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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05 August 2024 was considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR20170007359A (machine translation) of Fang.
Regarding Claim 1, Fang discloses production of substantially spherical metal powders in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Fang discloses a method of preparing a substantially spherical metallic powder (A method of preparing spherical metal powder), Para[0007]. Fang teaches providing a source of metal fine particles and forming a slurry with the binder in a solvent ((a) mixing an ultra-fine raw metal with a binder and a solvent to form a slurry), Para[0007].
Fang then teaches that one can form a substantially spherical granulate by granulating the slurry, Para[0007], and that granulation may be carried out by spray drying the slurry ((b) granulating the slurry through spray drying to form granular powder), Para[0046].
Fang also discloses that the spray-dried granulate is mixed with CaO powder, CaO powder can be separated by the granules during sintering ((c) adding a separating agent to prevent sintering between granular powder particles), Para[0050].
Fang then discloses a step of degreasing and sintering ((d) continuously performing degreasing and sintering on the granular powder to form spherical metal powder), Para[0051].
Fang also discloses that Deoxidation technology may be applied to the sintered powder according to a specific ratio of the amount of oxygen to be removed and calcium (Ca) or a mixture of calcium hydride (CaH 2) and deoxygenated be powder ((e) performing deoxidation treatment by adding a deoxidizer to achieve high purity of the sintered spherical metal powder), Para[0060, 0061].
Fang discloses that after the resulting mixture is deoxidized, the CaO-containing separating agent can be leached out in an aqueous solution (removing the separating agent and oxide from the deoxidized spherical metal powder), Para[0066].
Therefore, Fang teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Fang teaches CP-Ti-6Al-4V as the metal source used (the spherical metal powder is selected from the group consisting of CP-Ti-based alloys, Ti-Al-based alloys, Ti-Al-V-based alloys, and a combination thereof), Para[0058]. Therefore, Fang teaches all limitations of claim 2.
Regarding Claim 4, Fang discloses that the particle source can be a metal powder of titanium hydride (the ultra-fine raw metal is one or more selected from the group consisting of titanium hydride, titanium, aluminum, vanadium, tin, palladium, nickel, molybdenum, chromium, cobalt, zirconium, zirconium hydride, niobium, and a combination thereof), Para[0034]. Therefore, Fang teaches all limitations of claim 4.
Regarding Claim 5, Fang teaches that Titanium hydride powder may be formed by the reaction of the hydrogen gas and the titanium sponge or scrap metal Ti (the ultra-fine raw metal is prepared from a raw material selected from the group consisting of titanium sponge, titanium scrap, and a combination thereof), Para[0034]. Therefore, Fang teaches all limitations of claim 5.
Regarding Claim 6, Fang teaches 500 ml of water, a solution of polyvinyl alcohol in 1500 ml of ethyl alcohol and 30 g of the by milling, to thereby prepare a slurry for spray drying with a attritor (the solvent includes water and ethyl alcohol), Para[0081]. Fang also discloses a slurry with the binder, and a solvent mixture and that the binder is a polymer binder, such as paraffin wax, PVA, PEG, PVB, PVP, PMMA, can be a microcrystalline wax, and other similar polymeric material, or mixtures thereof (the binder includes a polyvinyl pyrrolidone (PVP) binder, which are physically mixed using a mixing device), Para[0044]. Therefore, Fang teaches all limitations of claim 6.
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.
Claims 3, 9, 16, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20170007359A (machine translation) of Fang as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 3, Fang teaches that substantially spherical metal powder may have an average final particle size can be from about 10 to about 500 micrometers (a particle size range of the spherical metal powder is 1 to 300 µm), Para[0057]. This overlaps with the claimed range. 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. Therefore, Fang teaches all limitations of claim 3.
Regarding Claim 9, Fang teaches an average grain size of the granulate after the granulation of about 20 micrometers to about 40 micrometers and in the case of using the manufacturing it may be greater than 100 micrometers (a particle size range of the granular powder is 1 to 350 µm), Para[0047]. Therefore, Fang teaches all limitations of claim 9.
Regarding Claim 16, Fang discloses that metal granules may be completely or may be sintered (i.e., the relative density of 99%), or a porous relative density is 1% to 35%, and 5% to 30% in some cases (in step (d), sintering is performed until pores inside the granular powder is controlled to 10% or less), Para[0070]. This overlaps with the claimed range. 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. Therefore, Fang teaches all limitations of claim 16.
Regarding Claim 20, Fang teaches loading the whole mixture of the salt and the powder to the boat (boat), and placed in a reactor chamber, 400 to 1200 ℃, most commonly 500 to to 1 minute in the heating, an inert or reducing atmosphere at a high temperature of 900 ℃ (a deoxidation temperature is 800 to 1100 °C) of 120 hours and maintained for a period, and finally cooling the furnace to room temperature. After the resulting mixture is deoxidized, and the CaO-containing, but which can be leached out in an aqueous solution containing an acid such as HCl, it may be suitable for different leaching agent. Final deoxidation product can be less than spherical Ti or Ti alloy powder with an oxygen content less than 0.3%, and more often 0.2%, Para[0066]. Therefore, Fang teaches all limitations of claim 20.
Regarding Claim 21, Fang discloses deoxygenation at a heating rate of the furnace 10 ℃ / min in Ar atmosphere and heated to 700 ℃ flow was maintained for 1 hour (a deoxidation temperature increase rate is 5 to 10 °C/min, and a deoxidation holding time after the temperature increase is 1 to 5 h), Para[0086]. This overlaps with the claimed ranges for heating rate and holding time. 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. Therefore, Fang teaches all limitations of claim 21.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20170007359A (machine translation) of Fang as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of CN112974813A (machine translation) of Yu and WO2021188215A1 of Xia.
Regarding Claim 7, Fang teaches a slurry solution of polyvinyl alcohol, ethyl alcohol, water and the source metal. Fang discloses 2000 grams of the hydrate produced from the alloy Ti-6Al-4V scrap, 500 ml of water, 1500 ml of ethyl alcohol, and 30 grams of polyvinyl alcohol, Para[0081]. Fang also discloses that the binder is a polymer binder, such as paraffin wax, PVA, PEG, PVB, PVP, PMMA, can be a microcrystalline wax, and other similar polymeric material, or mixtures thereof, Para[0044].
Assuming the densities which are well known to one of ordinary skill in the art of ethyl alcohol: 0.789 g/ml, water: 1.0 g/ml, and PVP: 1.25 g/ml, instant claim 7 would correspond to an ethyl alcohol to powder mass ratio in the range of 12.1-789%. Fang’s amounts would correspond to a mass ratio of ethanol to powder of 59.2% (in step (a), 100 to 500 ml of ethyl alcohol, 50 to 650 g of an ultra-fine raw metal). Therefore, the ratio of ethanol to powder disclosed by Fang would fall within the range that corresponds to the amounts of instant claim 7. 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. Fang’s amounts for the powder, the binder, and water do not cover the binder to powder and water to powder ratios that correspond to claim 7.
Yu discloses a titanium based composite powder and preparation method thereof as well as in-situ reinforced titanium based composite coating and preparation method thereof in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Yu discloses that the powder, dispersant and binder are mixed and ball milled to obtain a slurry; spray drying the slurry to obtain Ti-B4C-M spherical composite powder, Para[0011]. Yu also discloses that the dispersant is selected from one or more of absolute ethanol, acetone, ethylene glycol, n-propanol and water; the binder is selected from one or more of a mixture of rosin and turpentine, polyvinyl alcohol, polyethylene glycol and sodium silicate, Para[0016-0019]. Yu also discloses that the absolute ethanol is 90% of the powder mass (in step (a), 100 to 500 ml of ethyl alcohol, 50 to 650 g of an ultra-fine raw metal), Para[00110], and the mass ratio of the binder to the powder is 10%-20% (50 to 650 g of an ultra-fine raw metal, and 16 to 150 ml of PVP), Para[0019].
Assuming the densities which are well known to one of ordinary skill in the art of ethyl alcohol: 0.789 g/ml, water: 1.0 g/ml, and PVP: 1.25 g/ml, the amounts of powder, binder, and ethyl alcohol claimed in instant claim 7 would correspond to an ethyl alcohol to powder mass ratio in the range of 12.1-789% and a binder to powder mass ratio of 3.07-375%. The mass ratios for ethyl alcohol to powder and binder to powder disclosed by Yu would fall within the ratios that correspond to the amounts claimed in claim 7. 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. Yu discloses that the purpose of the present invention is to provide a titanium-based composite powder and a preparation method thereof, Para[0010]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the mass ratios of ethanol to powder and binder to powder as taught by Yu in the method of Fang in order to provide a titanium-based composite powder.
Xia discloses methods of producing a titanium alloy product in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Xia teaches that as a general guideline a mass ratio of water to feed powder can be about 0.5:1 to 3:1, 0.8:1 to 1.5:1, and in some cases about 1:1 (50 to 650 g of an ultra-fine raw metal with respect to 1 L of water), Pg[10].
Assuming the density which is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art of water: 1.0 g/ml, the amounts of powder and water claimed in instant claim 7 would correspond to a water to powder mass ratio in the range of 154-2000%. The mass ratio of water to powder disclosed by Xia would correspond to a range of 50%-300%. Therefore, the mass ratio for water to powder disclosed by Xia would overlap with the range that corresponds to the amounts of water and powder of claim 7. 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. Xia teaches that the solid state alloying process can be used to form titanium alloy powders alloyed with one or more elements, Pg[2]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the water to powder ratio of Xia in the method of Fang and Yu in order to form a titanium alloy powder.
Thus, Fang in view of Yu and Xia teaches all limitations of claim 7.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20170007359A (machine translation) of Fang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR101632381B1 (machine translation) of Han and WO2018051104A1 of Mellor.
Regarding Claim 8, while Fang teaches spray drying, Fang does not disclose a vacuum pressure or a pneumatic spraying pressure.
Han discloses a method of producing an iron-based metal parts using iron-based metal powder granules in a similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Han teaches spray drying and spraying with a nozzle in a vacuum spray drying chamber, Para[0033]. Han also discloses a vacuum pressure of 0 ~ 20 mmHg (a chamber maintained at a vacuum of 10-1 torr or less to form granular powder), Para[0047]. This is equivalent to 0-20 torr. The claimed pressure falls within this range. 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. Han teaches that as a result, it was found that the particles of the metal powder (P) of 5 ~ 30um gathered to become an average particle of 100 ~ 200um. That is, it was confirmed that the granular powder (G) was formed, Para[0141].
Mellor discloses a composite powder and method of producing composite powder in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Mellor discloses a spray granulation method with a precursor powder and that the liquid suspension was sprayed into the chamber at a spraying pressure of 3 bar (spray drying is performed by intermittently spraying the slurry at a pneumatic pressure of 2 to 8 kg/cm2), Pg[6]. This is equivalent to 3.06 kg/cm2. This falls within the claimed range. 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. Mellor teaches that these parameters were selected to provide a mean precursor particle size within the range of 100 and 150 micrometres, Pg[6].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the vacuum pressure of Han and the spray pressure of Mellor in the spray drying process of Fang in order to achieve granular powder within the desired size range. Thus, Fang in view of Han and Mellor teaches all limitations of claim 8.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20170007359A (machine translation) of Fang as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of EP1029895A2 of Verdier.
Regarding Claim 10, while Fang teaches granulating powders to a certain size range, Fang does not specifically teach re-granulating the particles that do not fall within the range.
Verdier discloses a composition containing a binder for a PIM-process in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Verdier discloses that a further advantage of a PEG/PVB binder system according to the invention is that rejected green products and castings can be regranulated without further working and can then be reprocessed (the granular powder that is outside the particle size range after granulation is re-granulated), Para[0015]. Verdier teaches that it is an object of the invention to provide a binder system which can be used in a PIM process or in a powder extrusion process, which can also be well injection-moulded or extruded, and in which the binder system gives the green product a high green strength, while the binder system can partially be removed from a green product in an aqueous solution. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to re-granulate the powder that does not fall within the desired physical characteristics as taught by Verdier in the method of Fang in order to be able to remove the binder form the powder and achieve high green strength. Thus, Fang in view of Verdier cover all limitations of claim 10.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20170007359A (machine translation) of Fang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR20180102691A (machine translation) of Zhang.
Regarding Claim 11, Fang does not disclose MgO or K2O as a separating agent.
Zhang discloses a method for deoxygenating metal having oxygen dissolved in solid solution state in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Zhang discloses that a separating agent can help avoid agglomeration of the metal powder during deoxygenation. Suitable particulate separating agents include, but are not limited to, MgO, CaO, BaO, and the like, and combinations thereof (the separating agent includes MgO powder, K20 powder, or a mixture thereof), Para[0073]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include MgO as a separating agent, as taught by Zhang, in the method of Fang in order to avoid agglomeration of the metal powder during deoxygenation. Thus, Fang in view of Zhang teaches all limitations of claim 11.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20170007359A (machine translation) of Fang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR100725209B1 (machine translation) of Park, WO9738811A1 of Stephenson, and WO0200569A2 of Schofalvi.
Regarding Claim 12, Fang teaches that the degreasing temperature may be about 50 ℃ to about 400 ℃ (a degreasing temperature is 100 to 500 °C), Para[0051]. This overlaps with the claimed range. 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. Fang does not disclose an initial vacuum pressure or a two-stage temperature increase rate.
Park teaches powder injection molding method for forming article comprising titanium and titanium coating method in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Park discloses degreasing in a vacuum state (vacuum degree: 10-3 to 10-6 atmospheres) (a degreasing initial vacuum degree is 10-6 to 10-2 torr), Para[0006]. This corresponds to 0.0076 to 7.6 torr which overlaps with the claimed range. 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. Park discloses that the object of the present invention is to provide a method of manufacturing a titanium formed body having improved mechanical performance by applying a titanium hydride powder to an injection molding method The present invention provides a titanium coating method for forming a titanium coating layer having excellent mechanical properties by using titanium hydride as a coating material, Para[0006]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the initial vacuum state of Park in the degreasing method of Fang in order to form a titanium body having improved mechanical performance.
Stephenson discloses injection molding processes, especially metal injection molding processes in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Stephenson discloses a two stage thermal debinding and sintering schedule (temperature increase rate consists of two stages), Pg[9]. Stephenson teaches a first rate of 2 °C/min (2 to 8 °C/min), Table[5]. This falls within the claimed range. 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. Stephenson teaches that according to one aspect of the present invention a method of producing a sintered component comprises molding a compact which incorporates a binder, substantially removing the binder from the compact, and sintering the resulting debound compact, Pg[3]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use two stage heating with a first heating rate in the claimed range during degreasing as taught by Stephenson in the method of Fang in order to substantially remove the binder from powder. While Stephenson discloses two stage heating with a first rate in the claimed range, Stephenson does not disclose a heating rate that overlaps with the second claimed range.
Schofalvi teaches a binder system and method for particulate material in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Schofalvi teaches a multi-stage debinding cycle with a final heating rate of 16.7 °C/min (9 to 20 °C/min), Pg[37]. This falls within the claimed range. 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. Schofalvi teaches that the binder compositions provide a green body having high strength, and decompose thermally in a clean, substantially ash-free burnout to yield simple. environmentally safe decomposition products, Pg[1]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the final heating rate of Schofalvi in the degreasing process of Fang in view of Park and Stephenson in order to provide high green strength and to cleanly decompose of the binder.
Thus, Fang in view of Park, Stephenson and Schofalvi teach all limitations of claim 12.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20170007359A (machine translation) of Fang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO9738811A1 of Stephenson and WO2021188215A1 of Xia.
Regarding Claim 14, Fang discloses sintering may be about 700 to 900 ℃ (in step (d), a sintering temperature is 600 °C to 1500 °C) and that sintering may also be carried out for about 1 second to about 100 hours (a sintering holding time is 1 min to 50 h), Para[0053]. Fang does not specifically teach sintering in two stages.
Stephenson discloses a two stage thermal debinding and sintering schedule (a sintering temperature increase rate consists of two stages), Pg[9]. Stephenson teaches a first rate of 5 °C/min (2 to 8 °C/min), Table[5]. This falls within the claimed range. 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. Stephenson teaches that according to one aspect of the present invention a method of producing a sintered component comprises molding a compact which incorporates a binder, substantially removing the binder from the compact, and sintering the resulting debound compact, Pg[3]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use two stage heating with a first heating rate in the claimed range during sintering as taught by Stephenson in the method of Fang in order to substantially remove the binder from powder. While Stephenson discloses two stage heating with a first rate in the claimed range, Stephenson does not disclose a heating rate that overlaps with the second claimed range.
Xia discloses methods of producing a titanium alloy product in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Xia discloses that the powder was heated up (10 °C/min) (9 to 20 °C/min) to about 1200 °C for about 4 hours to partially sinter the powder and to form an agglomerated composite particle powder, Pg[21]. This falls within the claimed range. 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. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the sinter heating rate taught by Xia in the method of Fang in view of Stephenson in order to partially sinter the powder and form an agglomerated composite particle powder.
Thus, Fang in view of Stephenson and Xia teach all limitations of claim 14.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20170007359A (machine translation) of Fang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR102037349B1 (machine translation) of Kang.
Regarding Claim 18, Fang does not specifically teach a Ca or Mg gas as the deoxidizer.
Kang teaches deoxidation apparatus for manufacturing titanium powder in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Kang discloses that the steam introduced into the steam inlet may include calcium gas (in step (e), the deoxidizer is Ca gas, Mg gas, or a combination thereof), Para[0011]. Kang discloses that in the deoxidation apparatus for producing titanium powder according to an embodiment of the present invention, the deoxidation efficiency may be increased by activating the flow of the titanium powder to produce a titanium powder having a lower oxygen content, Para[0021]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Ca gas as the deoxidizer, as taught by Kang, in the method of Fang in order to increase deoxidation efficiency and produce titanium powder having a lower oxygen content. Thus, Fang in view of Kang cover all limitations of claim 18.
Claims 19, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20170007359A (machine translation) of Fang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR101275054B1 (machine translation) of Lim.
Regarding Claim 19, Fang does not specifically teach a deoxidation initial vacuum degree.
Lim discloses a method of manufacturing titanium alloy powder with low oxygen concentration in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Lim teaches that deoxidation was carried out under the conditions of Table 1 under a vacuum of 1 x 10 -5 torr (in step (e), a deoxidation initial vacuum degree is 10-6 to 10-2 torr), Para[0039]. This falls within the claimed range. 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. Lim teaches that the present invention relates to a method for producing a titanium alloy powder such as Ti-6Al-4V, and more particularly to a method for producing a titanium oxide powder having an oxygen content of 2,000 ppm or less, Para[0001]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the vacuum condition during deoxidation, as taught by Lim, in the method of Fang in order to produce a titanium alloy powder with low oxygen content. Thus, Fang in view of Lim covers all limitations of claim 19.
Regarding Claim 22, Fang teaches leaching out of dilute HCl, Para[0074].Fang does not specifically use the term pickled as recited in the instant claim.
Lim discloses that washing can be carried out by one or more of the following methods: water washing and acid washing. For pickling, approximately 10% by weight HCl solution may be used (in step (f), the deoxidized spherical metal powder is pickled and washed with water in dilute hydrochloric acid, dilute sulfuric acid, or a mixture thereof to remove remaining oxides). In order to obtain a hypoxic titanium alloy powder, it is more preferable to perform water washing and acid washing repeatedly several times, Para[0029]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pickle and wash the metal with a dilute hydrochloric acid, as taught by Lim, in the method of Fang in order to obtain a hypoxic titanium alloy powder. Thus, Fang in view of Lim teaches all limitations of claim 22.
Regarding Claim 23, Fang does not disclose a drying temperature or time.
Lim teaches that the drying can be carried out in various ways, but it is more preferable to carry out the drying in a vacuum drying method in order to obtain a low-oxygen titanium alloy powder. Vacuum drying can be carried out at about 60 °C for about 2 hours (in step (f), the spherical metal powder from which the separating agent and oxide have been removed is dried at 50 to 150 °C and a drying time is 1 min to 5 h), Para[0030]. These values fall within the claimed ranges. 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. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the drying temperature and time taught by Lim in the method of Fang in order to obtain a low-oxygen titanium alloy powder. Thus, Fang in view of Lim teaches all limitations of claim 23.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BENJAMIN STILES whose telephone number is (571)272-0598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/JACOB BENJAMIN STILES/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/VANESSA T. LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
