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
Claims 17, 24 and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 recites the limitation “meal-anti-sintering agent” instead of “metal-anti-sintering agent.”
Claim 24 recites the limitation “Al(N03)3, A12(S04)3, Ba(N03)2 , TiCl4, and Mg(N03)2” instead of “Al(N03)3, Al2(S04)3, Ba(N03)2 , TiCl4, and Mg(N03)2.”
Claim 27 recites the limitation “NiCl2, BaCl2, NaCl, and KCl” instead of “NiCl2, BaCl2, NaCl, and KCl.”
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 20-24 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.
Instant claim 20 recites the limitation “a ceramic precursor to be converted into ceramic by heat.” This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim requires the method to include converting the ceramic precursor into ceramic by heat or if this is instead claiming an intended use of the ceramic precursor without actually requiring that the ceramic precursor be converted into ceramic by heat. For the purposes of search and examination, this will be treated as an intended use limitation as claim 20 does not explicitly require a step of converting the ceramic precursor into ceramic by heat.
Instant claims 21-24 depend on instant claim 20 and are indefinite for at least the same reasons.
Additionally, instant claim 22 recites the limitation “the ceramic converted from the ceramic precursor.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Additionally, instant claim 22 recites the limitation “the metal powder recovered by removing the anti-sintering agent.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Additionally, instant claim 23 recites the limitation “the ceramic precursor includes at least any one among metal oxide, metal nitride, metal oxynitride, metal sulfide, metal chloride and combination thereof.” However, para [35] of the instant specification lists nitrates and sulfates as examples of said ceramic precursor. Thus, it is unclear whether nitrates and sulfates are considered within the instant limitation as falling under the category of “combination thereof,” and if so, what other compounds fall under the category “combination thereof.” For the purposes of search and examination, metal nitrates and metal sulfates have been interpreted in light of the specification as meeting the limitation by falling under the category of “combination thereof.”
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.
Claim(s) 15-20, 23 and 25-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2004-339601A to Yokoi et al (an English language translation has been relied upon for examination purposes).
Regarding 15 and 28 Yokoi discloses a method for heat treatment of nickel metal powder, comprising: preparing a metal powder-anti-sintering agent composite that includes nickel metal powders dispersed and disposed spaced apart from one another inside the anti-sintering agent; and heat-treating the metal powder-anti-sintering agent composite (Yokoi, abstract, Examples 1-3, para [0022-0030], claims 1-4).
Yokoi anticipates instant claims 15 and 28 because Yokoi discloses a method containing all the limitations of instant claims 15 and 28.
Regarding claim 16, Yokoi discloses wherein the preparation of the metal powder-anti-sintering agent composite includes: preparing an anti-sintering agent solution in which the anti-sintering agent is dissolved in a solvent; preparing a metal powder dispersion by adding and then dispersing the metal powder into the anti-sintering agent solution; and spray-drying the dispersed particle dispersion (Yokoi, abstract, Examples 1-3, para [0022-0030], claims 1-4).
Regarding claim 17, Yokoi discloses removing the anti-sintering agent from the metal-anti-sintering agent composite to recover the metal powder after the heat treatment step is conducted (Yokoi, abstract, Examples 1-3, para [0022-0030], claims 1-4).
Regarding claim 18, Yokoi discloses the removal of the anti-sintering agent is performed by washing the metal powder-anti-sintering agent composite with a washing solution capable of dissolving the anti-sintering agent (Yokoi, abstract, Examples 1-3, para [0022-0030], claims 1-4).
Regarding claim 19, Yokoi discloses the heat treatment step is conducted in a reducing or inert atmosphere (Yokoi, abstract, Examples 1-3, para [0022-0030], claims 1-4).
Regarding claim 20, instant claim 20 is indefinite as set forth above. Regardless, the anti-sintering agent of Yokoi is NaCl or KCl (Yokoi, abstract, Examples 1-3, para [0022-0030], claims 1-4). The limitation “a ceramic precursor to be converted into ceramic by heat” has been interpreted as an intended use of the ceramic precursor as instant claim 20 does not appear to require any positively recited method steps that the ceramic precursor is actually converted into ceramic by heat. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, both KCl and NaCl are known as precursor ingredients for ceramics which, along with elements, can be converted into ceramic by heat. As such instant claim 20 appears to meet the limitations of indefinite claim 20.
Regarding claim 23 and 25-27, Yokoi discloses the anti-sintering agent (i.e. ceramic precursor) is NaCl or KCl (Yokoi, abstract, Examples 1-3, para [0022-0030], claims 1-4).
Claim(s) 15, 17-22, 25 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 103508736 to Wang et al (an English language translation has been relied upon for examination purposes).
Regarding 15 and 28 Wang discloses a method for heat treatment of nickel metal powder, comprising: preparing a metal powder-anti-sintering agent composite that includes nickel metal powders dispersed and disposed spaced apart from one another inside the anti-sintering agent; and heat-treating the metal powder-anti-sintering agent composite (Wang, abstract, Embodiments 1-2, para [0041-0050], claims 4-10).
Wang anticipates instant claims 15 and 28 because Wang discloses a method containing all the limitations of instant claims 15 and 28.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Wang discloses washing the metal powder-anti-sintering agent composite with ethanol and acetic acid (i.e. a washing solution capable of dissolving the anti-sintering agent) after the heat treatment step is conducted (Wang, para [0026-0027], claim 10).
Regarding claim 19, Wang discloses the heat treatment step is conducted at normal pressure with no special atmosphere mentioned, i.e. in air atmosphere (Wang, abstract, Embodiments 1-2, para [0041-0050], claims 4-10).
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Wang discloses the anti-sintering agent includes a ceramic precursor which is converted into ceramic in the heat treatment step (Wang, abstract, Embodiments 1-2, para [0041-0050], claims 4-10).
Regarding claim 22, Wang discloses after the heat treatment is conducted, the ceramic converted from the ceramic precursor remains on at least a part of the surface of the metal powder recovered by removing the anti-sintering agent.
Regarding claim 25, Wang discloses the anti-sintering agent includes a metal salt (Wang, abstract, Embodiments 1-2, para [0041-0050], claims 4-10).
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(s) 23, 24, 26 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 103508736 to Wang et al (an English language translation has been relied upon for examination purposes) as applied to claims 15, 17-22, 25 and 28 above, and further in view of US 6,352,681 to Horikawa et al.
Wang discloses a method as set forth above. The method of Wang uses barium hydroxide as anti-sintering agent and ceramic precursor to form BaTiO3 (Wang, abstract, Embodiments 1-2, para [0041-0050], claims 4-10).
Horikawa discloses that barium chloride and barium nitrate are known substitutable equivalents to barium hydroxide for the purpose of the formation of barium titanate (Horikawa, abstract, column 3 lines 21-34).
Regarding claims 23, 24, 26 and 27, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the barium hydroxide of Wang with barium chloride or barium nitrate as suggested by Horikawa. The motivation for doing so is that Horikawa discloses that barium chloride and barium nitrate are known substitutable equivalents to barium hydroxide for the purpose of the formation of barium titanate (Horikawa, abstract, column 3 lines 21-34) and substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.06 and 2143 B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN D WALCK whose telephone number is (571)270-5905. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 AM - 6:30 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, Sally Merkling can be reached at 571-272-6297. 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.
/BRIAN D WALCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights