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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract recites several instances of “means”, particularly “means” plus function statements, which are instances of legal phraseology of the form used in patent claims. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 1 recites “feeding means for providing the heavy metal raw material in the vicinity of a heat source”. The limitation uses the term “means”, the limitation recites a function, and the “means” are not modified by structure sufficient for performing the function. The specification states “In practice, feeding can be provided by a feeder arrangement 4, which will be described in reference to FIG. 2B and FIG. 2C” (paragraph [0046]). The feeder arrangement shown and described in the specification is a wire feeder (Figs 2B, 2C, [0078], [0117]); therefore, the feeding means recited in claim 1 will be interpreted as a wire feeder or equivalents.
Claim 1 recites “collecting means for collecting the heavy metal powder”. The limitation uses the term “means”, the limitation recites a function, and the “means” are not modified by structure sufficient for performing the function. The present disclosure indicates that structure as simple as a container may suffice as collecting means [0107-108], [0111]; therefore, the claimed collecting means will be interpreted as at least a container or equivalent.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The “adjusting means” in claim 1;
The “heating means” in claim 1;
Both claim 1 includes sufficient structure for performing the claimed functions of both the “adjusting means” and “heating means”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim 1 recites “providing a heavy metal raw material in the vicinity of a heat source, the heat source having an electrode, and generating an electric arc, heating the heavy metal raw material by the electric arc, so as to create a molten metal pool on a sonotrode” and “the electrode being a cathode and the sonotrode being an anode, the electric arc being of the length in the range from 5 to 40 mm, while the electric arc length being measured between a tip of the cathode and the sonotrode center”. As claim 1 claims a heat source having an electrode, and generating an electric arc; claim 1 claims a specific arc length; claim 1 claims the arc length between the cathode and the sonotrode, and claim 1 claims the heat source generating an electric arc, heating the heavy metal raw material by the electric arc, so as to create a molten metal pool on a sonotrode, claim 1 indirectly defines “in the vicinity of” as recited within the claim itself. Any raw material which is heated by the specifically defined arc so as to form a melt pool on a sonotrode which also functions as an electrode of that same arc will necessarily require the raw material be in the vicinity of that arc heat source to some extent.
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 1-19 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 the limitation "the heating means" in the block of text reciting details of the adjusting means. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. From the specification, and the remainder of claim 1 as worded, all instances of “heating means” appears intended to refer to the “heat source”.
Claims 2-19 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) because they depend on claim 1.
Claim 13 claims “the frequency of the pulsations of is between”. It is not clear, in view of the claims or specification, as worded, what is intended to follow the word “of” in “pulsations of is” in claim 13. Please either specify of what the pulsations are or delete the word “of”.
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 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) 1-6, 8, 11-14, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zrodowski (WO2019092641A1) in view of Zhou (CN103433499A) and Chen (CN109434126A). References to Zhou and Chen are directed to the examiner-supplied English language translations.
Regarding claim 1, Zrodowski discloses a device for production of metal powders (title, abstract, page 1 first paragraph). Zrodowski discloses that the device comprises a feeding means, which Zrodowski discloses and shows is a wire feeder (the input material delivery system (6) delivers the material in the form of a wire (5) page 3, Fig. 1). Zrodowski discloses that the feeding means provides the metal raw material in the vicinity of a heat source (melting system (3,4) Figs. 1, 2) (page 3, page 6 paragraph beginning “During the operation of the device”). Zrodowski discloses that the heat source has an electrode (melting system is placed, consisting of an infusible electrode (3) page 7 paragraph discussing Example 1, energy source was an electrical arc generated with an infusible tungsten electrode (3) paragraph extending between pages 7 and 8 in discussing example 1a and page 8 discussing example 1b, Fig. 1). Zrodowski discloses that the heat source generates an electric arc to heat the raw material so as to create a molten metal pool on a sonotrode (melt tip (1) on sonotrode (2), sonotrode acting as a radiator and the material wetted by the liquid metal Fig. 1, page 3; arc discharge melts the tip to which the input material is delivered page 6 paragraph beginning “During the operation of…”; discussion of examples 1a and 1b indicate that heating creates a molten metal pool pages 7-8).
In examples, Zrodowski discloses the same material for the raw material and melting tip (AISI 308 steel page 7). Zrodowski discloses that the molten metal pool formed of the melt tip and raw material is in the molten (liquid) phase (pages 6-8). Thermodynamically, a material in the molten phase is at a temperature between the melting and vaporization temperatures; therefore, the structure of the device disclosed by Zrodowski meets the structure of a device which is capable of attaining a molten metal pool at a temperature equal to or greater than the melting temperature of the raw material and below a vaporization temperature of the raw material.
Zrodowski discloses that the sonotrode provides ultrasonic mechanical vibrations to the molten metal pool, so as to cause droplets to be ejected (sprayed) from the molten metal pool (page 6 paragraph beginning “During the operation of the device…”). Zrodowski discloses that the ejected (sprayed) particles are readily cooled (“[t]aking into account the negligible powder particle dimensions and its quick cooling” page 6) and that the ejected material sprayed from the molten pool falls in the form of powder (page 6 paragraph beginning “During the operation of the device…”). An ejected melt which falls as powder to some extent cools on falling; therefore, the structure of the device disclosed by Zrodowski is structure wherein ejected raw material cools on falling. Whether or not radiation at a certain distance contributes to the cooling is a property of the extent to which the material melted and ejected is capable of cooling by radiation not a structure of the device. The material or article worked upon by the apparatus does not limit the apparatus claim (MPEP 2115), and the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art (MPEP 2114). As the structure of the device disclosed by Zrodowski is capable of working on raw material which cools at least by radiation over some distance, the device disclosed by Zrodowski meets structure encompassed by a device wherein adjusting sonotrode parameters of the sonotrode results in directing droplets away from the molten metal pool, so as to cause the droplets to freely cool down at least by radiation within some distance and transform the droplets to powder.
Zrodowski discloses that the device comprises collecting means for collecting the heavy metal powder (a cyclone (13) and powder drop bar (14) page 4, Fig. 2; a powder drop bar comprises at least a container).
Zrodowski discloses that the device generates an arc between the electrode and the sonotrode (pages 7-8 in discussing examples 1a and 1b), thereby disclosing that sonotrode is arranged as a counter-electrode to the electrode of the heat source. Zrodowski further discloses that the portion of the system comprising the electrode is the source powering arc discharge (page 5 sentence beginning “Depending on the input material…”), and Zrodowski discloses that the sonotrode removes heat from the melting tip portion of sonotrode, thereby suggesting that the melting tip attached to the counter-electrode sonotrode accumulates heat (page 6 paragraph beginning “Taking into account…”). In disclosing the portion of the system comprising the electrode as the source powering arc discharge and suggesting the portion of the sonotrode, to which the arc connects, accumulates heat, Zrodowski establishes that the electrode is a cathode, and that the portion of the sonotrode with which the arc is established is the anode.
In an example Zrodowski operates at a voltage of 15 V with a current of 90 A with a cylindrical sonotrode of 4.0 cm (40 mm) (page 7 in discussing example 1a). 90 A current at 15 V is a power of 0.135 kW (
15
V
×
90
A
=
135
W
=
0.135
kW
)
. For application of 0.135 kW to exceed a power density of 15kW/cm2, the arc would have to be directed to an area of 0.009 cm2 or lower. The area of a circle with a diameter of 4 cm is 12.6 cm2. Considering Zrodowski discloses that the device is capable of applying a power of 0.135 kW (pages 7-8), an arc exposure on the sonotrode on which the melt pool forms would be significantly larger than 0.009 cm2, and a voltage generator is structurally capable of operating at lower voltages, the device disclosed by Zrodowski (pages 3, 6-8, Figs 1-2) is structure that is capable of operating wherein a power supplied to the electric arc does not exceed 15 KW per 1cm2 of the area of the molten metal pool. The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art (MPEP 2114(II)).
Zrodowski discloses that the sonotrode has a working frequency above 20 kHz (page 5) and exemplifies a sonotrode with a rated frequency of 20 kHz (page 6) Zrodowski discloses that the resonant frequency of the melting tip on the sonotrode is 100- 3000 Hz higher than the working frequency (page 4). Zrodowski therefore discloses sonotrode structure which is capable of vibrating at some point in a frequency range of 15 kHz to 1000 kHz. Zrodowski discloses that the device increases the amplitude of the ultrasonic vibrations (page 5 paragraph beginning “The device is equipped with a piezoelectric transducer…”). A device with a sonotrode capable of vibrating at frequencies within the claimed range and which increases the amplitude of ultrasonic vibrations, such as that disclosed by Zrodowski (pages 5, 7-8) is an apparatus structurally capable of attaining high-velocity vibration at the end of the sonotrode, and therefore would meet a structure which is capable of a velocity of ultrasonic mechanical vibrations on a hot end of at least 0.2 m/sec 0-peak. Again, the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art (MPEP 2114(II)).
Zrodowski discloses that the collecting means comprises structure which efficiently collects formed powder from gas (page 9 in discussing example 2) and that the device may be structured to further improve powder yield by cleaning (pages 9-10 in discussing example 3). A device which efficiently collects the powder and is structured to further improve yield by cleaning has structure which is capable of collecting at least 75% of the raw material in the form of powder by the collecting means, depending on the operating parameters and material worked upon. Again, the material or article worked upon by the apparatus does not limit the apparatus claim (MPEP 2115), and the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art (MPEP 2114(II)).
Zrodowski discloses that the electrode is placed relative to the melting tip attached to the sonotrode (page 7 sentence beginning “Directly above the melting tip…”), thereby disclosing that the apparatus as-is is structurally capable of adjusting the position of the electrode relative to the sonotrode. The length of an arc and point of current flow are determined by the relative positions of the electrodes. Zrodowski does not disclose that the electrode and sonotrode are positioned such that a resulting arc length between the two structures would be in the range from 5 mm to 40 mm.
Zhou teaches a device for production of metal powders by ultrasonic atomization from a metal raw material (abstract, claim 1, [0002], [0008]). Zhou teaches providing raw material (metal rod) in the vicinity of a heat source (plasma arc generating system) (abstract, claim 1, Fig. 2, [0010]). Zhou discloses that the heat source has an electrode [0013]. Zhou teaches that the heat source generates an electric arc to heat the raw material so as to create molten metal on a sonotrode (ultrasonic vibration system) ([0010], [0024], [0034], Fig. 2). Zhou teaches that the sonotrode (ultrasonic vibration system) provides ultrasonic mechanical vibrations to the molten metal, so as to cause metal droplets to be ejected from the molten metal [0034]. Zhou teaches directing the metal droplets away from the molten metal, so as to cause the metal droplets to freely cool down and transform the heavy metal droplets to powder (abstract, [0024], [0027], [0034]). Zhou teaches collecting means (powder collection cylinder/tank) for collecting the powder (abstract, [0016], [0034]). Zhou teaches that the electrode is a cathode [0013], [0030], [0053]. Zhou teaches that the raw material on the sonotrode is an anode [0030], [0053]. Zhou teaches adjusting the distance between the electrodes measured from the tip of the cathode to a head of the anode is between 12mm to 15mm (claim 2, [0012], [0059], [0066]). Zhou teaches that the ultrasonic mechanism is placed on a lifting mechanism [0012], [0030].
Both Zrodowski and Zhou teach devices for producing metal powder with arc heating and ultrasonic powder ejection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to arrange the cathode and anode in the device disclosed by Zrodowski at a distance of 12-15 mm because the cathode and anode which Zrodowski discloses and shows as spaced in the vicinity of one another (Fig. 1; page 7 sentence beginning “Directly above the melting tip…”), must are necessarily arranged at some distance and Zhou teaches that an electrode separation distance of 12-15 mm is effective for a device which produces metal powder by atomization with ultrasonic ejection and an electric arc heat source (claim 2, [0010], [0012], [0034], [0059], [0066]). Zrodowski’s disclosure of placing the heating source (page 7 sentence beginning “Directly above the melting tip…”) indicates that the distance between electrodes may be adjusted; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to set that distance to a distance known to be effective for such a purpose, and in view of Zhou (claim 2, [0010], [0012], [0034], [0059], [0066]), one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have known that a distance of 12-15 mm as effective for electrode spacing for electric arc and ultrasonic atomization. As 12-15 mm is well within a range of 5-40 mm, and the electrode distance is primarily what determines arc length, electrodes arranged at a spacing of 12-15 mm are structurally capable of producing an electric arc with some length in a range of 5-40 mm from a tip of the electrode (the cathode in the device disclosed by Zrodowski in view of Zhou applied above) to a center of the sonotrode (the anode in the device disclosed by Zrodowski in view of Zhou) applied above.
The feeding means and heat source disclosed by Zrodowski must necessarily have some structure to set feeding and heating parameters, but Zrodowski does not disclose that such a structure comprises adjusting means comprising at least one memory and processor.
Chen teaches a device for production of metal powders by ultrasonic atomization from metal raw material (abstract, claim 1, [0002], [0093]). Chen teaches that the device comprises structure for feeding metal raw material (servo feeding mechanism 1, a counterweight base plate 2, a rotating spindle 3 [0016-17], [0041], [0057], Fig. 1) in the vicinity of a heat source which generates an arc ([0029], [0031], [0042] plasma generator Fig. 1). Chen teaches that the heat source generates an electric arc to heat the raw material so as to melt the raw material [0010], [0029], [0031], [0042]. Chen teaches that the device comprises ultrasonic generators [0014-15]. Chen teaches that the ultrasonic generators provide ultrasonic mechanical vibrations to the molten metal [0015], [0045]. Chen teaches the device comprises collecting means for collecting formed powder [0018-19]. Chen teaches that metal droplets are freely cooled down to transform the droplets to powder [0050]. Chen teaches that all steps and parameters may be stored on a computer-readable memory (computer-usable storage media) [0094], [0096] and a processor, programmed with the instructions of the memory to enact the taught process [0095], [0097]. Chen teaches that such memory and processors are known to one of skill in the art [0094-97].
Both Chen and Zrodowski in view of Zhou teach devices for production of metal powder by melting feed material with an arc and applying ultrasonic energy to the arc.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to provide the device disclosed by Zrodowski in view of Zhou, applied above with some adjusting means comprising at least one processor and at least one memory to control all operating parameters of the system constituents disclosed by Zrodowski in view of Zhou because Chen teaches that memory and processors are effective for enacting a steps for a device for the production of metal powder by applying and arc and ultrasonic energy [0002], [0041-42], [0093-97]. Memory and a processor which enact all facets of the process disclosed by Zrodowski in view of Zhou on the device disclosed by Zrodowski in view of Zhou, are adjusting means in some way configured to adjust feeding means parameters of the feeding means, configured to adjust heat source parameters of the heat source.
The preamble statement that the produced powder specifically are heavy metal powders from a heavy metal raw material that comprises an electrically conductive metal having a density>8500 kg/m3 and a melting temperature (liquidus)>1073 deg K=800 C at 1 barA, and the identification of the raw material as heavy metal raw material are directed entirely to the material or article worked upon and are not directed to the structure of the apparatus. As each of Zrodowski, Zhou, and Chen teach applying the taught structure to metallic raw material, and the combination of Zrodowski in view of Zhou and Chen meet the structure of the actual apparatus encompassed by the limitations of claim 1, the device disclosed by Zrodowski in view of Zhou and Chen is structure which is capable of working upon the heavy metal having the claimed density and melting point limitations upon which the device of claim 1 works. See MPEP 2115 for further discussion as to why limitations directed entirely to the material worked upon do not define over the prior art.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Zrodowski discloses that the device comprises a closed volume (chamber) connected to a vacuum pump which can be filled with gas (page 4, discussion of Example 2 starting page 8). Zrodowski further discloses that gas flows through the closed volume (page 4, Example 2 starting page 8). A structure connected to a vacuum pump and through which gas flows is structure which is capable of meeting the pressure limitations of both claim 2 and claim 3. The identity of the gas as an inert gas is a limitation entirely directed to the material worked upon and not directed to the structure of the device itself; therefore, claiming that the gas in the volume is an inert gas does not define over the combination of Zrodowski in view of Zhou and Chen. See MPEP 2114 and 2115. Zhou further teaches that the device is structurally capable of creating a vacuum in the atomization chamber and filling the chamber with inert gas in normal operation [0016], [0020], [0029]. Zhou teaches the vacuum reaches a pressure less than 0.1 Pa (less than 0.000001 bar) [0032] and that the same structure can be filled with argon (an inert gas) to a pressure greater than 0.1 MPa (greater than 1 bar) [0034]. Structures\ which can attain pressures from less than 0.000001 bar to greater than 1 bar is structure which is capable of meeting the pressure limitations recited in claims 2 and 3, for which the selected pressure is a parameter at which the system is operated. Chen further teaches a device structurally capable of creating a vacuum and then filling the chamber with an inert gas [0026]. As stated above, the manner of operating an apparatus [such as by selecting a particular operating parameter] does not differentiate an apparatus claim over the prior art. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 4, Zrodowski discloses that gas flowing through the volume (chamber) defines a stream of the gas that intercepts and directs the ejected metal droplets (page 4, “[t]he powder, along with the vapors of the evaporated material is lifted by the stream of the working gas in the processing chamber (12) and guided to the cyclone page 9). Zhou further teaches that such gas flow directs metal droplet [0034] and that such flow is responsible for cooling by convection [0034]; therefore, the structure disclosed by Zrodowski in view of Zhou and Chen would result in cooling which further comprises accelerated cooling by convection with aid of the flowing gas.
Regarding claim 5, in an example Zrodowski operates at a voltage of 15 V with a current of 90 A (page 7 in discussing example 1a); therefore, the device disclosed by Zrodowski would be capable of operating at parameters within, wherein the heat source generates the electric arc so that electricity between the cathode and the anode is some value in the range of 10 V-40 V, and a current at some value in the electric arc is in the range from 80 A to 350 A.
Regarding claim 6, Zrodowski discloses that the working chamber is equipped with shield (protective) gas channels (last three lines of page 5). As Zrodowski discloses and shows that electric arc is conducted in the chamber (discussions of examples 1, 1a, 1b on pages 7-8, and Fig. 1), Zrodowski discloses structure capable of operating such that the electric arc is conducted in a shield inert gas.
Regarding claim 8, Zrodowski discloses that the device comprises a generator for producing the electric arc and that the generator produces a current (pages 7-8 discussion of examples 1, 1a, 1b), but Zrodowski is silent as to whether the current is direct. Zhou teaches that the power supplied to generate the arc comprises a high-frequency power supply and the arc-initiating DC power supply, and a high-voltage power supply [0030], [0050]. Zhou teaches these power supplies for performing the actions of generating an arc and melting the raw material [0030]. In order to generate an arc and melt the material, as disclosed by Zrodowski (pages 7-8), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to provide the device with at least a DC power supply, which Zhou teaches for generating such an arc [0030], [0050]. As a direct current power source is capable of switching off, and a high-frequency power source alternates current flow between on and off states, the power source taught by Zhou [0030], [0050], is structure which is capable of operating at a pulsed current between a minimum of at least 50A and a maximum up to 350 A and operating at a pulsing frequency between 20 Hz and 1000 Hz. Again, the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate the apparatus claim over the prior art (MPEP 2114).
Regarding claim 11, the statement that the heavy metal raw material comprises at least one of gold, silver, copper, platinum, palladium, iridium, ruthenium, rhodium, uranium, tantalum, osmium, hafnium, and an alloy is directed entirely to the material or article worked upon and is not directed to the structure of the apparatus. As each of Zrodowski, Zhou, and Chen teach applying the taught structure to metallic raw material, and the combination of Zrodowski in view of Zhou and Chen meet the structure of the actual apparatus encompassed by the limitations of claim 11, the device disclosed by Zrodowski in view of Zhou and Chen is structure which is capable of working upon the specific metals upon which the device of claim 11 works. See MPEP 2115 for further discussion as to why limitations directed entirely to the material worked upon and not to the structure of the apparatus do not define over the prior art.
Regarding claim 12, limitations directed to the chemical identity and to proportions of gas constituents are directed entirely to the material upon which the device operates and operating parameters of the device and are not directed to the structure of the device. As the structure disclosed by Zrodowski in view of Zhou and Chen, applied to claim 6 meet the device structure of claim 6, and claim 12 does not further specify structure for the device, the device disclosed by Zrodowski in view of Zhou and Chen, applied above is a device structurally capable of operating the shield inert gas comprises a mixture of argon and at least 10% helium by volume. See MPEP 2114(II) and 2115.
Regarding claim 13, the additional limitations set forth in claim 13 further specify the operating parameters of the device. Claim 13 does not set forth additional structure of the device. As claim 13 does not set forth further structural limitations of the device, the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate apparatus claims over the prior art (MPEP 2114(II)), and the combination of Zrodowski in view of Zhou and Chen meets the structure of the device of claim 8, the device disclosed by Zrodowski in view of Zhou and Chen is structure capable of operating with a pulse frequency between 50 Hz-400 Hz.
Regarding claim 14, Zrodowski discloses that the sonotrode comprises a vibration transducer (piezoelectric transducer (10) abstract, page 7). The limitation directed to the frequency of the pulsations of the DC current in relation to pulsations of the vibrations of the transducer is directed entirely to the manner of operating the device and not to the structure of the device. As the combination of Zrodowski in view of Zhou and Chen is structure capable of operating such that power source frequency and arc pulsation frequency are to some extent synchronized, and the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate apparatus claims over the prior art (MPEP 2114(II)), the structure disclosed by Zrodowski in view of Zhou and Chen meets the structure of the apparatus of claim 14.
Regarding claims 17-19, the adjusting means taught by Chen [0094-97] in the device disclosed by Zrodowski in view of Zhou and Chen applied above include memory and processors for enacting the process disclosed by Zrodowski in view of Zhou and Chen and therefore to some extent are structure capable of adjusting parameters for the heat source (as recited in present claim 17), adjusting the adjusting means (as recited in claim 18), and adjusting the adjusting the sonotrode (as recited in claim 19). The ranges of parameters recited in claims 17-19 define the manner of operating the device and do not per se define the structure of the device. As Zrodowski in view of Zhou and Chen, applied above, meets the structure of the device recited in claims 17-19, and the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim over the prior art (MPEP 2114(II)), the device disclosed by Zrodowski in view of Zhou and Chen meets the structure of the device claimed in claims 17-19.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zrodowski (WO2019092641A1) in view of Zhou (CN103433499A) and Chen (CN109434126A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Newberry (US3275787).
Regarding claim 7, Zrodowski discloses and shows that the melting system which comprises a cathode is placed above the sonotrode (Fig. 1, page 7 discussing example 1). Zrodowski shows the heat source, sonotrode, and droplet ejection in one two-dimensional figure (fig. 4), thereby showing that the one-dimensional orientation of the heat source is parallel to at least one direction in which droplets are ejected. Zhou shows that the electrode of the heat source is oriented at a tilted angle with respect to the axis of the sonotrode (Figs. 2-3). Zrodowski does not disclose an angle between a longitudinal axis of the sonotrode or a direction perpendicular to the direction of ejection of the droplets.
Newberry teaches a device for production of powders by ultrasonic atomization from a raw material (title, Fig. 1, column 1 lines 10-16)). Newberry teaches providing the raw material (solid material 6) in the vicinity of a heat source (electron beam source) (Fig. 1, column 3 lines 44-66). Newberry teaches that the heat source has an electrode (cathode 10, Fig. 1 column 3 lines 55-71). Newberry teaches that the device comprises a sonotrode (concentrator horn 21 Fig. 1, column 5 lines 24-44). Newberry teaches that molten material forms a pool on the sonotrode (column 6 lines 10-16). Newberry teaches that the sonotrode provides ultrasonic mechanical vibrations to molten metal so as to cause droplets to be ejected from the molten metal and that ejected particles are collected in collecting means (column 5 lines 45-59). Newberry shows that the sonotrode (horn 21) and therefore the direction with which droplets are ejected is in the vertical (double arrows on Fig. 1). Newberry shows that the cathode is positioned in an orientation at
0
°
(horizontal) to a direction perpendicular to which the sonotrode moves (Fig. 1). Newberry teaches that the raw material may be arranged in a vertical position, horizontal positions or at any angle in between (Figs. 1, 2, column 3 lines 44-48). Newberry teaches that the electrode of the heat source is aligned with the provided raw material (column 5 lines 65-69) and therefore aligned with the direction of the provided raw material. Newberry further teaches that the electrode may be placed at any angle (column 6 line 72 to column 7 line 1).
Both Newberry, and Zrodowski in view of Zhou and Chen teach similar devices for producing powder comprising a heat source comprising a cathode, an ultrasonic sonotrode, and a collecting means.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to provide the heat source in the device disclosed by Zrodowski in view of Zhou and Chen with a heat source comprising an electrode capable of arrangement at some angle from 0
°
and 40
°
with respect to the direction in which the particles are ejected, because the electrode of the heat source disclosed by Zrodowski, applied above, must be arranged at some degree with respect to the raw material and sonotrode, because Zhou shows that the electrode is tilted with respect to the sonotrode (Fig. 2), and because Newberry teaches that electrode and raw material may be arranged at any suitable angle (column 3 lines 44-48, column 6 line 72 to column 7 line 1) showing arrangements of the electrode in both vertical and horizontal positions (Figs. 1-2).
Claim(s) 9-10 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zrodowski (WO2019092641A1) in view of Zhou (CN103433499A) and Chen (CN109434126A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Larouche (US20180214956).
Regarding claim 9, Zrodowski is broadly open to different types of heat sources (page 5 paragraph beginning “The device is equipped with a piezoelectric…”), Zhou teaches that an AC power source connected to the sonotrode [0031], but Zrodowski in view of Zhou and Chen does not disclose that that the device comprises structure which would generate an electric arc comprising an AC electric arc.
Larouche teaches a device for production of metal powders (Title, abstract, [0002]). Larouche teaches that the device comprises a wire feeder [0043], [0070]. Larouche teaches providing raw material in the vicinity of a heat source (plasma source Figs. 1-2, 6-8, [0043]). Larouche teachers an embodiment wherein the heat source has an electrode (electrode 244) and generates an electric arc (electric arc 252) to heat the raw material (Fig. 5, [0111-112]). Larouche teaches collecting powder that forms [0117]. Larouche teaches that the heat source may be powered by DC or by AC power sources [0127].
Both Larouche and Zrodowski in view of Zhou and Chen teach devices for the production of metal powder comprising feeding means and an embodiment wherein a heat source comprises an electrode which generates an electric arc.
The structure disclosed of the device disclosed by Zrodowski in view of Zhou and Chen differs from the structure encompassed by the device of claim 9 in that Zrodowski in view of Zhou and Chen does not disclose the electric arc of the heat source comprises an AC power source. In view of Larouche, one of ordinary skill in the art of metal powder production would have known that a heat source for producing powder from a raw material wire may comprise an AC power source. One of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, would have regarded the device disclosed by Zrodowski in view of Zhou and Chen wherein the heat source comprises an AC power source as an obvious combination or substitution of heat sources known to one of ordinary skill in the art which predicably would result in providing a power source effective for producing powder from wire feed material, as taught by Larouche [0043-44], [0070], [0127]. See MPEP 2143(A) and (B). As the particular current and frequency of the power source are parameters of operating the device and not structure of the device per se, and the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim over the prior art (MPEP 2114(II)), the structure of the device disclosed by Zrodowski in view of Zhou, Chen, and Larouche, applied above meets the structure recited in claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Zrodowski does not disclose that the device comprises auxiliary structure capable of pre-heating. Larouche teaches that the device comprises structure for preheating the raw material [0043]. Larouche teaches that by sufficiently heating the metal source prior to atomization and a proper alignment, a high yield of atomized raw metal powder can be achieved [0044]. Larouche teaches that the temperature of the metal source prior to atomization can be close to the melting point of the material. “[f]or example, the temperature can be about 75% to about 110% of the melting point temperature or about 85% to about 95% of the melting point temperature” [0044]. In order to increase the powder yield of the device disclosed by Zrodowski in view of Zhou and Chen, applied above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to provide the device with an auxiliary heat source structurally capable of pre-heating the raw material [0043-44]. Structure which is capable of heating raw material up to temperatures above 75% of the melting point is capable of heating that same material to lower temperatures such as to temperatures of up to 70% of the melting temperature of raw material.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, limitations directed to the frequency of the AC power source in relation to a frequency of the sonotrode or vibrations produced by the sonotrode are directed entirely to parameters for operating the apparatus and are not directed to structure of the apparatus. Considering the structure disclosed by Zrodowski in view of Zhou, Chen, and Larouche meets the structure of the device recited in claims 15 and 16, and considering the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim over the prior art (MPEP 2114(II)), Zrodowski in view of Zhou, Chen, and Larouche meets the limitations of the apparatus claimed in claims 15 and 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KR100788412B1 discloses that setting electrode distance determines arc length in a powder production process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN P O'KEEFE whose telephone number is (571)272-7647. The examiner can normally be reached MR 8:00-6:30.
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.
/SEAN P. O'KEEFE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/ SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights