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 .
Final Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for reasons detailed below.
The prior art rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (“Li”)(CN 112403695) in view of St. Laurent et al. (“Laurent”)(US 2021/0008629) and legal precedent.
Li (fig. 1) teaches a method for removing ultrafine particles from an atomized powder, the method comprising:
(re: claim 1) contacting the atomized powder with a removal liquid to form a mixture of the atomized powder and the removal liquid, the atomized powder comprising fine particles defining a size within a particle size distribution and ultrafine particles coupled to the fine particles, the ultrafine particles defining a size smaller than the particle size distribution (p. 3 teaching in step (1) that metal powder is placed in primary slurry tank A along with pure water and is then stirred, wherein step (1) prepares the atomized powder for further separation in multiple hydraulic cyclone steps and the noble metal powder has a particle size distribution of 1 to 45 microns —here, Examiner notes that atomized powder exposed to moisture—i.e., a liquid—would naturally experience clumping/agglomeration, thus it logically follows that the atomized powder includes fine particles clumped or coupled to ultrafine particles and that the cut points of the hydrocyclones define ultrafine particles within the particle size distribution);
adding sufficient energy to the mixture of the atomized powder and the removal liquid to detach the ultrafine particles from the fine particles (Id. teaching adding energy by stirring as well as by dispersing the slurry into an additional transfer tank via a booster pump and then separating particles via hydraulic cyclone separation forces); and
separating the removal liquid and the detached ultrafine particles from the fine particles (Id. teaching in steps (6) and (7) that slurry in final separation stage is collected, filtered, dehydrated and dried to obtain powder with D90 less than 8 microns);
(re: claim 2) wherein the atomized powder defines a particle size distribution from 0 micrometers to 150 micrometers (Id. teaching metal powder with particle size distribution of 1 to 45 microns);
(re: claim 6) sieving a raw metal powder to obtain the atomized powder prior to contacting the atomized powder with the removal liquid (p. 3 teaching that powder may be sieved prior to adding of pure water in initial step);
(re: claim 7) wherein sieving the raw atomized powder comprises dry sieving the raw metal powder or wet sieving the raw metal powder (Id.);
(re: claim 8) wherein adding energy to the mixture of the atomized powder and the removal liquid comprises exposing the mixture to ultrasonic energy, mechanically agitating the mixture, adding kinetic energy from a liquid flow, or a combination thereof (p. 3 teaching that mechanical stirring and/or ultrasonic dispersion can be used);
(re: claim 10) wherein the removal liquid is water, an organic or inorganic solvent, a halocarbon liquid, a fluorocarbon liquid, or a combination thereof (p. 2 teaching pure water);
(re: claim 12) wherein the atomized powder is a first batch of atomized powder, and wherein the method further comprises:
receiving the separated removal liquid and detached ultrafine particles in a recirculation loop;
filtering the detached ultrafine particles from the removal liquid within the recirculation loop; and
providing the filtered removal liquid to the first batch of atomized powder or to a second batch of atomized powder (fig. 1 showing that multiple separate stages are in a re-circulation loop thus removal liquid can be seen as re-used in a first or a second batch).
Li as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claim 3) wherein the atomized powder is a reactive metal powder;
(re: claim 4) wherein the reactive metal powder comprises titanium, titanium alloys, zirconium, zirconium alloys, magnesium, magnesium alloys, cobalt, cobalt superalloys, nickel, nickel superalloys, niobium, niobium alloys, aluminum, aluminum alloys, molybdenum, molybdenum alloys, tungsten, tungsten alloys, or a combination thereof;
(re: claim 5) wherein the reactive metal powder is aluminum or an aluminum alloy, and wherein the removal liquid is a halocarbon liquid;
(re: claim 9) wherein adding energy to the mixture of the atomized powder and the removal liquid comprises spraying the atomized powder with the removal liquid;
(re: claim 11) wherein the fine particles form a finished metal powder defining a finish mass, M_Finish, and wherein the atomized powder defines an initial mass, M_Initial, prior to contacting the atomized powder with the removal liquid, and wherein a ratio of M_Finish to M_Initial is greater than 0.90;
(re: claim 21) wherein the fine particles have an increased flowability according to ASTM B213-20 than the atomized powder.
Further, under an alternate interpretation, Li may be regarded as not teaching the fine particles coupling to the ultrafine particles.
Laurent, however, teaches that it is well-known in the powder atomization arts that particle agglomeration naturally occurs during the atomization process; that the claimed processing techniques—i.e., spraying/adding water --are readily applicable and beneficial in processing reactive metal powders, such as nickel, and that the size distribution of the powder is a common design parameter that is influenced by numerous operating variables known to one with ordinary skill in the art (fig. 1 and para. 46, 47, 55, 56, 97-98, 115-117, 120, 172 teaching that liquid/water may be added via spray nozzles to assist with sieving and filtration processes and that atomization processes are applicable to reactive metal powders such as nickel and aluminum; see also p. 8 showing examples of copper; see also para. 110, 115-116 teaching that grouping of particles naturally occurs during atomization process).
Indeed, the claimed features relating to characteristics/type of input powder, i.e., reactive metal powder, in relation to outputted fine particles as well as the type of removal liquid used, as well as the flowability of the fine particles can be regarded as common design parameters/operating variables controlled by the design incentives and/or economic considerations involved in this type of subject matter. This is especially applicable in the powder atomization arts as the type of powder to be processed and the desired outputs controls these types variations as demonstrated above. Moreover, legal precedent teaches that variations in these type of common design parameters/operating variables are obvious and are the mere optimization of result-effective variables that would be known to one with ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 I.II (teaching ample motivation to optimize or modify result-effective variables based on “design need(s)” or “market demand”); see also MPEP 2144.04.IV (teaching that changes in size, proportion or shape of known elements are obvious).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above and in legal precedent as described above. Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Li for the reasons set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach the amended claim features are unpersuasive in view of the reformulated prior art rejection set forth above. Applicant mainly argues that the atomized powder taught by Li would not experience clumping or grouping, thus no “detaching step” can be taught as the multiple stirring, dispersal and boosting steps taught by Li do not serve to “add sufficient energy” and are thus not relevant. Examiner disagrees and notes that any powder exposed to moisture would experience natural agglomeration. Thus, it logically follows that the stirring and dispersing steps function to detach the agglomerated particles. Further, Laurent as set forth above—in addition to teaching the spraying of water onto atomized particles/powders--expressly teaches that grouping of particles naturally occurs during the atomization process due to a variety of reasons (para. 110, 115-116), thus expressly undermining Applicant’s principal argument. Further, the claimed flowability can be regarded as a mere design parameter, that one with ordinary skill in the art would know how to achieve. Consequently, as a reasonable interpretation of the prior art undermines Applicant’s amendments and arguments, the claims stand rejected.
Examiner has maintained the prior art rejections, statutory rejections and drawing objections as previously stated and as modified above. Applicant's amendment necessitated any new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed but made of record during the prosecution of the instant application are considered helpful in understanding and establishing the state of the prior art and are thus relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
------
March 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights