DETAILED ACTION
The claims 1-20 are pending and presented for the examination.
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 statements (IDS) submitted on 04/03/2024 and 07/01/2024 are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-8, 10-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al (Carbothermal reduction synthesis of TiB2 ultrafine powders) in view of Olsson (US 5267609).
Regarding claim 1, Yu et al teaches a method of producing a TiB2 powder through a carbothermal reduction process wherein a mixture is heated at 1600 °C for 30 minutes under an Ar flow inert atmosphere, within a furnace (enclosure). The mixture comprises 63.7 wt% TiO2, 22.0 wt% B4C, and 14.3 wt% C (see Table 1, example TB001). This example contains 0% excess B4C. The particle size of the B4C powder in the starting mixture is 10 µm and the size of the TiO2 starting powder is taught to be ≤10 µm. The Yu et al B4C particle size meets the limitation of the instant claim. Because the particle size for the TiO2 component is taught to be equal to or less than 10 µm, it cannot be determined if the median particle diameter is between 5 and 80 µm. However, because a significant portion of the Yu et al range falls within that of the instant claim, routine optimization and experimentation with the Yu et al teachings would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to a method wherein a TiO2 powder meeting this size limitation is used. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Yu et al teaches that the flow rate of the aforementioned Ar inert gas is 40 cm3/min. Yu et al does not specify the volume of the furnace enclosure, and it is thus not possible to determine the flow rate per m3 as it is expressed in the instant claim from these teachings alone. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yu et al in view of Olsson in order to use a furnace having the dimensions taught therein. Olsson teaches a heating tube used in furnaces heated by MoSi2 elements (see column 3, lines 25-30). These elements are the type known in the art to be used for high temperature heating of the type used in the Yu et al process. As such, one of ordinary skill would have understood that the dimensions taught by Olsson could be used for the furnace tube in which the Yu et al heating is carried out. Olsson teaches a tube outer diameter of 200 mm and wall thickness of 8 mm, and thus an inner diameter of 184 mm. The length taught by Olsson is 1800 mm (see column 4, lines 5-10). The resultant volume of this furnace enclosure would thus be 47,863 cm3, or 0.0479 m3. With the 40 cm3/min (0.04 L/min) flow rate taught by Yu et al being used in such an enclosure, the rate per m3 would be 0.84. As this value falls within the range of the instant claim, the further limitation of claim 1 is met by the teachings of the prior art of record.
One would have had motivation to use the furnace tube dimensions taught by Olsson in the furnace called for by Yu et al because the lack of teachings in Yu et al as to specific dimensions would lead one of ordinary skill to look to other pieces of prior art for an appropriate furnace size. Olsson provides such a teaching, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification because Olsson provides more specific teachings for the furnace types used in the Yu et al process. Each limitation of instant claim 1 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 2, Yu et al teaches that the size of the B4C powder in the starting mixture is 10 µm.
Regarding claim 3, as discussed above, Yu et al teaches an overlapping range of ≤10 µm for the titanium dioxide component. This overlapping range renders obvious the corresponding range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 4, as discussed above, Yu et al teaches a grain size of 10 µm for the starting B4C powder and a size of 10 µm and below for the TiO2 powder. A ratio B4C/TiO2 of the respective grain sizes is thus 1 and above, and as this range overlaps that of the instant claim, the claim is not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 5, the aforementioned exemplary mixture and resultant TiB2 body taught by Yu et al contains no SiO2+Al2O3+ZrO2.
Regarding claim 6, Yu et al teaches that the carbon source is carbon black.
Regarding claim 7, as discussed above, Yu et al in view of Olsson teaches a method wherein an equivalent flow rate to that of the instant claims is used. As the temperature used in the Yu et al process is the same, the power consumption for the furnace would also be expected to be similar. As such, the gas flow rate per kW of heating power would also be the same in the process taught by Yu et al in view of Olsson.
Regarding claim 8, as discussed above, Yu et al teaches that the heating is undertaken in an argon as atmosphere.
Regarding claim 10, Yu et al teaches an embodiment wherein the starting mixture comprises 63.7 wt% TiO2, 22.0 wt% B4C, and 14.3 wt% C (see Table 1, example TB001).
Regarding claim 11, the TiB2 powder prepared by the Yu et al method as discussed above has a particle size of 0.5-1.0 µm. Yu et al teaches that the powder is impurity free (see Abstract) and stoichiometric, and as such each compositional limitation of the instant claim is met by the resultant Yu et al powder.
Regarding claim 12, Yu et al teaches that the TiB2 powder is produced according to the chemical reaction (1) on page 3917, and further teaches that no impurities are present. The TiB2 powder therefore contains on Ti and B, and the contents O+N+C are less than 1.5%.
Regarding claim 13, Regarding claim 11, the TiB2 powder prepared by the Yu et al method as discussed above has a particle size of 0.5-1.0 µm. Yu et al teaches that the powder is impurity free (see Abstract) and stoichiometric, and as such each compositional limitation of the instant claim is met by the resultant Yu et al powder.
Regarding claim 14, the equivalently composed TiB2 powder taught by Yu et al is prepared by a method that, as shown above, meets each limitation of the method of the instant claims. As such, the resultant powder would necessarily have equivalent structural features to that of the instant claims. The Yu et al titanium boride powder would thus be comprised only of crystalline TiB2 phase as measured by XRD.
Regarding claim 19, Yu et al teaches that the titania power used has a purity of 98%, and thus contains 98% TiO2. Similarly, the boron carbide powder has a purity of 98% and thus a B4C content of 98%. The carbon black taught by Yu et al is entirely carbon.
Regarding claim 20, Yu et al teaches that the carbon source is carbon black.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al (Carbothermal reduction synthesis of TiB2 ultrafine powders) in view of Olsson (US 5267609) and in further view of Atiye et al (Effect of KCl, NaCl and CaCl2 mixture on volume combustion synthesis of TiB2 nanoparticles).
Regarding claim 9, the claim differs from Yu et al in view of Olsson as applied above because these pieces of prior art do not teach that the claimed amount of alkali metal salt is added to the mixture. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yu et al in further view of Atiye et al in order to include such an alkali metal salt. Atiye et al teaches a method of forming TiB2 particles wherein an amount of alkali metal salt is added to the mixture to lower the ignition temperature in combustion synthesis. This is taught as an advantageous benefit to the titanium diboride formation process, and Atiye et al teaches adding the salt in amounts of 0-60%. A specific embodiment containing 15% alkali metal salt is taught (see Table 2). As such, Atiye et al teaches a process meeting the further limitation of instant claim 9. One would have been motivated to include the alkali metal salt as taught by Atiye et al in the Yu et al starting mixture in order to lower the required ignition temperature, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification because both Yu et al and Atiye et al teach methods for producing equivalent TiB2 powders. Each limitation of claim 9 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al (Carbothermal reduction synthesis of TiB2 ultrafine powders) in view of Olsson (US 5267609) and in further view of Nishio et al (US 4933308).
Regarding claim 15, the claim differs from Yu et al in view of Olsson as applied above because the TiB2 powder is not taught in combination with a sintering powder selected from those of the instant claim. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yu et al in further view of Nishio et al in order to use the titanium diboride powder taught by Yu et al in a ceramic as taught therein. Nishio et al teaches a TiB2 sintered compact that comprises a grain growth inhibitor compound that can be ZrB2. An embodiment is taught wherein the ZrB2 content is 5 wt% (see Table 2, example 43). This teaching shows that it was known in the art at the time of the instant filing to include such amounts of zirconium diboride with the TiB2 primary powder when producing sintered compacts. That Nishio et al teaches that ZrB2 is advantageously used as a grain growth inhibitor would motivate one of ordinary skill to include this component when producing sintered bodies from the Yu et al titanium diboride powder. Each further limitation of instant claim 15 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al (Carbothermal reduction synthesis of TiB2 ultrafine powders) in view of Olsson (US 5267609) and in further view of Thaler et al (US 2009/0105062 A1).
Regarding claim 16, the claim differs from Yu et al in view of Olsson because Yu et al does not teach that the TiB2 powder is shaped by forming a solution and molding before sintering is carried out. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yu et al in further view of Thaler et al in order to use such shaping methods. Thaler et al teaches a sintered wear-resistant material which is based on transition metal diborides. The primary metal boride can be TiB2 (see paragraph 0034). Thaler et al teaches that the sintered bodies formed from said metal borides are produced by mixing the starting powders of said borides with water (preparing a starting feedstock, see claim 16), molding the green body produced thereby (see claim 18), and sintering the green body (preform) in an inert atmosphere (see claim 19). Removal from the mold is a necessarily present step when shaping is carried out by this process. As such, each process limitation of the instant claim 16 is met by the Thaler et al teachings. One of ordinary skill would have had motivation to use the process as taught by Thaler to form sintered bodies with the Yu et al TiB2 powder because the Thaler et al process represents a full and detailed method by which such a body can be produced. This would advantageously enable a more precise shaping and forming of the sintered bodies called for by Yu et al. Each limitation of the claim is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 17, the process taught by Yu et al in view of Olsson and Thaler et al produces a sintered body meeting each limitation of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 18, Yu et al teaches that the inventive TiB2 sintered material is used as wear-resistant coating. This constitute a covering.
Conclusion
12. No claim is allowed.
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. 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.
/NOAH S WIESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
NSW23 July 2026
Prosecution Insights