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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 3/27/24 has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11 and 15-20 in the reply filed on 11/20/25 is acknowledged.
Drawings
Fig.1 is objected to for the following reason. Where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation "FIG." must not appear. 37 C.F.R. 1.84(u)(1). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation "FIG." must not appear. 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(u)(1). Instead, the single view should be referred to as “the figure.”
Appropriate correction is required.
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parentheses. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11, 15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN 100357050 C), as machine translated, in view of Yan et al. (CN 106623960 A), as machine translated.
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Wu teaches to “continuously and quickly and thoroughly discharge the reaction product water vapor from the material layer during the reduction process, significantly reducing the reduction temperature of nano-tungsten powder and the average particle size of tungsten powder” (which reads upon “a process for producing a tungsten metal powder”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0012]). Wu teaches that “the BET specific surface area is 19-23” (which reads upon “having a specific surface area of more than 8 m2/g, as determined by the BET method according to DIN ISO 9277”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0024]). Wu teaches “hydrogen reduction to prepare nano-metal powders; such as the reduction of nano-tungsten powder” (which reads upon “hydrogen”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0002]). Wu teaches that “the present invention can use H<sub>2</sub> gas with a low dew point (-15 to -20)℃ as the reducing gas, or a mixed gas of (25% N<sub>2</sub> + 75% H<sub>2</sub>) produced by a conventional ammonia decomposition furnace and dehydrated by molecular sieve as the reducing gas” (paragraph [0023]). Wu teaches that “in the above-designed permeable and highly drainable nano-tungsten powder reduction furnace, nano-amorphous tungsten oxide precursor powder produced by ultrasonic spray thermal conversion process was tested at 600℃ for 60 minutes; H<sub>2</sub> gas pressure ΔP＝0.005MPa; H<sub>2</sub> cross-sectional flow rate of 90ml/cm<sup>2</sup>·min; H<sub>2</sub> gas dew point of -15℃; boat pushing speed of 7.12 boats/h; boat loading amount of 0.65g/cm<sup>2</sup>; and a total of 185g per boat” (which reads upon “in which a powdery tungsten source is heated in a hydrogen flow, characterized in that the dew point temperature T of the process exhaust gases does not exceed +10°C”, as recited in the instant claim; which reads on claim 4; paragraph [0045]).
Wu teaches that “the heating zone settings of the furnace tube can include three, four, or even six zones” (paragraph [0018]). Wu is silent regarding at first with a first heating rate HR1 to a first temperature Ti and subsequently with a second heating rate HR2 to a second temperature T2,where Ti< T2 and HR1> HR2.
Yan is similarly concerned with the preparation of tungsten powder (paragraph [0002]). Yan teaches that “the doped precursor powder is calcined at 400℃-600℃ for 0.5h-2h to decompose and remove PVP in the powder and obtain doped tungsten oxide” (which reads upon “a powdery tungsten source”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0015]). Yan teaches that “the reduction regime in step three is (500℃-650℃)×2h+(700℃-900℃)×1h, with a heating rate of 2-10℃/min and a hydrogen flow rate of 0.1-1.0L/min” (which reads upon “in which a powdery tungsten source is heated in a hydrogen flow at first with a first heating rate HR1 to a first temperature Ti and subsequently with a second heating rate HR2 to a second temperature T2,where Ti< T2”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0019]). Yan teaches that the heating rate for the first phase is 2-10 °C/min; paragraph [0019]). Yan teaches that the heating rate for the second phase is 2-10 °C/min; paragraph [0019]). Three options are available, HR1> HR2, HR1< HR2, or HR1= HR2.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the single heating reduction regime of Wu with a dual heating reduction regime, as taught by Yan because Wu teaches that up to six heating zones can be set up. However, Wu focuses on the apparatus and does not give instructions as to what temperatures should be used when multiple heating zones are used.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose from a finite number of identified predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143 I E. Here, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose between using HR1> HR2, HR1< HR2, or HR1= HR2 with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 2-3 and 15, modified Wu teaches the process of claim 1 as stated above. Yan teaches that “a heating rate of 2-10℃/min and a hydrogen flow rate of 0.1-1.0L/min” (which reads upon “the heating rate HR1 is < 10 K/min”, as recited in instant claim 2; which reads upon “the heating rate HR1 is < 2 K/min”, as recited in instant claim 3; which reads upon “the heating rate HR1 is < 5 K/min”, as recited in instant claim 15; paragraph [0019]; a change of 1 degree Kelvin is equal to a change of one degree Celsius). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Here the claimed range of <2 K/min touches the prior art range of 2-10 °C/min, thus the resulting product would be expected to have the same properties.
Regarding claims 7 and 19, modified Wu teaches the process of claim 1 as stated above. Wu teaches that “the one-time reduction of precursor amorphous tungsten oxide powder or blue tungsten powder with an average particle size of 50-70 nm into nano-tungsten powder under the following conditions: 600-650℃” (paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Wu teaches the process of claim 1 as stated above.
Wu is silent regarding wherein the hydrogen flow is temporarily replaced by an inert gas flow.
Yan is similarly concerned with the preparation of tungsten powder (paragraph [0002]). Yan teaches that “the doped precursor powder is calcined at 400℃-600℃ for 0.5h-2h to decompose and remove PVP in the powder and obtain doped tungsten oxide, while avoiding the oxidation of zirconium boride” (paragraph [0015]). Yan teaches that “the calcination in step three is carried out in an argon atmosphere” (which reads upon “wherein the hydrogen flow is temporarily replaced by an inert gas flow”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0018]). Yan teaches that “calcination in an argon atmosphere can obtain fine purple tungsten oxide (purple tungsten), which effectively increases the specific surface area of the powder and is beneficial for subsequent reduction and sintering to achieve density” (paragraph [0020]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Wu to include a heating step using an inert gas flow, such as argon, as taught by Yan to obtain fine purple tungsten oxide (purple tungsten), which effectively increases the specific surface area of the powder and is beneficial for subsequent reduction and sintering to achieve density.
Regarding claims 9 and 20, modified Wu teaches the process of claim 1 as stated above. Wu is silent as to the Reynolds number of the hydrogen gas. However, given that the process of preparing a tungsten powder based on the disclosure in Wu is substantially similar to that in instant claims, it is the examiner's position that the Reynolds number of the hydrogen gas in the process of Wu would inherently have the instantly claimed Reynolds number. Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 11, modified Wu teaches the process of claim 1 as stated above. Wu teaches “a breathable boat, nano-tungsten oxide powder, a breathable bottom plate for the boat” (paragraph [0013]). Wu teaches that “in the positive pressure permeable gas supply system, the direction of H<sub>2</sub> gas supply is vertically upward from the bottom of the furnace tube and passes through each perforated boat” (paragraph [0014]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN 100357050 C), as machine translated, and Yan et al. (CN 106623960 A), as machine translated, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dover et al. (US 20030121365 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Wu teaches the process of claim 1 as stated above.
Wu is silent regarding that the hydrogen flow is preheated to a temperature of from 350 °C to 650 °C.
Dover is similarly concerned with a process for the preparation of powdered tungsten metal (paragraph [0002]). Dover teaches that “the method produces more uniform particle size distribution by decreasing the variability of temperature and inconsistency of reductant gas flow during the reduction process” (paragraph [0009]). Dover teaches that “while in the initial phase 41 the pusher plate tray 20 containing tungsten oxide is subjected to chamber temperatures ranging from 600° C. to 700° C” (paragraph [0020]). Dover teaches that “after the initial phase the tray enters a transitional period wherein the dewpoint of the tungsten oxide is lowered with the removal of the reductant gas” (paragraph [0020]; no change in temperature of 600° C. to 700° C for the transitional period). Dover teaches that “during this transitional period, additional dry H2 gas, electrically preheated to match the furnace temperature is introduced providing a cross flow of reductant gas across the reaction vessel” (which reads upon “the hydrogen flow is preheated to a temperature of from 350 °C to 650 °C”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0020]; no change in temperature of 600° C. to 700° C for the transitional period, thus the preheat temperature of the dry H2 gas is from 600° C. to 700° C).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Wu to include a preheated dry H2 gas, as taught by Dover to produce more uniform particle size distribution by decreasing the variability of temperature and inconsistency of reductant gas flow during the reduction process.
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN 100357050 C), as machine translated, Yan et al. (CN 106623960 A), as machine translated, and Dover et al. (US 20030121365 A1), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN 109014231 A), as machine translated.
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Wu teaches the process of claim 5 as stated above.
Wu is silent regarding wherein the hydrogen employed has a dew point temperature T of < -20 °C or -40 °C.
Wang is similarly concerned with tungsten powder metallurgy technology, and in particular to a method for preparing composite rare earth tungsten powder (paragraph [0002]). Wang teaches that “the purpose of this invention is to address the deficiencies in the prior art by providing a method for preparing composite rare earth tungsten powder” (paragraph [0007]). Wang teaches that “this method not only solves the environmental hazards caused during the preparation of composite tungsten electrode materials, but also ensures that the second-phase particles in the prepared composite rare earth tungsten powder are evenly distributed, thereby improving the pressing and sintering performance” (paragraph [0007]). Wang teaches “a hydrogen dew point ≤ -60 ℃” (paragraph [0011]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the hydrogen gas of Wu with a hydrogen gas with a lower dew point, such as -60 °C, as taught by Wang, to solve the environmental hazards caused during the preparation of composite tungsten electrode materials, and ensure that the second-phase particles in the prepared composite rare earth tungsten powder are evenly distributed, thereby improving the pressing and sintering performance when composite rare earth tungsten starting materials are used. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07. Here Wang teaches that hydrogen gas with a low dew point, such as -60 °C is suitable for use as a reducing gas in the production of tungsten metal powder.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN 100357050 C), as machine translated, and Yan et al. (CN 106623960 A), as machine translated, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN 109014231 A), as machine translated.
Regarding claim 10, Wu teaches the process of claim 1 as stated above.
Wu is silent regarding passivating the tungsten power.
Wang is similarly concerned with tungsten powder metallurgy technology, and in particular to a method for preparing composite rare earth tungsten powder (paragraph [0002]). Wang teaches that “the purpose of this invention is to address the deficiencies in the prior art by providing a method for preparing composite rare earth tungsten powder” (paragraph [0007]). Wang teaches that “this method not only solves the environmental hazards caused during the preparation of composite tungsten electrode materials, but also ensures that the second-phase particles in the prepared composite rare earth tungsten powder are evenly distributed, thereby improving the pressing and sintering performance” (paragraph [0007]). Wang teaches that “one or more oxides are added” (paragraph [0012]). Wang teaches that “the content of each added oxide is 0.10~4.0%, and the total content is 1.0%~8.0%” (paragraph [0012]). Wang teaches that “the powders from steps C and A are sequentially fed into a vertical inverted cone high-energy powder mixer” (paragraph [0012]). Wang teaches that “under nitrogen protection and jacket water cooling, efficient mixing is carried out for 120min~240min to obtain a uniform powder” (paragraph [0012]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Wu to include passivating the tungsten metal powder, as taught by Wang, in order to prepare the tungsten metal powder to be exposed to the environment and be more readily transported.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q2: 3/30-4/3/26; Q3: 6/22-6/26/26; Q4: 9/21-9/30/26.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733