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 Acknowledged
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 27-37, in the reply filed on 04/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 27-42 and 45-52 are pending. Of the pending claims, claims 27-37 are presented for examination on the merits. Claims 38-42 and 45-52 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Two (2) information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) were submitted on 02/29/2024 and 04/23/2026. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 27, 30, 31, 34, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,771,929 (A) to Hellman et al. (“Hellman”) in view of US 5,951,738 (A) to Dube et al. (“Dube”) and US 2002/0179489 (A1) to Choudhary et al. (“Choudhary”).
Regarding claim 27, Hellman discloses a method of producing powder such as a steel powder (process for manufacturing metal powders). Abstract; col. 1, lines 50-55. The process includes a step of supplying molten material into an atomizing chamber and subjecting the molten material to fluid jet, e.g., gas (feeding a chamber of a gas atomizer with molten metal). Col. 3, lines 14-43. Drops of molten material are cooled during their free fall through the chamber (atomizing the molten metal by injection of gas so as to form metal particles). Col. 3, lines 40-46.
Cooling of the particles are finalized in the lower part of the chamber by a fluidized bed maintained by a number of gas inlets (13) in the lowermost part of the chamber (cooling the metal particles in a lower section of the chamber by injecting gas with gas injectors from a bottom of the chamber so as to form a fluidized bed of metal particles). Col. 2, lines 64-68; col. 3, lines 1, 46-53; FIG. 1.
Hellman is silent regarding the velocity of the gas needed to maintain the fluidized bed in a bubbling regime.
Dube is directed to an apparatus for producing coated metal granules by forming droplets of molten metal and cooling the molten metal with gas. Abstract; col. 2, lines 27-28. The gas enters a feed pipe and valve, and the gas is regulated to give an average velocity of 0.01-0.1 m/second (1-10 cm/s) sufficient to fluidized the bed. Col. 6, lines 32-38. At the exit location, the gas velocity is between 0.02 m/sec and 1 m/sec (2-100 cm/s) in order to generate a bubbling fluidized bed mode of operation. Col. 6, lines 40-44; FIG. 6.
Choudhary is directed to a method for gas-solid contacting in a bubbling fluidized bed reactor. Abstract. Choudhary states that most commercial gas fluidized bed reactors for catalytic and non-catalytic reaction operate in the bubbling regime as fluidized bubbling beds. Para. [0004]. Advantages of bubbling fluidized bed reactors are rapid mixing and high rates of heat transfer. Para. [0005]. Bubbling fluidized beds reactors can be operated to achieve efficient contact between solid and gas. Para. [0012].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have operated the fluidized bed of Hellman using the gas speeds disclosed by Dube because this mode would maintain a bubbling regime, promoting high heat transfer and exchange and increased contact between gas and solid particles, leading to more efficient and more effective cooling of the atomized particles.
Regarding claim 30, Hellman discloses that the molten metal forms a continuous and descending stream, and the droplets of molten metal solidify as they fall through the chamber. Claim 1 – col. 6, lines 10-27. The solidified droplets are then continuously fed out of the chamber (atomization (ii) and cooling (iii) are done simultaneously). Col. 3, lines 48-51.
Regarding claim 31, Hellman teaches that fine metal particles or drops are collected are collected after they have been cooled to such as extent that they have solidified and reached such a temperature that there is no longer any risk of the metal particles sticking together. Col. 2, lines 6-16. This implies that the particle temperature must be not be hot enough to be malleable, deformed, and/or agglomerated and should be less the solidus temperature (encompasses temperatures less than 300°C for metal) so that the particles are not misshapen and do not adhere to one another.
Regarding claim 34, Hellman discloses that the solidified droplets are continuously fed out of the chamber (continuously discharging metal particles from the chamber). Col. 3, lines 48-51.
Regarding claim 35, Hellman discloses that the powder is fed out of the chamber through outlet (14) (continuous discharge done through an overflow). Col. 3, lines 48-53; FIG. 1.
Claims 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hellman in view of Dube and Choudhary, as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of WO 2015/099376 (A1) to Kim et al. (“Kim”) (computer-generated translation is attached).
Regarding claims 28 and 29, Hellman discloses that the molten material can be steel (col. 1, lines 50-66), but is silent regarding the how the molten steel was obtained.
Kim is directed to a method for manufacturing iron particles via atomization. Abstract; p. 11 – third paragraph. The first step is to provide molten iron that has been manufactured in a blast furnace or using an electric arc furnace. Pages 11-12 – bridging paragraph.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have obtained the molten steel of Hellman from a blast furnace or electric arc furnace because these are common ironmaking processes for providing molten steel and are shown to be suitable starting materials for atomization processes.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hellman in view of Dube and Choudhary, as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of US 2021/0101211 (A1) to Memoli et al. (“Memoli”).
Regarding claim 29, Hellman discloses that the molten material can be steel (col. 1, lines 50-66), but is silent regarding the how the molten steel was obtained.
Memoli is directed to a method for producing metal powders by gas atomization is provided. Abstract; para. [0001], [0007]. The method produced iron and steel alloys. Para. [0002]. To supply the metal charge, the charge is melted in a melting station comprising an electric-arc furnace. Para. [0051], [0056]. During the running of the electric-arc furnace, the temperature, the volume and the composition of the molten metal bath formed therein are controlled and, when necessary, modified a molten metal bath of desired volume, temperature, and composition is obtained. Para. [0105], [0106].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have obtained the molten steel of Hellman from an electric arc furnace because it is a common ironmaking processes for providing molten steel and is shown to be suitable starting material for atomization processes. Additionally, the electric-arc furnace gives the user control of the composition of the melt, providing the option to customize the melt, and therefore powder, in accordance with predetermined specifications.
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hellman in view of Dube and Choudhary, as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of US 4,284,393 (A) to Brunosson et al. (“Brunosson”).
Regarding claim 32, Hellman discloses cooling jackets (2, 3) immediately above the fluidized bed (12) and that are in communication with the upper part of the chamber. Fig. 1; col. 3, lines 55-68; col. 4, lines 1-13. The warm gas is drawn away from the lower part of the chamber while cold gas is supplied constantly to the upper part (injected gas is extracted and cooled down). Col. 4, lines 1-13. Hellman does not teach supplying the cold gas to gas inlets (13) so that they are re-injected into the chamber.
Brunosson is drawn to an apparatus for manufacturing powder by melt atomization. Abstract. The apparatus is provided with nozzles for injection of gas to fluidize and cool the powder. Col. 1, lines 59-64. Gas is withdrawn from the collecting chamber, passed through a cooler, and reintroduced to the lower part of the container. Col. 1, lines 47-55; col. 2, lines 55-67. In an embodiment, gas supplied to the plenum chamber (located at the lower part of the apparatus) may be taken from the compressor via pipe (33) (injected gas is extracted, cooled down, and re-injected). FIGS. 1 and 2; col. 3, lines 12-20.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have recycled the withdrawn and cooled gas of Hellman back to the gas inlets (gas injectors) for the fluidized bed, as taught by Brunosson, because reusing the gas reduces wastes and makes the process more convenient by utilizing material already existing and used in the process.
Regarding claim 33, Hellman discloses that the gas is passed through heat exchangers and that it becomes a cold gas. Col. 4, lines 1-25. Although a specific temperature is not disclosed, Dube discloses that adjusting fluidized bed temperature allows the user to adjust the degree of reaction or coating, and substantially contamination-free granules can be produced at the lowest temperatures. Col. 4, lines 17-21. At very low bed temperatures, the materials in the bed are substantially non-reactive and do not adhere strongly when in contact with the granules. Col. 4, lines 15-17. Additionally, Brunosson teaches that the powder is cooled down to an example temperature of 50°C at which the powder may be handled in air without major inconvenience. Col. 3, lines 2-6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have cooled the gas of Hellman to a low temperature because cool gas temperatures would be needed to further engage in heat transfer to promote particle cooling to at most 50°C, for example, for handling. Furthermore, a low gas temperature would decrease susceptibility of the powders from reacting with impurities in the air, thereby increasing the purity of the powders formed.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hellman in view of Dube and Choudhary, as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Memoli.
Regarding claim 36, Hellman does not teach a step of transporting the discharged metal particles to a sieving station.
Memoli is directed to a method for producing metal powders by gas atomization is provided. Abstract; para. [0001], [0007]. Memoli teaches that the lower closed chamber of the atomization apparatus is connected to a discharge system that communicates with a powder classification device, such as a sieve. Para. [0017], [0024], [0076]. The separation can be at least one first fraction and one second fraction, wherein the metal particles of the first fraction have a desired grain size and the metal particles of the second fraction have a grain size different from the desired one. Para. [0076].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have sent the collected powder particles of Hellman to a sieving station because it permits the classification of powders according to size, enabling the manufacturer to provide particles of a desired uniform size.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hellman in view of Dube, Choudhary, and Memoli, as applied to claim 36 above, and further in view of WO 97/46473 (A1) to Bjarnö (“Bjarnö”).
Regarding claim 37, Hellman does not teach transporting the discharged metal particles in the form of a fluidized bed.
Bjarnö is drawn to a horizontal fluid bed for powder transportation and distribution. Title; abstract. The fluid bed is maintained homogenously along its entire length. Page 1 – sixth paragraph. The inclination of each section is minimal, saving the space the bed consumes. Page 2 – first paragraph; p. 3 – first paragraph. The fluidizing speed is maintained such that all particles leave the bed together. Page 2 – fifth paragraph; p. 3 – second paragraph.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized a fluidized bed to move the discharged particles of Hellman to a separator, such as a sieve, because the fluidized bed would effectively transport particles of all sizes, ensuring that the entirety of the powder reaches the sieve and none are left behind.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANESSA T. LUK whose telephone number is (571)270-3587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM ET.
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 D. Hendricks, can be reached at 571-272-1401. 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.
/VANESSA T. LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
July 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights