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 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 4-9 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.
The term “rapid cooling” in claims 4 and 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rapid cooling” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This renders the rate of cooling indefinite which renders the scope of the claims indefinite. Instant claims 5 and 6 depend on instant claim 4 and instant claims 8 and 9 depend on instant claim 7 and are indefinite for at least the same reasons.
The terms “small particles” and “fine powder” in claims 6 and 9 are relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rapid cooling” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This renders the size of the particles and powder indefinite which renders the scope of the claims indefinite.
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) 1-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 113293251A to Zheng et al.
Regarding claim 1, Zheng discloses a microwave heat treatment method for a granulated blast furnace slag, comprising the following steps: performing a microwave heat treatment on the granulated blast furnace slag and then cooling a treated granulated blast furnace slag; wherein the microwave heat treatment is performed at a frequency of 915±50MHz, overlapping the instantly claimed range of 900-930 MHz (Zheng, para [n0008-n0013]).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select any portion of the disclosed ranges of microwave frequency of Zheng including the instantly claimed because a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case of overlapping ranges.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Zheng does not disclose the power and time of the microwave treatment but rather the temperature the material is heated to, which is dependent on the power of the microwave. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]. In the instant case, it would require little more than routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimal or workable ranges of microwave power and time that would result in an optimal or workable temperature for the microwave heat treatment of Zheng.
Regarding claims 4 and 7, this limitation is indefinite as set forth in the above 35 USC 112 rejection. Regardless, Zheng discloses water quenching and cooling (Zheng, para [n0013]) which would appear to qualify as “rapid cooling.”
Claim(s) 5, 6, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 113293251A to Zheng et al as applied to claims 1-4 and 7 above and further in view of the evidentiary reference “Other Quenchants and Quenching Processes” by Luo et al.
Regarding claim 5 and 8, Zheng employs water quenching instead of the instantly claimed “adopting an air blower with a power of 5-10 kW.” However, air quenching is known as perhaps the oldest, most common and least expensive quenchant medium and increasing the velocity of air flow past the cooling surface is known to accelerate the cooling rate as evidenced by Luo et al (Luo, page 453, “Air Quenching”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ air quenching with an air blower in lieu of water quenching for the process of Zheng. The motivation for doing so is that air quenching is known as perhaps the oldest, most common and least expensive quenchant medium and increasing the velocity of air flow past the cooling surface is known to accelerate the cooling rate as evidenced by Luo et al (Luo, page 453, “Air Quenching”).
Regarding the instantly claimed air blower power, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]. In the instant case, it would require little more than routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimal or workable ranges of air blower power to obtain optimum or workable cooling rates for the process of Zheng.
Regarding claims 6 and 9, the cooled granulated blast furnace slag particles of Zheng are crushed and ground to obtain a powder (Zheng, para [n0013]). Although Zheng does not disclose what equipment is used to grind the particles, one of ordinary skill in the art would immediately envisage ball milling as a conventional means of grinding particles. Regarding the instantly claimed ball milling time and power, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]. In the instant case, it would require little more than routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimal or workable ranges of ball milling power and time to obtain optimum or workable powder sizes for the process of Zheng.
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