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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group I invention (claim 1-3) in the reply filed on 02/12/2026 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Claim 4 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/12/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 3 line 2 recited “spay” appears to be spray. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Allimant (WO 2019/149854) (for applicant’s convenience, English equivalent US2021/0115548 has been provided hereof for citations) in view of Takai (US2017/0114440).
Allimant teaches a process manufacturing a powder comprising yttrium or yttrium oxyfluoride comprising injecting an yttrium powder (e.g. yttrium oxide powder) into a plasma jet, melting the yttrium particles into droplets, and cooling the molten droplets (para. [0023], [0044]-[0045]), Fig. 2-3, examples ). Allimant also teaches the plasma jet (item 22, Fig 2) using argon and hydrogen as plasma forming gas (table 2, step b): melting section)
Regarding claim 1, Allimant does not expressly teach the plasma jet being air plasma jet.
Takai teaches plasma spraying an yttrium oxide containing powder forming an yttrium oxyfluoride material via using a gas mixture of argon, hydrogen with air as ambient gas (para. [0018], [0020]).
Since Takai teaches using air being contained in the gas for forming a plasma, therefore, an air plasma jet is expected.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such known technique of air plasma jet as shown by Takai to modify a well-known plasma jet spraying process of Allimant for improvement because by doing so would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR rationale D). Furthermore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt ambient gas or air as shown by Takai to modify the plasma jet of Allimant because air or ambient gas is readily available and economically cheaper as compared to nitrogen or hydrogen.
Regarding claim 2, Allimant further teaches the plasma torch preferably comprises at least one nozzle arranged so as to inject a cooling fluid, preferably air, so as to cool the droplets resulting from the heating of the granule powder injected into the plasma jet, separating (i.e. removing) the cooling air from the sprayed yttrium compound with an air separator (para. [0145], [0146], [0151]- [0153], Fig. 2-3). As for claimed drying the sprayed yttrium compound, since Allimant already teaches extreme high temperature associated when spraying the yttrium compound, therefore, solvent evaporation under such extreme high temperature is involved, i.e. drying is involved thereof. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt a well-known drying technique to remove undesired moisture associated with sprayed and cooled yttrium containing product thus obtaining a desired final product.
Regarding claim 3, Allimant also teaches the minimum distance d between the outer surface of the anode (exit of plasma spray outlet) and the cooling zone (wherein the droplet come into contact with the inject cooling fluid) between 50 nm and 400 mm, Allimant disclosed distance overlaps with that of instantly claimed distance thus renders a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP § 2144. 05 I).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 11560319 in view of Takai (US2017/0114440). US’319 teaches a process of manufacturing a spherical YOF-based powder, the process comprising: (a) melting YOF-based powder by introducing the YOF-based powder into a plasma jet; (b) manufacturing a spherical YOF-based powder by spraying the molten YOF-based droplets to a refrigerant; and (c) removing the refrigerant after step (b) and drying the spherical YOF-based powder, wherein in step (b), when the molten YOF-based droplets are sprayed, a separation distance from an injection outlet to a surface of the refrigerant is in a range of 400 to 600 mm. US’319 does not expressly teach the plasma jet being an air plasma jet. Takai teaches such limitation as discussed above.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such known technique of air plasma jet as shown by Takai to modify a well-known plasma jet spraying process of US’319 for improvement because by doing so would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR rationale D). Furthermore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt ambient gas or air as shown by Takai to modify the plasma jet of US’319 because air or ambient gas is readily available and economically cheaper as compared to nitrogen or hydrogen.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5858. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/JUN LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights