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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
claim 18 recites “at leat” in line 1, Examiner interprets this as a typographical error, this would be “at least”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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:
(A) 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;
(B) 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”; and
(C) 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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation is: the phrase "means of centrifugal atomization” in line 1 and line 5 in claim 1. The non-structural term “means” is modified by the sufficient structure both “centrifugal atomization” and “atomization chamber” for performing the claimed function.
Because this claim limitations is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation does not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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 1-20 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 1 recites the following limitations,
"the step" in line 2,
"the atmosphere" in line 7,
“the closed atomization chamber” in line 7,
"the density" in line 9,
"the rotating speed" in line 10,
"the diameter" in line 11,
"the pressure" in line 11-12,
“the atomization chamber” in line 12.
There are insufficient antecedent basis for all these limitations in the claim.
Claim 1 further recites “a closed chamber” in line 2, “the closed atomization chamber” in line 7, and “the atomization chamber” in line 12, renders the claim indefinite. Because it is not clear whether a closed chamber, the closed atomization chamber and the atomization chamber, all are same or different chambers.
Claim 3 recites the limitation, "the absolute pressure" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation, "P the absolute pressure in the atomization chamber" in line 2, renders the claim indefinite, because, the claim 1 from which claim 3 depends from recites “P is the pressure in the atomization chamber”, therefore, it is not clear whether P is the absolute pressure in the atomization chamber or P is the pressure in the atomization chamber.
Claim 4, 5 and 6, each recite the limitation, "the absolute pressure" in line 1. There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in these claims.
Claim 4, 5 and 6 each recites the limitation, "the absolute pressure in the atomization chamber" in line 1, renders the claim indefinite, because, the claim 1 from which claim 3 depends from recites “the pressure in the atomization chamber”, therefore, it is not clear whether “the absolute pressure in the atomization chamber” is a new limitation or this is the same limitation of “the pressure in the atomization chamber” as recited in the claim 1.
Claim 4 and 5 recites the limitation, of “the absolute pressure in the atomization chamber is above 1.2 bar” and “the absolute pressure in the atomization chamber is above 2.6 bar” respectively, without reciting any upper limit of the absolute pressure in the atomization chamber, renders the both claims indefinite. Because it is not clear what will be the upper limit, and therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation, "the contact angle" in line 1 and "the sessile drop method" in line 3. There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation, "the hardness" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation, "the surface tension" in line 1 and "the sessile drop method" in line 3. There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation, "the atomizing system" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation, "the oxygen content" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation, "the use" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation, "the atomized powder" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2-20 are being dependent on claim 1 and are also rejected for the same reason applied to claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Language Interpretation
Claim 3-6 all recites a limitation of “the absolute pressure in the atomization chamber", however, the claim 1 from which all these claims claim 3 depend from recites “the pressure in the atomization chamber”, therefore both of the term “the absolute pressure in the atomization chamber" and “the pressure in the atomization chamber” have been interpreted as same for the broadest reasonable interpretation, and any prior art teaches either of these or both can be used to meet the limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Rovalma S A [WO201511068A2] (provided in the IDS, Rovalma hereafter).
An Evidentiary reference M. Rywotycki, et.al. [“MODELLING LIQUID STEEL MOTION CAUSED BY ELECTROMAGNETIC STIRRING IN CONTINUOUS CASTING STEEL PROCESS”, Archives of Metallurgy and Materials, Volume 59, 2014, issue 2] (Rywotycki hereafter) is being provided.
Regarding claim 1 and 2, Rovalma discloses a method for producing metal-based alloy powders by means of centrifugal atomization (iron-based alloy compositions manufactured through the centrifugal atomization to obtain metallic powder of the desired characteristics, (see Rovalma’s Page 56, Example 1, line 9-23) in a closed chamber (by referring to two chambers, the melting vessel and the atomization chamber: both chambers operates in vacuum conditions, and the apparatus used for making metal powder using a rotating atomization means as set forth herein under a protective atmosphere (see Rovalma’s Page 17 Line 2-15 and Page 56, Example 1, line 9-23), comprising the steps of:
providing a composition comprising at least one metal (iron-based alloy, see Rovalma’s Page 56, Example 1, line 9-23),
melting the composition (molten metal, see Rovalma’s Page 56, Example 1, line 9-23),
atomizing the molten composition by means of centrifugal atomization (the centrifugal atomization of the molten metal breaks a melt stream into small droplets, see Rovalma’s Page 56, Example 1, line 9-23),
wherein the atmosphere in the closed atomization chamber is pressurized (The atomization chamber contain an atmosphere of one or more predetermined gases. The pressure in the chamber is controlled by regulating the inlet gas flow and the vacuum level exerted by the vacuum pump system and almost any combination of vacuum, limited pressure, several partial pressures of a combination of gases or even over-pressure, depending on the properties of the powder desired) [Page 31 Line 1-18] and/or cooled (subsequently cooled rapidly by convection through the atomization atmosphere, see Rovalma’s Page 56, Example 1, line 9-23).
It is to be noted that the instant claim recites the term “and/or” makes the claim limitations of either of “the closed atomization chamber is pressurized” and “cooled” as optional step.
Rovalma discloses the rotating speed (N) of the atomizing disk in rad/s (the rotating speed of the atomizing disk is 20,000 rpm (approximately 2,095 in rad/s) (see Rovalma’s Page 57, Example 1, lines 1-2), and, the diameter (d) of the atomizing disk in m (the diameter of the atomizing disk d is of 50 mm, i.e. 0.05 in m, see Rovalma’s Page 57 line 1, Example 1) and a preferred pressure (P) in the atomization chamber in Pa (the pressure in the atomization chamber is 2.5 bar; i.e. 250000 in Pa, see Rovalma’s Page 31 Line 17). Rovalma discloses in centrifugal atomization are controlled by the liquid supply rate, angular velocity of the anode (in rad·s-1), the anode diameter (in m), the density of the liquid (in kg/m3), etc. (see Rovalma’s Page 32, line 24-25 and Page 33, line 1-6).
Although Rovalma is silent about the value of the density of the molten composition, Rovalma’s disclosed iron base alloy examples as steel (see Rovalma’s Example 1, TABLE 1, ID 1, Page 58).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
An evidentiary reference, Rywotycki teaches the density of the molten steel at different temperature, i.e. the density of the composition at the melting point (see Rywotycki’s Fig.4).
Therefore, as evidenced in the evidentiary reference of Rywotycki, Rovalma’s density of the example steel composition atomized at the melting point, ρ would expect to be 6980 to 7050 kg/m3.
Applying all these values of d, N, P from Rovalma’s teachings and the lower and upper limit of steel density ρ, as evidenced in Rywotycki the claimed relation of the PA1 and PA3 has been calculated and have been shown in the following table.
Rovalma’s values as shown above, P = 250000 in Pa, N = 2,095 in rad/s and d = 0.05 in m (see Rovalma’s Page 57, Example 1, lines 1-2, and Page 31 Line 17)
Calculated Value
When density of steel:
6980 kg/m3 (Rywotycki’s Fig. 4)
When density of steel: 7050 kg/m3 (Rywotycki’s Fig. 4)
PA1=p*N2*d2
76544623.23
77312262.72
PA3=PA1/P
306.1784929
309.2490509
The values of PA3 as calculated from Rovalma’s teachings for both lower and upper limit of the densities are within the range as recited in the instant claim 1 and 2.
Therefore, it is anticipatory when the prior art is within a claimed range. [See MPEP § 2131.03].
Regarding Claim 3, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable to claim 3, In addition, applying the values of d, N, P from Rovalma’s teachings and steel density ρ, as evidenced in Rywotycki the claimed relation of the PA1 and PA2 has been calculated and have been shown in the following table.
Rovalma’s values as shown above, P = 250000 in Pa, N = 2,095 in rad/s and d = 0.05 in m (see Rovalma’s Page 57, Example 1, lines 1-2, and Page 31 Line 17)
Calculated Value
When density of steel:
6980 kg/m3 (Rywotycki’s Fig. 4)
When density of steel:7050 kg/m3 (Rywotycki’s Fig. 4)
PA1=p*N2*d2
76544623.23
77312262.72
PA2 =K1 *PA1+K2*P
5,752,597.257
5,755,130.467
The values of PA2 as calculated from calculated from Rovalma’s teachings for both lower and upper limit of the densities are within the range as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it is anticipatory because "[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962) )” [See MPEP § 2131.03.I].
Therefore, it is anticipatory when the prior art is within a claimed range. [See MPEP § 2131.03].
Regarding claim 4 and 6, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable to claim 6, wherein Rovalma already teaches the absolute pressure in the atomization chamber is 2.5 bar or more (see Rovalma’s Page 31 Line 15-18).
Rovalma’s absolute pressure in the atomization chamber is within the range as recited in the both instant claims.
Therefore, it is anticipatory when the prior art is within a claimed range. [See MPEP § 2131.03].
Regarding Claim 7, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable to claim 7 wherein Rovalma discloses iron-based alloys, steel (see Rovalma’s Page 56, Example 1, TABLE 1, ID 1, Page 58), and atomization temperature is 1660°C (see Rovalma’s Page 56, Example 1, line 25). Rovalma further discloses the molten composition is overheated (melting temperature of the liquid processed plays a very important role for obtaining highly spherical with little satellites and narrow size distribution metal powder and specially, in the iron system, the superheating of the melt has a strong influence on the necessary process parameters and it has been observed that low melting point alloys will often require a greater superheating than higher melting point alloys (see Rovalma’s Page 25, line 15-25). With all these teachings of Rovalma, it is expected that the Rovalma’s disclosed atomization temperature is a superheating temperature i.e. over-heated temperature.
Although Rovalma is silent about the value of the melting point of iron base alloy, as shown in the evidentiary reference, Rywotycki teaches the temperature of the molten steel 1450-1550°C (see Rywotycki’s Fig.4). Therefore, Rovalma’s molten composition is overheated at a calculated temperature value of 50°C (= 1600°C - 1550°C) to 150°C (= 1600°C -1450°C), which are within the as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it is anticipatory when the prior art is within a claimed range. [See MPEP § 2131.03].
Regarding claim 15, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable to claim 15 in addition, Rovalma discloses wherein the composition provided in step a) is selected from an iron-based alloy, an aluminum-based alloy, a nickel-based alloy, a copper-based alloy, a cobalt based alloy, a magnesium-based alloy (iron-based alloys, steel, see Rovalma’s Page 56, Example 1, TABLE 1, ID 1, Page 58).
In addition, Rovalma also teaches atomization is the dominant method for producing metal and pre-alloyed powders from aluminum, iron, low-alloy steels, stainless steels, tool steels, titanium and superalloys (see Rovalma’s Page 1 Line 8-10) and for a variety of metallic materials and alloys, including Al, Co, Cu, Mg, Ni, Pb, Sn, Ti, Zn, and their alloys (see Rovalma’s Page 11 Line 24).
Regarding claim 16, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable to claim 16 in addition, Rovalma discloses the atomizing disk is made of a material comprising a metal (the atomizing disk is a flat disk of tungsten, see Rovalma’s Page 57, line 1, Example 1).
Regarding claim 17, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable to claim 17 in addition, Rovalma discloses the atomizing disk is made of a material comprising ceramic (For some special applications of the disclosed alloy compositions the best disk configuration takes place with a ceramic disk of high thermal conductivity (e.g. BN, AlN etc.), see Rovalma’s Page 26 Line 7-9).
Regarding claim 18, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable to claim 18 in addition, Rovalma discloses the atomizing disk is at least partially coated with two or more coating layers of different composition (for some applications of the compositions, the disk is covered with a thin layer of ceramic material coat (e.g. single layer, multiple layer etc.), (see Rovalma’s Page 20 Line 5-8) and for some applications dealing with high melting point alloys the rotating atomizing element is coated even using different refractory materials (see Rovalma’s Page 25, line 9-14)).
Regarding claim 19 all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable to claim 19, in addition, Rovalma teaches the use of cooling gas jets, a fluid (well cooled is achieved through the application of a spray of gas or even water. In addition, it is necessary that the disk has a water-mist-tight constructive design, (see Rovalma’s Page 20, line 1-2).
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.
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.
Claim 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rovalma S A [WO201511068A2] (provided in the IDS, Rovalma hereafter).
An Evidentiary reference M. Rywotycki, et.al. [“MODELLING LIQUID STEEL MOTION CAUSED BY ELECTROMAGNETIC STIRRING IN CONTINUOUS CASTING STEEL PROCESS”, Archives of Metallurgy and Materials, Volume 59, 2014, issue 2] (Rywotycki hereafter) is being provided.
Regarding claim 5, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable to claim 5 in addition, Rovalma teaches for applications requiring high undercooling rates and special morphology features, a preferred way is to keep a gas over-pressure in the atomization chamber of 2.5 bar or more, (see Rovalma’s Page 31 Line 15-18).
Rovalma’s absolute pressure in the atomization chamber is overlapping with the range as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have absolute pressure in the atomization chamber of Rovalma, because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have a pressure values in the atomization chamber from Rovalma’s teachings, to have a gas over-pressure in the atomization chamber in producing atomized powder for intended applications requiring high undercooling rates and special morphology features.
Regarding claim 20 all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable to claim 20, in addition, Rovalma teaches the atomized powder is refrigerated the atomized powder is refrigerated at a cooling rate of 1E+02 to 1E+05 °C/s (Gas atomization of melt involves the interaction of the melt and an atomizing gas (Ar, N, He, air) and this technique operate with cooling rates in the range of 1E+02 to 1E+05 °C/s, (see Rovalma’s Page 9, line 10-16). Rovalma also teaches cooling rates for water atomization are one to two orders of magnitude larger than for gas atomization (see Rovalma’s Page 9, line 7-10), therefore, would be 1E+02 to 2E+05 °C/s.
Rovalma’s cooling rate is overlapping with the range as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have cooling rate from Rovalma‘s teachings, because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Rovalma teaches gas atomization is applied for the commercial production of powders of aluminum, aluminum alloys, copper and its alloys, magnesium, zinc, titanium, titanium alloys, nickel-based alloys, cobalt-based alloys, tin, lead, etc. (see Rovalma’s Page 9, line 10-16), while water atomization is the main method of atomization of ferrous metal powders and metals that have easily-reducible oxides, copper, copper alloys, nickel, nickel alloys, tool steels, stainless steels and precious metals powders (see Rovalma’s Page 8, line 14-25).
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have cooling rate from Rovalma’s teachings, to have an appropriate cooling rate for produce an atomized powder of specific material using a specific atomization process for intended use of application.
Claim 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rovalma S A [WO201511068A2] (provided in the IDS, Rovalma hereafter). An Evidentiary reference M. Rywotycki, et.al. [“MODELLING LIQUID STEEL MOTION CAUSED BY ELECTROMAGNETIC STIRRING IN CONTINUOUS CASTING STEEL PROCESS”, Archives of Metallurgy and Materials, Volume 59, 2014, issue 2] (Rywotycki hereafter) as applied to claim 1, and in view of Setsuo Ueda, et.al. [US4374074] (provided in the IDS, Ueda hereafter).
Regarding claim 9, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable to claim 9, in addition, Rovalma teaches the atomizing disk is ceramic (the best disk configuration takes place with a ceramic disk of high thermal conductivity, see Rovalma’s Page 20 Line 4-8).
But Rovalma is silent about the metallic cage.
However, Ueda discloses a process for producing spherical particles from a melt of metals, introducing the molten metals, through a conduit onto the center of a rotating disk (see Ueda’s Col 1 line 55-60). Ueda discloses the atomizing disk is ceramic and is supported by a metallic cage (a rotating disk for centrifugal atomization, disk block of fused silica (ceramic) 11, (see Ueda’s FIG. 7, Col 19, Line 54-56) and the disk block 1 is fitted in the holder made of heat-resisting steel (metallic cage), which consists of the side ring 12 with a sufficient wall thickness and the bottom plate 13 see Ueda’s Col 20, Line 11-14).
Ueda discloses the gently sloped conical surface of the intermediate portion ensures that the centrifugal load can be supported by the side ring 12 and the fractured refractory pieces are held in the holder and particularly, this construction is necessary for preventing excessive temperature rise of the heat-resisting steel holder so as to maintain a sufficient creep strength. The steeply sloped side wall of the bottom portion with a truncated cone shape, being fitted to the side ring inside wall, can effectively prevent the escape of the disk block 11 from the holder, caused by floating tendencies of the block at high speed rotation, (see Ueda’s Col 20, Line 10-24).
Ueda is in the same field of centrifugal atomization, and thus considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as well as Rovalma.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to combine the teachings of Ueda with the atomization process of Rovalma for having a holder made of high strength heat resisting metal to support and hold the rotating disk firmly, as well as to prevent the escape of the disk or any part of the disk from the holder, caused by floating tendencies at high speed rotation.
Regarding claim 12, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable to claim 12, in addition, Rovalma teaches droplet formation involves a force balance between the acceleration force due to rotation, and liquid surface tension force and the mean diameter of centrifugal atomized particles is predominantly controlled by the angular velocity, the diameter of the rotating element, the metal surface tension/density ratio (see Rovalma’s Page 32, line 24-25 and Page 33, line 1-6).
But Rovalma does not teach any specific value for the surface tension between the molten composition and the atomizing disk surface.
However, Ueda discloses surface tension of the melt is an inherent property of the melt and depends on the density and kinematic viscosity, which are inherent properties of the molten material as well (see Ueda’s Col. 3, line 52-56). Ueda then teaches the surface tension between the molten composition and the atomizing disk surface is 1176 nM/m (the surface tension of the molten steel: 1,176 dyne/cm, i.e. 1176 nM/m and the rotating disk is made of fused silica (see Ueda’s Col 22. Line 40-43).
Ueda’s surface tension between the molten composition and the atomizing disk is within the as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have surface tension between the molten composition and the atomizing disk from Ueda’s teachings, because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Ueda further teaches silicate melts have low surface tension values, conversely, metallic melts having high surface tension values [Col 15, line 28-32]. On the contrary, even with metallic melts, the surface tension can be considerably decreased by high temperature heating or adding surface-tension-reducer elements such as S, Se, Sb, La, Ce, B, Sn, O, etc. [ Col 15, line 45-50].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to combine the teachings of Ueda with the atomization process of Rovalma for having an appropriate values of the surface tension between the molten composition and the atomizing disk based on the material of the melt and the atomization disk for controlling the centrifugal atomization process for intended application.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rovalma S A [WO201511068A2] (provided in the IDS, Rovalma hereafter). An Evidentiary reference M. Rywotycki, et.al. [“MODELLING LIQUID STEEL MOTION CAUSED BY ELECTROMAGNETIC STIRRING IN CONTINUOUS CASTING STEEL PROCESS”, Archives of Metallurgy and Materials, Volume 59, 2014, issue 2] (Rywotycki hereafter) as applied to claim1, and in view of Susumu Takano, et.al. [US5540575] (provided in the IDS, Takano hereafter).
Regarding claim 10, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable to claim 10 in addition, Rovalma teaches construction of an atomization chamber built of stainless-steel sheet, mounted on a support structure and having a cylindrical upper part, whereas the bottom part have an inverted conical shape, and the atomizing rotating element, assembled on a vertical rotating axis arrangement, is located in the atomization vessel and the drive shaft of the atomizer element can be mounted for rotation by any means desired and is driven by an electric motor with variable rotating speed (see Rovalma’s page 17 line 10-24).
But Rovalma is silent about the atomization chamber comprises at least one bearing with an angular contact of 15.5° or more and 34° or less.
However, Takano discloses a high speed rotating apparatus having a combination of two angular type ball bearings to form a ball bearing unit. This ball bearing unit is used at high speed to support a substantially unidirectional axial load [Abstract]. Takano teaches 3 examples of the bearing unit, wherein the contact angle of the first ball bearing on the side carrying the axial load all set at 30 degrees, and with the contact angle of the second ball bearing on the other side differently set at 15, 30 and 40 degrees, respectively (see Takano’s Col 4 line 55-65, and Col 5 line 1-3, Table 1).
Takano’s angular contacts value are overlapping with the range as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have angular contact value of Takano, because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Takano further teaches a pair of angular contact ball bearings provided between the outer peripheral surface of a shaft and the inner peripheral surface of a housing arranged with their corresponding contact angles in different directions, such that during use a substantially unidirectional axial loading externally applied is supported by one of the pairs of ball bearings (see Takano’s Takano Col 3- line 1-6). In the angular contact ball bearing unit, during running, one of the ball bearings having a large load capacity is used to support the axial load externally applied, while the other ball bearing which does not support the axial load during running is made so as to minimize the increase in internal axial loading due to centrifugal forces. As a result, it is possible to minimize the overall reduction in fatigue life of the rolling bearing unit assembly made from the pair of angular contact ball bearings (see Takano’s Col 3, line 8-17).
Takano’s teaching is in the same field of high speed rotating apparatus rotating under centrifugal forces and therefore, considered to be analogous to the rotating atomizing disk of the claimed invention as well as Rovalma’s atomizing rotating element (disk), all are in the field of high speed rotating apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to combine Takano’s teachings of angular contact ball bearings with Rovalma’s process of atomization, to withstand the axial load of Rovalma’s rotating element due to centrifugal force and to increase associated bearing life in the atomization process.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rovalma S A [WO201511068A2] (provided in the IDS, Rovalma hereafter). An Evidentiary reference M. Rywotycki, et.al. [“MODELLING LIQUID STEEL MOTION CAUSED BY ELECTROMAGNETIC STIRRING IN CONTINUOUS CASTING STEEL PROCESS”, Archives of Metallurgy and Materials, Volume 59, 2014, issue 2] (Rywotycki hereafter) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Paul Holiday [US 4078873] (Provided in the IDS).
Regarding claim 13 all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable to claim 13 in addition, Rovalma teaches a gas is introduced in the atomization chamber for local cooling of the atomizing system (filling the atomization chamber with a particular gas can be of further advantageous for some applications and for applications requiring high undercooling rates and special morphology features, see Rovalma’s Page 31 Line 15-18).
But Rovalma is silent about the flow rate.
However, Holiday discloses an atomization process where cooling gas is introduced (see Holiday’s Col 2, line 47-59, and Col 5 line 7-13, Figure 1). Holiday then teaches a gas is introduced in the atomization chamber for local cooling of the atomizing system (an example, flow rate of 0.338 lb./sec, converted to m3/min, would be 0.0368 m3/min, see Holiday’s Col 6 line 21-36).
Holiday disclosed flow rate is within the range as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have flow rate selected from Holiday’s teachings, because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Holiday teaches all parameters which determine a particulate cooling rate are capable of being controlled as well as to provide a method whereby the radial mass flux flow profile of the radially located cooling gas jets is approximately matched to the heat flux given off by the particles projected outwardly into the cooling gas jets so as to achieve a practical maximum ∆T between the cooling gas and the particles using the least amount of cooling gas possible (see Holiday’s Col 1 line 53-60).
Holiday’s teaching is in the same field of centrifugal atomization process and therefore, is analogous to the claimed invention as well as Rovalma.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to modify Rovalma with the teachings of Holiday to determine the flow rate to obtain the desired degree of cooling and using the least amount of cooling gas possible.
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rovalma S A [WO201511068A2] (provided in the IDS, Rovalma hereafter). An Evidentiary reference M. Rywotycki, et.al. [“MODELLING LIQUID STEEL MOTION CAUSED BY ELECTROMAGNETIC STIRRING IN CONTINUOUS CASTING STEEL PROCESS”, Archives of Metallurgy and Materials, Volume 59, 2014, issue 2] (Rywotycki hereafter) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Heinrich Amlinger, [US4629407] (provided in the IDS, Amlinger hereafter).
Regarding claim 14 Rovalma discloses oxygen concentrations is more preferably below to 100 ppm (see Rovalma’s page 29, line 12).
Rovalma’s disclosed oxygen concentrations is within the range as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have oxygen concentrations selected from Rovalma’s teachings, because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
But Rovalma does not teach about any “oxygen trap”.
However, Amlinger teaches that depending on the kind of gas used (argon, helium, nitrogen) the gas purification can be accomplished by getters ( an alternate name for oxygen trap, in a titanium adsorber for example), or by chemisorption (in a copper bed) or the like (see Amlinger Col. 2 line 1-5). If argon or helium is used as atomization gas, 02 can be removed with chemical getter effect on titanium cuttings at 800° C, where oxygen is converted into TiO. If nitrogen is used as atomization gas, the removal of oxygen will be done on a copper-catalyst, where 02 is separated through oxidation on a Cu-bed (see Amlinger Col. 2 line 64, Col.3 line 3).
Amlinger is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to have Amlinger’s teachings to modify Rovalma’s process of atomization, by placing an oxygen trap in the atomization chamber for controlling the desired oxygen content in the atomization chamber.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rovalma S A [WO201511068A2] (provided in the IDS, Rovalma hereafter). An Evidentiary reference M. Rywotycki, et.al. [“MODELLING LIQUID STEEL MOTION CAUSED BY ELECTROMAGNETIC STIRRING IN CONTINUOUS CASTING STEEL PROCESS”, Archives of Metallurgy and Materials, Volume 59, 2014, issue 2] (Rywotycki hereafter) as applied to claim 1, and in view of Susumu Takano, et.al. [US5540575] (provided in the IDS, Takano hereafter), and further in view of Harris T. A [revised from Friction and Wear of Rolling-Element Bearings, Friction, Lubrication, and Wear Technology, Vol 18, ASM Handbook, ASM International, 1992, p 499–514. 1992](provided in the IDS).
Regarding claim 11, all the above discussions regarding claim 1 are applicable to claim 11, wherein Rovalma teaches construction of an atomization chamber but is silent about the atomization chamber comprises at least one bearing comprising at least one ring, wherein the hardness of the ring is 54 HRc or more after being exposed at 85°C or more during 35 minutes or more.
However, Takano teaches at least one bearing comprising at least one ring (angular contact bearing and the structure of the bearing in Fig 6, where the ball bearings 5 and 6 have an inner ring 10a and 10b and an outer ring 13a and 13b respectively (see Takano’s Col 1, Line 33-36, Fig 6).
But Takano is silent about the hardness of the ring is 54 HRc or more after being exposed at 85°C or more during 35 minutes or more.
Harris teaches the principal component of a rolling element bearing, where it is shown that the bearing comprises two rings (see Haris’s Page 837, Fig 2) as similar taught by Takano. Harris further teaches that a commonly accepted minimum surface hardness for most bearing components is 58 HRc because at surface hardness values below the minimum 58 HRC, resistance to pitting fatigue is reduced, and the possibility of Brinelling (denting) of bearing raceways is increased. Because hardness decreases with increasing operating temperature (see Haris’s Page 841, Col 2, Para 2). Harris further teaches some examples of bearing steel that are suitable for use and maintain satisfactory hardnesses to approximately 480°C for a long exposure at this temperature, (see Haris’s Page 841, Col 2, Para 3), which meets the limitation of after being exposed at 85°C or more during 35 minutes or more.
Harris further teaches provides an optimum balance between manufacturing and application performance as the steel normally undergoes a martensitic or bainitic heat treatment to obtain a hardness between 58 and 65 HRc. Bainitic hardening (austempering) will qualitatively increase the resistance to wear (see Haris’s Page 841, Col 3, Para 1).
Harris’s teaching of hardness value is with the range as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have the hardness value of the bearing of Harris, because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Harris’s teaching is directed to bearing for mechanical structure and considered to analogous to the instant claim, as well as to bearing for rotating structure of Takano and Rovalma.
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the present invention to have selected a hardness value of the ring disclosed from Harris to modify Rovalma in view of Takano to have better wear resistance of the bearing for high-speed rotation atomization application.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 8 of prior U.S. Patent No. US11897035B2. This is a statutory double patenting rejection. As shown in the following table, all the claims of the instant application are exactly identical with the U.S. Patent No. US11897035B2.
Instant claim 3 depends from claim 1 therefore, claim 3 requires all the limitations of claim 1 and 3. Similarly, claim 8 of reference US patent depends from claim 1 of reference US patent, therefore, claim 8 of reference US patent requires all the limitations of claim 1 and 8. The comparison of the instant claim 3 and claim 8 of reference US patent are provided in the following table.
Limitations of Claim 1 and 3 of the Instant Application
Limitations of Claim 1 and 8 of US11897035B2
Similarity/Difference
A method for producing metal-based alloy powders by
means of centrifugal atomization in a closed chamber comprising
the steps of:
a) providing a composition comprising at least one metal,
b) melting the composition, and
c) atomizing the molten composition by means of centrifugal
atomization with an atomizing disk,
wherein the atmosphere in the closed atomization chamber
is pressurized and/or cooled and wherein PA3 is less than 10000, and PA3=PA1/P, wherein PA1 = ρ*N2*d2 wherein ρ is the density of the composition to be atomized 25 at the melting point under 1 bar absolute pressure measured in kg/m3, N is the rotating speed of the atomizing disk in rad/s, d is the diameter of the atomizing disk in m and P is the pressure in the atomization chamber in Pa, wherein PA2 is between 4500000 and 70000000, wherein PA2=K1 *PA1+K2*P, being P the absolute pressure in the atomization chamber in Pa, and PA1= ρ*N2*d2, wherein ρ is the density of the composition to be atomized at their melting point under 1 bar absolute pressure measured in kg/m3, N is the rotating speed of the atomizing disk in rad/s and d is the diameter of the atomizing disk in m, and K1 =0.0033 in 1/Pa and K2=22 in 1/Pa.
A method for producing metal-based alloy powders by
means of centrifugal atomization in a closed chamber comprising
the steps of:
a) providing a composition comprising at least one metal,
b) melting the composition, and
c) atomizing the molten composition by means of centrifugal
atomization with an atomizing disk,
wherein the atmosphere in the closed atomization chamber
is pressurized and/or cooled and wherein PA2 is between 4500000 and 70000000, wherein PA2=K1 *PA1+K2*P, being P the absolute pressure in the atomization chamber in Pa, and PA1= ρ*N2*d2, wherein ρ is the density of the composition to be atomized at their melting point under 1 bar absolute pressure measured in kg/m3, N is the rotating speed of the atomizing disk in rad/s and d is the diameter of the atomizing disk in m, and K1 =0.0033 in 1/Pa and K2=22 in 1/Pa, wherein PA3 is less than 10000, and PA3=PA1/P, wherein PA1 = ρ*N2*d2 wherein ρ is the density of the composition to be atomized 25 at the melting point under 1 bar absolute pressure measured in kg/m3, N is the rotating speed of the atomizing disk in rad/s, d is the diameter of the atomizing disk in m and P is the pressure in the atomization chamber in Pa.
Identical
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8, Rovalma teaches the values of wettability, quantified by the contact internal angle between the liquid and a solid surface, have to be less than 90° (see Rovalma’s Page 27 Line 9-14). The claimed value is well outside the range of Rovalma's teaching, and thus the claim is novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the office action of March 19, 2026 was incorrectly based on the claims of the parent that were filed on December 9, 2024, not those for the continuation application that were filed on February 9, 2024, as these claims were not updated in the system. Therefore, none of the previous rejection was specifically challenged in the argument.
This office action is based on the claims that are filed on February 9, 2024.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZMUN NAHAR SHAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5421. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 7:00PM (EST).
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, Merkling Sally can be reached on (571)2726297. 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.
/NAZMUN NAHAR SHAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights