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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 2/2/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language for non-patent literature documents #15 and #16. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because Figures 2, 3, and 4 are hand-written. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the mixing device as recited in Claim 20 or the powder forming device as recited in Claim 20 as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 223. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-46 are as originally filed.
Claim Objections
Claims 13, 14, 20, 32, 33, 39, and 43 are objected to because of the following informalities: all recite “substate” instead of “substrate.” 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:
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 limitation(s) is/areas follows:
Claim
Limitation
Generic
Placeholder
Functional
Limitation
Support in
Specification
20
“heating device”
“configured to”
“melt a source a material”
[0076]
20
“powder forming device”
“configured to”
“form a powder”
none
22
“controller”
“configured to”
“control the second material composition”
[0090]
31
“controller”
“configured to”
“control the second material composition based on a ratio of the second element to the first element”
none
37
“material”
“configured to”
“dissipate heat generated by the molten material”
[0083]
40
“device”
“configured to”
“produce vibrations”
[0080, 0084]
44
“device”
“configured to”
“produce vibrations”
[0080, 0084]
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) 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(s) 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 limitation(s) recite(s) 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
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 1-46 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 does not recite any active steps of contracting the second material composition with the mixing device.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "heat generated by the molten source material" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim limitations in 20 and 31 as recited above in the table have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether these limitations should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because there is no support in the specification for the limitations. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function
Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function
Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function
Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claims dependent on any of the rejected claims are likewise rejected under this statute.
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 (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 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 20-28, 30, 31, and 36-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2019/092641 A1 based on the machine translation.
WO 2019/092641 Al (WO ‘641) teaches a device for the manufacturing of metal powders by ultrasonic atomization as represented below in the annotated drawing:
PNG
media_image1.png
462
451
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The input material is fed in the form of a wire, which has different compositions. The input material can also be in the form of irregular granulate or powder or rod to the melting tip. The melting system melts the melting system tip to which the material is delivered in a continuous matter. Mechanical energy is transmitted to the melting tip, causing the input material to be sprayed and fall in the form of a powder. A layer of surplus material with a chemical composition corresponding with the input material is created; atomization is initiated. The input material can contain more than one wire made from materials with different compositions to allow for multiple batches of powders with a chemical composition gradient. The melting tip is in direct contact with the sonotrode. The mass of the sonotrode remains constant due to the replenishing of the sonotrode material mass loss through the addition of input material to the melting tip (page 4). Regarding Claim 20, the mixing device include a substrate material with the replenished surface and is taught by the manufacturing process components taught by WO ‘641 and the tip of the sonotrode material is the substrate material. The heating device configured to melt a source material is taught by the melting system 3 and 4. The device of WO ‘641 is capable of forming the second material as claimed since the input material can contain more than one wire. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Additionally, the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114. WO ‘641 anticipates the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 21, the grain structure of the surplus material is intended use without any functional limitation of the control.
Regarding Claim 22, the controller is taught by the high voltage generator that is attuned to the resonance frequency of the system, the piezoelectric transducer and wave guide, and the feed system is continuous, which reads on a controlled feed rate (page 4).
Regarding Claim 23, the feed system is continuous, which reads on a controlled feed rate.
Regarding Claim 24, the input material is in the form of a wire, which is fed continuously.
Regarding Claim 25, the heating device is by a plasma torch (page 4) which is capable of melting the melting system tip and the input material.
Regarding Claim 26, the wave guide is connected to the piezoelectric transducer and is powered by the high voltage generator, which is attuned to the resonance frequency of the system.
Regarding Claim 27, the density and viscosity of the source material are physical properties and are thus inherent in the input material.
Regarding Claim 30, the first material composition (AISI 308 steel, page 5) and the substrate (sonotrode) material (CuCrZr, copper alloy, tungsten alloy and surplus material, page 4) both contain chromium, as evidenced by Steelpro Group.
Regarding Claim 31, the controller as recited refers to intended use.
Regarding Claim 36, the base material is the sonotrode that has not been replenished.
Regarding Claim 37, the sonotrode portion that has not been replenished dissipates heat (page 4).
Regarding Claim 38, the sonotrode that has not been replenished includes copper (page 4).
Regarding Claim 39, the layer of replenished sonotrode is based on the input material.
Regarding Claim 40, the waveguide and piezoelectric transducer produces vibrations.
Regarding Claim 41, the waveguide and piezoelectric transducer produces powder.
Regarding Claim 42, the waveguide and piezoelectric transducer is coupled to the sonotrode.
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 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO ‘641 as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Żrodowski et al in Materials.
WO ‘641 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, WO ‘641 does not teach the wire or rod contains copper or zirconium as claimed.
Żrodowski et al in Materials (“Materials”) teaches an ultrasonic atomization powder production for metal using an ultrasonic sonotrode with wave vibrations to form atomized particles of AMZ4 metallic glass, which contains zirconium with a copper alloy sonotrode (Ampcoloy 972) (page 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the wire or rod in WO ‘641 to contain zirconium, since Materials teaches the cooling rates achieved during the process were high enough to provide the vitrification of the AMZ4 Zr-based alloy (page 11).
Claims 1-8, 11, 12, 14, 16-19, and 43-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zrodowski (US 2022/0161353 A1) in view of Materials.
Zrodowski is in a patent family including PL 429907 A1, which was published 11/16/2020.
Zrodowski teaches a sonotrode with a working tip on the opposite end of the sonotrode and a body in which ultrasound vibrations are excited [0011]. The tip is a consumable component [0012]. The working tip can be made of a different material than the body of the sonotrode [0013]. The working tip of the sonotrode is in direct contact with liquid metal [0036]. The sonotrode body is made of titanium or aluminum alloys or tungsten or copper alloys [0044]. Liquid metal is melted via plasma arc [0066]. Regarding Claim 1, the source material is the liquid metal, which is already molten. The substrate material is taught by the working tip of the sonotrode. Contacting of the substrate and the molten source material is exemplified in Fig. 8. The tip is a consumable component [0012]. The working tip can be made of a different material than the body of the sonotrode [0013]. The working tip of the sonotrode is in direct contact with liquid metal [0036]. The second material composition is taught by the mixture of the working tip and the liquid metal. However, Zrodowski does not specifically teach an atomizer as claimed.
Materials teaches novel cold crucible ultrasonic atomization powder production by ultrasonically agitated cold crucible installed at the top of a 20 kHz ultrasonic sonotrode. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an atomizer to make powders in Zrodowski as taught by Materials, since Materials teaches a useful tool for the development of new metallic materials for powder metallurgy and additive manufacturing, and it is possible to experiment with just a single or a few cubic centimeters of a particular material. This method is suitable for fabrication of any metallic material in small quantities, which is very convenient in experimental work (page 11).
Regarding Claim 2, Zrodowski teaches the working tip of the sonotrode vibrates due to the vibrations, which results in homogenization of the liquid alloy and ensuring equiaxial grain growth during crystallization [0035].
Regarding Claim 3, Zrodowski teaches the frequency is controlled [0037], the feed angle of the source material is controlled, see inter alia Fig. 8, and the feed angle of the source material is controlled, see inter alia Fig. 8.
Regarding Claim 4, Zrodowski teaches the feed angle of the source material is controlled, see inter alia Fig. 8.
Regarding Claim 5, Materials teaches earrings with a wire or rod (page 3).
Regarding Claim 6, Zrodowski teaches the heating device is a plasma arc with a working temperature [0041].
Regarding Claim 7, Zrodowski teaches the frequency is controlled [0037].
Regarding Claim 8, Zrodowski teaches the density and viscosity of the molten material are physical properties and are thus inherent.
Regarding Claim 11, Zrodowski teaches the molten material contains Ti, Al, and Nb [0066], and the sonotrode tip may include Ti and Al [0044 and 0053].
Regarding Claim 12, Zrodowski teaches the second material is based on the sonotrode tip composition and the composition of the liquid metal.
Regarding Claim 14, Zrodowski teaches the tip includes aluminum.
Regarding Claim 16, Zrodowski teaches the sonotrode body may be made of copper [0008].
Regarding Claim 17, Zrodowski teaches the portion of the sonotrode that is not on the tip reads on the base material.
Regarding Claims 18 and 19, Zrodowski teaches the sonotrode body may be made of copper [0008].
Regarding Claim 43, Zrodowski teaches the second material is based on the sonotrode tip composition and the composition of the liquid metal [0037 and 0056].
Regarding Claim 44, Materials teaches the atomizer produces vibrations (page 2).
Regarding Claim 45, Materials teaches the atomizer includes a vibrating device (page 3).
Regarding Claim 46, Materials teaches the vibrating device is coupled to the sonotrode (page 3).
Claims 21-23, 25-27, 30, 31, 33, and 36-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zrodowski in view of Materials.
Zrodowski teaches a sonotrode with a working tip on the opposite end of the sonotrode and a body in which ultrasound vibrations are excited [0011]. The tip is a consumable component [0012]. The working tip can be made of a different material than the body of the sonotrode [0013]. The working tip of the sonotrode is in direct contact with liquid metal [0036]. The sonotrode body is made of titanium or aluminum alloys or tungsten or copper alloys [0044]. Liquid metal is melted via plasma arc [0066]. Regarding Claim 20, the mixing device is taught by the surface of the working tip. The heating device is taught by the plasma arc [0065]. Since the tip is consumed, it reads on combining with the liquid metal and forming a second material composition. However, Zrodowski does not specifically teach a powder forming device as claimed.
Materials teaches novel cold crucible ultrasonic atomization powder production by ultrasonically agitated cold crucible installed at the top of a 20 kHz ultrasonic sonotrode. 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 atomization powder production of Materials with the system of Zrodowski, since Materials teaches a useful tool for the development of new metallic materials for powder metallurgy and additive manufacturing, and it is possible to experiment with just a single or a few cubic centimeters of a particular material. This method is suitable for fabrication of any metallic material in small quantities, which is very convenient in experimental work.
Regarding Claim 21, Zrodowski teaches the working tip of the sonotrode vibrates due to the vibrations, which results in homogenization of the liquid alloy and ensuring equiaxial grain growth during crystallization [0035].
Regarding Claim 22, Zrodowski teaches the frequency is controlled [0037], the feed angle of the source material is controlled, see inter alia Fig. 8, and the feed angle of the source material is controlled, see inter alia Fig. 8.
Regarding Claim 23, Zrodowski teaches the feed angle of the source material is controlled, see inter alia Fig. 8.
Regarding Claim 25, Zrodowski teaches the heating device is a plasma arc with a working temperature [0041].
Regarding Claim 26, Zrodowski teaches the frequency is controlled [0037].
Regarding Claim 27, Zrodowski teaches the density and viscosity of the molten material are physical properties and are thus inherent.
Regarding Claim 30, Zrodowski teaches the molten material contains Ti, Al, and Nb [0066], and the sonotrode tip may include Ti and Al [0044 and 0053].
Regarding Claim 31, Zrodowski teaches the second material is based on the sonotrode tip composition and the composition of the liquid metal.
Regarding Claim 33, Zrodowski teaches the tip includes aluminum.
Regarding Claim 36, Zrodowski teaches the portion of the sonotrode that is not on the tip reads on the base material.
Regarding Claims 37 and 38, Zrodowski teaches the sonotrode body may be made of copper [0008].
Regarding Claim 39, Zrodowski teaches the second material composition is based on the molten metal composition.
Regarding Claim 40, Zrodowski teaches the sonotrode is excited due to mechanical vibrations (abstract).
Regarding Claim 41, Materials teaches the atomizer produces vibrations (page 2).
Regarding Claim 42, Materials teaches the vibrating device is coupled to the sonotrode (page 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 10, 13, 28, 29, 32, and 34 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 Claims 9 and 10, Zrodowski or Materials does not suggest the sonotrode tip material either coats the formed powder or is a solute inside the powder, respectively. Regarding Claim 13, Zrodowski or Materials does not suggest the “substrate material” to contain lithium, zinc, silver, or magnesium as claimed, respectively. Regarding Claims 28 and 29, none of Zrodowski, Materials, or WO ‘641 suggests an apparatus or system capable of producing a formed powder with a coating or a solute inside the powder as claimed, respectively. Regarding Claims 32 and 34, none of Zrodowski, Materials, or WO ‘641 suggests the “substrate material” to contain lithium, zinc, silver, or magnesium as claimed, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bielecki et al (US 2022/0305554 A1) teaches producing heavy metal powders by ultrasonic atomization as represented below in Fig. 3:
PNG
media_image2.png
392
520
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The electric arc 13 heats up the raw material beyond its melting point [0067]. Ultrasonic atomization via mechanic vibrations causes heavy metal droplets to be ejected from the liquid metal pool 21. Heat losses from the molten metal pool 21 toward the sonotrode 3 causes heating of the sonotrode 3 [0073]. The interface of the liquid metal pool 21 and sonotrode surface 3 has high wettability [0102]. However, Bielecki et al does not suggest at least a portion of the sonotrode and the heavy metal droplets are combined as in Claim 1.
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
Prosecution Insights