadly discloses a method for preparing ultra-high-purity tantalum oxide. The ultra-high-purity tantalum oxide is prepared with a fluorotantalic acid solution as a raw material according to the following steps: adjusting acidity, extracting and separating, neutralizing and sedimenting, washing and removing fluorine, drying and calcining, etc. (see Abstract & [0028]).
The method of claim 2 differs from CN ‘751 in that “a reaction kettle” is used to perform the precipitation step (1), whereas this is not used in CN ‘751.
CN ‘272, is in the same field of state of the art and fairly teaches production of tantalum pentoxide using a reaction kettle (see Abstract). The use of a reaction kettle is taught to be effective and can make the inner container heated uniformly, so as to improve reaction effect and quickly obtain the tantalum hydroxide slurry (see Abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art (before the effective date of the claimed invention) to use a reaction kettle as known and taught by CN ‘272 in view of the benefit of improving the reaction effect of uniform heating the solution to quickly obtaining the tantalum hydroxide slurry.
With regard to claim 2, step (1), & claim 11, CN ‘751 teaches in the precipitation step, the ultra-high purity tantalum fluoride acid feed liquid ammonia was added to adjust the pH = 9-10, ultra-high purity tantalum hydroxide slurry was obtained (see [0023]). The claimed pH range of 8-9.5 in the instant claim 11 is met by the reference because CN ‘751 teaches a pH range of 9-10, which encompass the claimed pH of 9.5.
With regard to claim 2, step (2), CN ‘751 teaches filtering and washing the tantalum hydroxide, and then carrying out solid-liquid separation to obtain tantalum hydroxide (see [0012]-[0016]).
With regard to claim 2, step (3), & claim 5, CN ‘751 teaches in the drying step, the filtered ultra-high purity tantalum filter cake in an oven-dried at 130-180oC, for 5-8 hours (see [0024]), meeting the claimed drying temperature of “80-180oC” because the disclosed range is falling within the claimed range.
With regard to claim 2, step (4), CN ‘751 teaches screening of the ultra-high purity tantalum oxide powder through a mesh screen to obtain the product (see [0137]).
With regard to claim 2, step (5), CN ‘751 teaches in the calcination step, the temperature of the low temperature region 350-450oC controlled calcination, the calcination zone increases in temperature is controlled to be 900-1100oC, time is 10-15 hours (see [0025]), meeting the claimed calcination temperature range of “1000-1500oC” since the ranges are overlapping with each other.
With regard to claims 3 & 12-13, CN ‘751 teaches the fluorotantalic acid solution having an oxide content of not less than 85 g/L (see [0021]) and using “ammonia” as a precipitator (see [0023]). Even though the disclosed fluorotantalic acid amount is a little bit higher than the claimed amount, which is 20-80 g/L, it would have been prima facie obvious for a skilled person to optimize such acid amount in CN ‘751 because the content of such is a results-effective variable, in view on In re Boesch.
With regard to claim 4, filtering and washing in step (2) is repeated a plurality of times is taught by the reference. CN ‘751 teaches the washing stage was done 10-20 stages or times (see [0015]).
With regard to claim 14, CN ‘751 teaches drying the ultra-high purity tantalum filtered cake for 5-8 hours (see [0024]), meeting the claimed drying time of “8-12 h” because a drying time of “8 h” of the reference is touching the claimed lower range.
With regard to claim 15, CN ‘751 teaches calcination temperature of 900-1100oC for 10-15 hours (see [0025]), meeting the claimed calcination temperature range of “900-1000oC” and calcination time of 8-12 h since the ranges are falling within and/or overlapping with each other.
Claims 2-5, 8, & 11-15 are unpatentable as being obvious over CN ‘751 in view of CN ‘272.
B. Claim(s) 6 & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
CN104386751 (A), hereinafter “CN ‘751” in view of CN 217120272 U, hereinafter CN ‘272”, as applied to claims 2-5, 8, & 11-15 above and in further view of CN 105883919 (A), hereinafter “CN ‘919”.
CN ‘751 discloses a method for preparing ultra-high-purity tantalum oxide as set forth in the precedent paragraph, except for the following difference.
With regard to claims 6 & 16, CN ‘751 discloses the calcination step is performed in a pusher furnace (see [0025]), but does not teach to perform the calcination using “a muffle furnace”. It would have been obvious to a person of skilled in the art (before the effective fling date of the claimed invention) to use the muffle furnace as an alternative to the pusher furnace in CN ‘751 because they have equivalence function and both furnaces can be used in the production of tantalum pentoxide, in view of CN ‘919 (see Abstract).
With respect to the calcination temperature in the instant claim 6, the claimed calcination temperature in a range of “800-900oC” and calcination time of “9-11 h” are met by the reference because CN ‘751 teaches a calcination temperature of 900-1100oC and for 10-15 hours (see [0025]), which appears touching the claimed temperature at 900oC and the disclosed calcination time is overlapping with the claimed calcination time.
C. Claim(s) 7 & 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
CN104386751 (A), hereinafter “CN ‘751” in view of CN 217120272 U, hereinafter CN ‘272”, as applied to claims 2-5, 8, & 11-15 above and in further view of CN 105665731 B, hereinafter “CN ‘731”.
CN ‘751 discloses a method for preparing ultra-high-purity tantalum oxide as set forth in the precedent paragraph, except for the following difference.
With regard to claim 7, CN ‘751 teaches calcination temperature range of 900-1100oC, and the time is 10-15 hours (see [0025]), which appears to be lower than the claimed calcination temperature range of “1200-1500oC”. It would have been obvious to optimize the calcination temperature of the reference to effectively heat treating the product reducing the heating time to less than 10-15 hours, such as 8 hours, because at a higher heating temperature the heating time will be shorter or requires less time.
The additional claim feature on the heat treatment atmosphere in step (5) of the instant claimed method as further defined in claim 7 being “vacuum, inert atmosphere, or atmospheric” and in claim 17 being “vacuum” are not taught in CN ‘751.
However, CN ‘371 is in the field of tantalum oxide production and teaches to carry out reduction reaction in an inert gas or vacuum atmosphere to obtain high-oxygen tantalum powder (see Abstract). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person skilled in the art (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) to carry out the heat treatment of CN ‘751 in a vacuum atmosphere in order to obtain high-oxygen tantalum powder as a final product because this is known and has been done in the art, as evidenced by CN ‘371 (see Abstract).
Claims 7 & 17 are unpatentable as being obvious over CN ‘751 in view of CN ‘371.
Citations
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. All references are cited for related art. See PTO-892 Form prepared.
US 2,950,966 (relates to a method for production of tantalum oxide from H2TaF7 by leaching and precipitation).
US 5,620,936 (relates to a method for production of tantalum oxide from H2TaF7 by precipitation).
US 6,338,832 (relates to a process for production of tantalum pentoxide powders by precipitation).
Conclusion
11. Claims 1-8 & 10-17 are pending. Claims 1-8 & 10-17 are rejected. No claims are allowed.
Contacts
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner CAM N. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1357. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (8:30 am – 5:00 pm) at alternative worksite or at cam.nguyen@uspto.gov.
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, Anthony Zimmer, can be reached at 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Cam N. Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/CNN/
June 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights