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 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20 recites a closed list but is missing the word “and” before “a molten oxide electrolysis chamber.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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 “significant carbon dioxide” in Lines 2 and 6. This is a relative term rendering the claim indefinite. The term “significant carbon dioxide” 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. The metes and bounds of what amounts to “significant carbon dioxide” is unclear and as used, renders the term subjective. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “the metal oxide” in Line 5 which lacks proper antecedent basis. There is no previous mention of a metal oxide. Further, there is no introduction of metal or a metal oxide as they relate to the claimed system. It is further unclear whether “the metal oxide” of Line 5 is the same “metal oxide” of Line 9. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “a reducing agent and a metal oxide that come into contact within the laser furnace” in Line 9. It is unclear from the claim as presently drafted whether the reducing agent and metal oxide come into contact with each other, each component comes into contact with the laser furnace, or some other meaning. Appropriate correction is required to establish the tangible elements of the claimed system.
Claim 5 recites “the laser furnace assumes a shape of one of a quadrangular shaft and a circular shaft” in Line 4. It is unclear how the laser furnace “assumes” any shape. It is further unclear whether this is an actual feature of the laser furnace or some other meaning. Appropriate correction is required to clearly set forth the shape of the laser furnace.
Claim 12 recites “significant carbon dioxide” in Lines 1, 4, and 8. This is a relative term rendering the claim indefinite. The term “significant carbon dioxide” 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. The metes and bounds of what amounts to “significant carbon dioxide” is unclear and as used, renders the term subjective. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites “the metal oxide” in Line 7 which lacks proper antecedent basis. There is no previous mention of a metal oxide. Further, there is no introduction of metal or a metal oxide as they relate to the claimed system. It is further unclear whether “the metal oxide” of Lines 11 and 13 is the same “metal oxide” of Line 7. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites “a reducing agent and a metal oxide that come into contact within the laser furnace” in Line 11. It is unclear from the claim as presently drafted whether the reducing agent and metal oxide come into contact with each other, each component comes into contact with the laser furnace, or some other meaning. Appropriate correction is required to establish the tangible elements of the claimed system.
Claims 2-4, 6-11, and 11-20 are rejected for their dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikuta et al. EP 1862430 A1 in view of Yabe et al. US 20120097653 A1, Yamanaka et al. US 20030214987 A1, and NPL Dabirian et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Ikuta et al. ‘430 teaches a system for producing an intermediate metal product without generating significant carbon dioxide comprising a laser furnace comprising at least one laser [0013].
Ikuta et al. ‘430 further teaches the use of a laser beam from a semiconductor laser [0001] but does not expressly teach the power of the laser used.
However, Yabe et al. ‘653 teaches using a semiconductor laser emitting a power of 1kw in the reduction of a metal oxide, [0035] lying within the instantly claimed range of between about 1 Watt and about 1 gigawatt.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where 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).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to utilize 1kw of power in the production of the intermediate metal product in the system of Ikuta et al. ‘430 in order to prevent the metal from being re-oxidized based on the teachings of Yabe et al. ‘653 at [0037].
Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, the at least one laser interacts with the metal oxide to produce the intermediate metal product without generation of significant carbon dioxide and a reducing agent comes into contact with the metal oxide within the reaction vessel (meeting the limitation for the laser furnace) [0027].
Ikuta et al. ‘430 teaches the use of a semiconductor laser [0047] but does not expressly teach the wavelength of the laser used.
However, Yamanaka et al. ‘987 teaches a semiconductor laser emitting a wavelength range of 350 to 450 nm (claim 7), lying within the range of the instant claims of between about 180 nm and about 10, 600 nm.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where 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).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to use the semiconductor laser of Yamanaka et al. ‘987 in order to increase the efficiency of the laser based on the teachings of Yamanaka et al. ‘987 at [0064].
Ikuta et al. ‘430 does not expressly teach the intermediate metal product has a metallization ranging from about 50% to about 99%.
However, NPL Dabirian et al. teaches a solar cell metallized by laser processing having a fill factor of 79%, directly correlating with the quality of metallization (Pages 247, 249). The 79% usable coverage of the intermediate product lies within the instantly claimed range from about 50% to about 99%.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where 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).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to metallize the intermediate metal product of Ikuta et al. ‘430 to at least 79% in order to form an intermediate product with increased metal coverage, based on the teachings of NPL Dabirian et al. at (Page 247), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Ikuta et al. ‘430 teaches the limitations set forth above. Ikuta et al. ‘430 further teaches a hydrogen reducing agent [0001], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Ikuta et al. ‘430 teaches the limitations set forth above. Ikuta et al. ‘430 further teaches the reducing agent and the metal oxide are heated separately [0011-0012], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Ikuta et al. ‘430 teaches the limitations set forth above. As set forth above, Yamanaka et al. ‘987 teaches a semiconductor laser emitting a wavelength range of 350 to 450 nm (claim 7), lying within the range of the instant claims of between about 425nm and about 475 nm.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where 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).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to use the semiconductor laser of Yamanaka et al. ‘987 in order to increase the efficiency of the laser based on the teachings of Yamanaka et al. ‘987 at [0064].
Regarding Claim 7, modified Ikuta et al. ‘430 teaches the limitations set forth above. Ikuta et al. ‘430 further teaches at [0044-0045] alloying the intermediate product, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claims 8 and 10, modified Ikuta et al. ‘430 teaches the limitations set forth above.
Yabe et al. ‘653 further teaches a heating system that heats the reducing agent and the metal oxide to a temperature of 930 °C [0071] lying within the ranges of the instant Claims of between about 500 °C and about 1500 °C and about 500 °C to about 2500 °C respectively.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where 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).
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to apply the operating temperatures of Yabe et al. ‘653 to the system of Ikuta et al. ‘430 in order to efficiently reduce metal oxide based on the teachings of Yabe et al. 653 at [0072].
Regarding Claim 9, modified Ikuta et al. ‘430 teaches the limitations set forth above. Ikuta et al. ‘430 further teaches at [0044] the heating system comprises heat exchangers, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 12, Ikuta et al. ‘430 teaches a system for producing an intermediate metal product without generating significant carbon dioxide comprising a laser furnace comprising at least one laser [0013],
Ikuta et al. ‘430 further teaches the use of a laser beam from a semiconductor laser [0001] but does not expressly teach the power of the laser used.
However, Yabe et al. ‘653 teaches using a semiconductor laser emitting a power of 1kw in the reduction of a metal oxide, [0035] lying within the instantly claimed range of between about 1 Watt and about 1 gigawatt.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where 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).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to utilize 1kw of power in the production of the intermediate metal product in the system of Ikuta et al. ‘430 in order to prevent the metal from being re-oxidized based on the teachings of Yabe et al. ‘653 at [0037].
Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, the at least one laser interacts with the metal oxide to produce the intermediate metal product without generation of significant carbon dioxide and a reducing agent comes into contact with the metal oxide within the reaction vessel (meeting the limitation for the laser furnace) [0027].
Ikuta et al. ‘430 teaches the use of a semiconductor laser [0047] but does not expressly teach the wavelength of the laser used.
However, Yamanaka et al. ‘987 teaches a semiconductor laser emitting a wavelength range of 350 to 450 nm (claim 7), lying within the range of the instant claims of between about 180 nm and about 10, 600 nm.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where 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).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to use the semiconductor laser of Yamanaka et al. ‘987 in order to increase the efficiency of the laser based on the teachings of Yamanaka et al. ‘987 at [0064].
Ikuta et al. ‘430 does not expressly teach the intermediate metal product has a metallization ranging from about 50% to about 99%.
However, NPL Dabirian et al. teaches a solar cell metallized by laser processing having a fill factor of 79%, directly correlating with the quality of metallization (Pages 247, 249). The 79% usable coverage of the intermediate product lies within the instantly claimed range from about 50% to about 99%.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where 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).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to metallize the intermediate metal product of Ikuta et al. ‘430 to at least 79% in order to form an intermediate product with increased metal coverage, based on the teachings of NPL Dabirian et al. at (Page 247), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Ikuta et al. ‘430 teaches the limitations set forth above. Ikuta et al. ‘430 further teaches at [0044-0045] alloying the intermediate product, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claims 14 and 15, modified Ikuta et al. ‘430 teaches the limitations set forth above.
Ikuta et al. ‘430 further teaches at [0044] the heating system comprises heat exchangers, meeting the limitations of instant Claim 15.
Yabe et al. ‘653 further teaches a heating system that heats the reducing agent and the metal oxide to a temperature of 930 °C [0071] lying within the ranges of the instant Claims of between about 500 °C and about 1500 °C and about 500 °C to about 2500 °C respectively.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where 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).
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to apply the operating temperatures of Yabe et al. ‘653 to the system of Ikuta et al. ‘430 in order to efficiently reduce metal oxide based on the teachings of Yabe et al. 653 at [0072].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikuta et al. EP 1862430 A1 in view of Yabe et al. US 20120097653 A1, Yamanaka et al. US 20030214987 A1, and NPL Dabirian et al. as applied to Claims 1-4, 7-10, and 12-15 above, further in view of Ohmi et al. EP 0794598 B1.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Ikuta et al. ‘430 teaches the limitations set forth above. Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, Ikuta et al. ‘430 further teaches a quadrangular shaft furnace (Fig. 1).
Ikuta et al. ‘430 does not expressly teach the furnace is composed of steel lined with a refractory ceramic coating.
However, Ohmi et al. ‘598 teaches a quadrangular laser chamber having an inner wall with an aluminum oxide film coating (Fig. 2),[0039].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to form the furnace of Ikuta et al. ‘430 of an aluminum oxide coated steel in order to prevent corrosion and wear to the steel during laser excitement, based on the teachings of Ohmi et al. ‘598 at [0046].
Claims 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikuta et al. EP 1862430 A1 in view of Yabe et al. US 20120097653 A1, Yamanaka et al. US 20030214987 A1, and NPL Dabirian et al. as applied to Claims 1-4, 7-10, and 12-15 above, further in view of NPL Rytlewski.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Ikuta et al. ‘430 teaches the limitations set forth above. Ikuta et al. ‘430 does not expressly teach the duration of interaction between the laser and metal oxide.
However, NPL Rytlewski teaches at (Section 2.2, Table 1), forming laser-assisted metallization of metal oxide coatings for a duration of 500, 20 nanosecond pulses (0.00001 seconds), intersecting the range of the instant Claims from about 0.00001 second to about 1 minute.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where 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).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to interact the metal oxide with the laser of modified Ikuta et al. ‘430 for a duration of 0.00001 seconds based on the teachings of NPL Rytlewski in order to efficiently reduce the metal and form the intermediate product based on the teachings of Rytlewski at (Section 2.2).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Ikuta et al. ‘430 teaches the limitations set forth above. Ikuta et al. ‘430 does not expressly teach the duration of interaction between the laser and metal oxide.
However, NPL Rytlewski teaches at (Section 2.2, Table 1), forming laser-assisted metallization of metal oxide coatings for a duration of 500, 20 nanosecond pulses (0.00001 seconds), intersecting the range of the instant Claims from about 0.00001 second to about 1 minute.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where 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).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to interact the metal oxide with the laser of modified Ikuta et al. ‘430 for a duration of 0.00001 seconds based on the teachings of NPL Rytlewski in order to efficiently reduce the metal and form the intermediate product based on the teachings of Rytlewski at (Section 2.2).
Claims 6 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikuta et al. EP 1862430 A1 in view of Yabe et al. US 20120097653 A1, Yamanaka et al. US 20030214987 A1, and NPL Dabirian et al. as applied to Claims 1-4, 7-10, and 12-15 above, further in view of Kaplan et al. US 20160045841 A1.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Ikuta et al. ‘430 teaches the limitations set forth above.
Ikuta et al. ‘430 does not expressly teach impurities are removed from the intermediate metal product. However, Kaplan et al. ‘841 teaches removing impurities from an intermediate metal melt product in a system for processing various chemicals and materials including the formation of a laser-metallized intermediate product [1192].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to remove impurities from the intermediate product in order to form a purer intermediate product, based on the teachings of Kaplan et al. ‘841 at [1192].
Regarding Claim 17, modified Ikuta et al. ‘430 teaches the limitations set forth above.
Ikuta et al. ‘430 does not expressly teach impurities are removed from the intermediate metal product. However, Kaplan et al. ‘841 teaches removing impurities from an intermediate metal melt product in a system for processing various chemicals and materials including the formation of a laser-metallized intermediate product [1192].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to remove impurities from the intermediate product in order to form a purer intermediate product, based on the teachings of Kaplan et al. ‘841 at [1192].
Regarding Claim 18, modified Ikuta et al. ‘430 teaches the limitations set forth above. Ikuta et al. ‘430 further teaches at [0044-0045] alloying the intermediate product, meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Ikuta et al. ‘430 teaches the limitations set forth above. Ikuta et al. ‘430 does not expressly teach the intermediate metal product is fed to an atomizer to create powder particles.
However, Kaplan et al. ‘841 teaches a system for processing various chemicals and materials wherein a laser-metallized intermediate product is sent to either an atomizer to create powder particles [0327,1350].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include an atomizer in the system of Ikuta et al. ‘430 in order to efficiently produce powder particles from an intermediate product, based on the teachings of Kaplan et al. 841 at [1350], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 20, modified Ikuta et al. ‘430 teaches the limitations set forth above. Ikuta et al. ‘430 does not expressly teach the intermediate metal product is fed to a furnace.
However, Kaplan et al. ‘841, teaches a system for processing various chemicals and materials wherein a laser-metallized intermediate product is sent to a blast furnace for further processing into a metal product [0327,1350].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include an atomizer in the system of Ikuta et al. ‘430 in order to efficiently produce metal for ingot casting as an intermediate metal product, metal, or metal alloy, based on the teachings of Kaplan et al. 841 at [1350], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 10422018 B2 teaches producing a metallic intermediate product with laser heat.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORIAH S. SMOOT whose telephone number is (571)272-2634. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5pm EDT.
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 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/M.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1733