CTNF 18/372,685 CTNF 76171 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Drawings 06-37 AIA The drawings were received on 9/25/2023 . These drawings are accepted . 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that” the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are as follows: Claim 4: an anti-satellite diffuser adapted to prevent the recirculation of fine powders Claim 17: an anti-satellite diffuser adapted to prevent the recirculation of fine powders Claim 49: an anti-satellite diffuser adapted to prevent the recirculation of fine powders Because this/these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-5, 8, 14-21, and 51-53 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. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 1 recites the limitation " the particles " in line 5 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 3 recites the limitation " the supersonic stream " in line 2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 4 recites the limitation " the recirculation of fine powders " in lines 2 and 3 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-34-03 AIA The term “ fine powders ” in claim s 4, 17, and 49 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ fine ” 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. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 5 recites the limitation " the arc between the two wires " in line 2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 5 recites the limitation " the single wire and one electrode " in lines 2 and 3 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 14 recites the limitation " the particles " in line 6 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 16 recites the limitation “ the supersonic stream ” in line 2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 17 recites the limitation " the recirculation of fine powders " in lines 2 and 3 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 18 recites the limitation " the arc between the two wires " in line 2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 18 recites the limitation " the single wire and one electrode " in lines 2 and 3 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 19 recites the limitation “ the wire arc ” in line 2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 20 recites the limitation “ the wire arc ” in line 2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 21 recites the limitation the “parallel power supplies” in line 2. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 51 recites the limitation " the arc between the two wires " in line 2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 51 recites the limitation " the single wire and one electrode " in lines 2 and 3 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 52 recites the limitation “ the wire arc ” in line 2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 53 recites the limitation “ the wire arc ” in line 2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims dependent on any of the rejected claims are likewise rejected under this statute. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by WO 2017/011900 A1 . WO 2017/011900 A1 (WO ‘900) teaches a plasma atomization metal powder manufacturing process (abstract) as represented below in the annotated drawing: PNG media_image1.png 734 642 media_image1.png Greyscale The metal source may be a metal wire [0039]. An electric arc may be formed between the electrode and the metal source [00107]. The plasma source includes at least one plasma torch [0086]. The atomizing system feeds a cold gas [0088] to form spheroidal powders [0089]. Wu et al anticipates the claimed invention . 07-15 AIA Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by WO ‘900 . WO ‘900 teaches a plasma atomization metal powder manufacturing process (abstract) as represented above in the annotated drawing. The plasma source includes at least one plasma torch [0086]. The wire may be continuously fed [00127]. The metal source may be a metal wire [0039]. An electric arc may be formed between the electrode and the metal source [00107]. The atomizing system feeds a cold gas [0088] to form spheroidal powders [0089]. Wu et al anticipates the claimed invention . 07-15 AIA Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by WO 9835760 A1 . WO 9835760 A1 (WO ‘760) teaches a plasma transferred wire arc thermal spray method as represented below in the annotated drawing: PNG media_image2.png 606 662 media_image2.png Greyscale An electric potential differential is between the wire feedstock and cathode (page 7, lines 17-20). In prior plasma transferred wire arc thermal spray systems, it was necessary to feed the wire feedstock into the plasma transferred arc at a transverse angle such that no portion of the wire is closer to the plasma transferred-arc than the leading edge of the wire feedstock in the feeding direction. Thus, the longitudinal axis of the wire feedstock was generally perpendicular to the constricted plasma arc. The molten atomized feedstock wire particles would then bounce directly back to the apparatus since the angles of incidence and reflection were 90°. This problem may also be eliminated with WO ‘760 because the wire feedstock and nozzle have the same electrical potential. WO ‘760 teaches the longitudinal axis of the wire feedstock defines an angle of less than 90° to the plasma transferred arc, such that the angle of reflection of the atomized particles or bounce back from the surface being coated is greater than 90°, eliminating this problem. Therefore, WO ‘760 teaches preventing recirculation of fine powders and reads on being capable of performing as an “anti-satellite diffuser.” WO ‘760 anticipates the claimed invention . 07-15 AIA Claim s 50-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by WO ‘760 . WO ‘760 teaches a plasma transferred wire arc thermal spray method as represented above in the annotated drawing. The plasma torch is 51 , the wire is 56 , and droplets are molten metal particles. WO ‘760 anticipates the claimed invention. Regarding Claim 51, WO ‘760 teaches parallel power supplies as represented in the annotated drawing above. Regarding Claim 52, WO ‘760 teaches voltage power supply 61b (page 17, lines 13-17). Regarding Claim 53, WO ‘760 teaches current power supply 61a (page 17, lines 13-17). Regarding Claim 54, WO ‘760 teaches current power supply 61a and voltage power supply 61b in parallel (page 17, lines 13-17) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO ‘900 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boulos et al (US 2016/0175936 A1) . WO ‘900 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, WO ‘900 does not teach the nozzle [0058] is a supersonic nozzle as in Claim 2 or the electric arc is transferred with a supersonic stream as in Claim 3. Boulos et al teaches for producing powder particles by atomization of a feed material in the form of a member such as a wire that is introduced in a plasma torch (abstract). The plasma jet is supersonic. The forward end or tip of the feed material is exposed to the supersonic jet [0027]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the plasma jet of Boulos et al in the process of WO ‘900, since Boulos et al teaches allowing the material to heat to a temperature as close as possible to its melting point while avoiding premature melting thereof within the plasma torch [0027] . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 4, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over WO ‘900 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO ‘760 . WO ‘900 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, WO ‘900 does not teach atomized meal droplets pass through an anti-satellite diffuser adapted to prevent the recirculation of fine powders as in Claim 4, two power supplies or more are used in parallel as in Claim 5, or parallel power supplies are used in a combination of voltage control and current control as in Claim 8. WO ‘760 teaches a plasma transferred wire arc thermal spray method that can be used to produce free-standing near-net-shapes (page 1, lines 4-10) as represented above in the annotated drawing. Regarding Claim 4, WO ‘760 teaches in prior plasma transferred wire arc thermal spray systems, it was necessary to feed the wire feedstock into the plasma transferred arc at a transverse angle such that no portion of the wire is closer to the plasma transferred-arc than the leading edge of the wire feedstock in the feeding direction. Thus, the longitudinal axis of the wire feedstock was generally perpendicular to the constricted plasma arc. The molten atomized feedstock wire particles would then bounce directly back to the apparatus since the angles of incidence and reflection were 90°. This problem may also be eliminated with WO ‘760 because the wire feedstock and nozzle have the same electrical potential. WO ‘760 teaches the longitudinal axis of the wire feedstock defines an angle of less than 90° to the plasma transferred arc, such that the angle of reflection of the atomized particles or bounce back from the surface being coated is greater than 90°, eliminating this problem. Therefore, WO ‘760 teaches preventing recirculation of fine powders and reads on being capable of performing as an “anti-satellite diffuser.” Regarding Claim 5, WO ‘760 teaches parallel power supplies as represented in the annotated drawing above. Regarding Claim 8, WO ‘760 teaches current power supply 61a and voltage power supply 61b (page 17, lines 13-17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the plasma transferred wire arc thermal spray process of WO ‘760 to produce the metal particles in WO ‘900, since WO ‘760 teaches an apparatus with simple construction and may be operated at relatively low gas consumption and is relatively maintenance-free (page 8, lines 10-13) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO ‘900 as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Boulos et al . WO ‘900 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, WO ‘900 does not teach the nozzle [0058] is a supersonic nozzle as in Claim 15 or the electric arc is transferred with a supersonic stream as in Claim 16. Boulos et al is applied as discussed above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the plasma jet of Boulos et al in the process of WO ‘900, since Boulos et al teaches allowing the material to heat to a temperature as close as possible to its melting point while avoiding premature melting thereof within the plasma torch [0027] . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over WO ‘900 as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of WO ‘760 . WO ‘900 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, WO ‘900 does not teach atomized meal droplets pass through an anti-satellite diffuser adapted to prevent the recirculation of fine powders as in Claim 17, at least one power supply is voltage-controlled as in Claim 19, at least one power supply is current-controlled as in Clam 20, or parallel power supplies are used as in Claim 21. WO ‘760 teaches a plasma transferred wire arc thermal spray method that can be used to produce free-standing near-net-shapes (page 1, lines 4-10) as represented above in the annotated drawing. Regarding Claim 17, WO ‘760 teaches in prior plasma transferred wire arc thermal spray systems, it was necessary to feed the wire feedstock into the plasma transferred arc at a transverse angle such that no portion of the wire is closer to the plasma transferred-arc than the leading edge of the wire feedstock in the feeding direction. Thus, the longitudinal axis of the wire feedstock was generally perpendicular to the constricted plasma arc. The molten atomized feedstock wire particles would then bounce directly back to the apparatus since the angles of incidence and reflection were 90°. This problem may also be eliminated with WO ‘760 because the wire feedstock and nozzle have the same electrical potential. WO ‘760 teaches the longitudinal axis of the wire feedstock defines an angle of less than 90° to the plasma transferred arc, such that the angle of reflection of the atomized particles or bounce back from the surface being coated is greater than 90°, eliminating this problem. Therefore, WO ‘760 teaches preventing recirculation of fine powders and reads on being capable of performing as an “anti-satellite diffuser.” Regarding Claim 18, WO ‘760 teaches parallel power supplies as represented in the annotated drawing above. Regarding Claim 19, WO ‘760 teaches voltage power supply 61b (page 17, lines 13-17). Regarding Claim 20, WO ‘760 teaches current power supply 61a (page 17, lines 13-17). Regarding Claim 21, WO ‘760 teaches current power supply 61a and voltage power supply 61b in parallel (page 17, lines 13-17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the plasma transferred wire arc thermal spray process of WO ‘760 to produce the metal particles in WO ‘900, since WO ‘760 teaches an apparatus with simple construction and may be operated at relatively low gas consumption and is relatively maintenance-free (page 8, lines 10-13) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wu et al (US 2003/0102207 A1). Wu et al teaches producing nano powder using a plasma arc zone through which un-vaporized melt droplets dripped out of the ionized arc will have another chance to get vaporized [0066] . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 4:00 pm. 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. Tima M. McGuthry-Banks Primary Examiner Art Unit 1733 /TIMA M. MCGUTHRY-BANKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/372,685 Page 2 Art Unit: 1733 Application/Control Number: 18/372,685 Page 3 Art Unit: 1733