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
Restriction/Election
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 13 – 19 in the reply filed on 02/19/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search burden because base claims 1 and 5 require every limitation of claim 13. This is not found persuasive because the apparatus can be used for a materially different process involving non-metal/ceramic material, whereas base claims 1 and 5 require metal. This requires at least differences in search strategy and queries as well as different classifications. The examiner also notes that the methods of claims 1 and 5 do not expressly require the system of claim 13.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1 – 12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/19/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 – 14 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 13, the “holding vessel” introduced in “c)” then states “inductively holding vessel”. The word “inductively” appears to be erroneous.
Regarding claim 14, an erroneous comma is included in the last line prior to the period mark.
Regarding claim 17, the abbreviation “VOD” should be fully spelled out for clarity prior to using it as an abbreviation.
Regarding claim 17, an erroneous comma is included in the 5th line after “other” and the 6th line prior to the semi colon.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 13 – 19 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.
Claim 13 states “the gas atomizer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is interpreted that it is intended to refer to the atomizer station.
The term “largely transparent to electromagnetic radiation wavelengths” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite, specifically “largely”. 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. Specifically, the limitation states that it is largely transparent such that the metal can be heated by the EM field without “overheating” the passively heatable ladle. However, what does and does not constitute the ladle being “overheated” is subjective. Therefore, the metes and bounds of what constitutes “largely transparent” to EM radiation wavelengths is not clear because there is no standard for ascertaining the requisite degree.
Claims 18 – 19 recites the limitation "one of the inductively heated atomizing holding vessel” and "two inductively heated atomizing holding vessel”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. The claim is dependent on claim 13 but claim 13 does not introduce an inductively heated atomizing hold vessel. Moreover, claim 13 requires that the ladle is configured to move between the holding vessel and the atomizer station implying that they are separate, but claim 18 and 19 now require that the atomizer specifically receives the holding vessel (claim 18) or that the atomizer station has two holding vessels. As such, it is unclear what is being required. It is interpreted that the phrase is intended to be that there are two receiving areas for the ladle (claim 18) and that there are two receiving areas for two ladles (claim 19).
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §103
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 13 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vikner (US2015/0059526) in view of Li (CN107262730, using espacenet translation) and further in view of Memoli (WO2018/189708)
For clarity of the record, Memoli (WO2018/189708) is available under 102(a)(2) because it designates the United States (MPEP 2154.01(a)).
Regarding claims 13 – 14, Vikner teaches a system for atomization [Title]. Vikner teaches the system comprises:
A furnace for heating molten metal, including electrode heating [0038], meeting the claimed limitation of a furnace for forming molten metal
A ladle from which the liquid metal in the furnace can be drained [0038], meeting the claimed limitation of a ladle for containing molten metal
A gas atomizer with a tundish affixed to the top [Fig 2] from which the liquid metal in the ladle can be transferred to [0038], meeting the claimed limitation of an atomizer station/gas atomizer with a tundish located within it
Vikner teaches that a gas atomizer is used but does not provide details. Vikner does not expressly teach a holding vessel.
Li teaches a gas atomization device for producing spherical metal [Title]. Li teaches that the atomization device contains a tundish within the gas atomizer in which a vessel pours molten metal into it [Fig 1]. Li teaches that the gas atomization device contains a vacuum pump [0025] and the ability to pump inert gas into the chamber [0031], meeting the claimed limitation of a controlled vacuum and inert gas atmosphere. The examiner notes that specific pressures and/or gases are directed to a manner of operating a device. Li further teaches that the device also contains a nozzle and annular hole atomizer for forming the metal powder [0025] which is spherical [Title], meeting the claimed limitation of a nozzle for forming spherical shaped powder. Li teaches a powder collector [0025], meeting the broadest reasonable interpretation of a discharge hopper for collecting the spherical powder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Vikner and Li to use the disclosed atomization device in the configured system of Vikner to achieve predictable results. Both Vikner and Li are directed to the same field of endeavor of gas atomization and Vikner does not provide details on the arrangement of the gas atomization device. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings. Moreover, Li teaches that the atomization device is capable of producing fine particles with sphericity and narrow particle size distribution [0034] and an ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize that the use of vacuum and inert gas as well as other features of Li, such as internal/protected molten transfer, would help minimize oxidation of the particles, a benefit that would be readily appreciated in the system arraignment of Vikner which discloses treating metals sensitive to impurities and oxidation [0002].
Vikner in view of Li does not expressly teach a holding vessel.
Memoli teaches a system for gas atomization involving a moveable ladle for [Fig 1.]. Memoli teaches that there is a plurality of ladles with a refractory lining [Page 19, line 24 – 25]. The ladles have the ability to be heated by induction coils [Page 20, line 4 – 8], meeting the limitation of the ladles being transparent to EM waves such that heating can be applied without overheating of claim 14. Memoli teaches that the ladles can be passed through a plurality of refining chambers (i.e., furnaces), meeting the broadest reasonable interpretation of a holding vessel with heating [Page 16, line 4 – 15]. Memoli teaches that this configuration has the benefit of subjecting the molten metal to secondary metallurgy/ladle refining to further purify the molten metal [Page 25, line 18 – 25]. Wherein the ladles would move between the refining chambers/furnaces and the atomizer station.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the system of Vikner in view of Li and modified it such that it contained a plurality of ladles (as taught by Memoli) that moved between the furnaces, refining chambers/furnaces, and atomizer, as disclosed by Memoli. Vikner, Li and Memoli are directed to the same field of endeavor of gas atomization. Vikner discloses that a ladle can be used as an intermediate from the furnace to the tundish/atomizer and as such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in applying the teaching Memoli to Vikner. Additionally, Memoli teaches that the configuration allows for refining (i.e., purifying) of the molten metal, a benefit an ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated by. More so, Vikner explicitly states that scrap metal can be used [0037] and recognizes that low impurity content is important [0009].
Lastly, Vikner teaches that the furnace can be heated by induction [0021] and Memoli teaches that the ladle can be heated by induction [Page 20, line 4 – 8]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and ordinary creativity to have used induction heating (i.e., electromagnetic coils) as the heating means in the refining chambers/furnaces.
Regarding claim 15, Vikner in view of Li and Memoli teaches the invention as applied in claim 13. Li shows/teaches that the transfer of molten metal into the tundish from the previous vessel (i.e., the ladle of Vikner) is performed inside a chamber within the atomizer, which can contain inert gas [0031] and is connected to the vacuum pump “12” [Fig 1], meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 16, Vikner in view of Li and Memoli teaches the invention as applied in claim 13. Li teaches that the powders collected can be mixed and sieved at least once to achieve a desired size and yield [0067]. Li does not expressly disclose a series of these steps but the duplication of components/steps is a prima facie case of obviousness in the absence of unexpected benefits, criticality, or other secondary considerations.
Regarding claim 17, Vikner in view of Li and Memoli teaches the invention as applied in claim 13. Memoli teaches that one of the refining stations/chambers can be vacuum oxygen decarburization and can also generate vacuum (i.e., degassing) [Page 16, line 4 – 20]. Wherein this meets the limitation of removing impurities including carbon and other gasses.
Wherein Memoli also teaches that the plurality of ladles moves between the furnaces, refining stations, and atomizer [Fig 1] and as such, meets the limitation of moving between the furnace and refining station and refining station and atomizer. Memoli also shows that the ladles are disposed within the refiner [Fig 1], meeting the claimed limitation of the molten metal being carried by the ladle after the furnace, during the refining, and to the atomizer.
Claims 18 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vikner (US2015/0059526) in view of Li (CN107262730, using espacenet translation) and Memoli (WO2018/189708), as applied to claim 13, in further view of Wang (CN104232898, using espacenet translation)
Regarding claims 18 – 19, Vikner in view of Li and Memoli teaches the invention as applied in claim 13. Vikner does not teach that the atomization station has two receiving areas for receiving vessels.
Wang teaches a method of continuous gas atomization [0001]. Wang teaches a configuration in which a tundish is configured to receive molten metal from vessels on either side of it [Fig 2], meeting the broadest reasonable interpretation of the atomizer station having two different receiving areas and containing two vessels (i.e., ladles of Vikner). Wang shows that doors can be provided on either side [Fig 1 and Fig 4], meeting the claimed limitation of each area having an access door and the limitation of two access doors and two vessels of claim 19. Wang states that the adoption of this configuration allows for increased efficiency of production by alternating the transfer vessels and thereby creating a continuous production method [0007, 0011].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system of Vikner in view of Li to use a double-sided atomization device as disclosed by Wang. Vikner, Li, Memoli and Wang are directed to the same field of endeavor of gas atomization. Moreover, Vikner in view of Li teaches an atomization device in which a tundish above the atomization chamber receives molten metal from a vessel prior to atomization and Wang states that the upper chamber of the atomizer is in vacuum/inert gas still [0009]. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the atomizer such that two separate vessels were received from separate doors on either side of the tundish to achieve predictable results.
An ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification because Wang discloses that this allows for alternating/rotating deposition such that a higher efficiency, more continuous production of metal powder can be achieved.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US2017/0209922 – Subjecting molten metal to multiple refining steps with a moveable refining ladle furnace prior to atomization
US2014/0238552 – Discloses a method for processing alloys. Disclosure that VOD and AOD are used to achieve melt purity prior to atomization.
CN108115145 – Metal gas atomization devices including internal tundish and molten metal transfer and powder sorting arrangement
JP2016108650 – Metal gas atomization devices including internal tundish and molten metal transfer with an access door separating the refining area from the tundish and atomizer
JP2000273505 – Metal gas atomization devices including internal tundish and molten metal transfer including from a furnace and/or ladle which can be used for refining and heated using inductions coils.
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
Prosecution Insights