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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in figure 13, the rail or the water injector moving unit (520) should have been labeled (510) to be consistent with the label designation presented in the specification page 20, para [0096]). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are also objected to because figures 2 and 3 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are further objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the melter recited in the independent claims 1 and 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Note in figure 4 to which claims 1 and 5 appear to be directed to does not appear to show any distinct melter or a melting chamber besides the induction heating coil 200. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the way in which the first line is presented. It is suggested to replace “The disclosure is to provide an injection device that” with “An objective of the present disclosure is to provide an injection device that”. 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
Claim 6 recites the limitation “some of gas that is supplied to the gas injector is diverted and supplied to the molten metal flowing from the induction coil to the guide" in lines 13 -14. It is noted that the claim as written does not provide any clear suggestion as to how gas is supplied to the gas injector to the extent of allowing a portion to be diverted. Furthermore, claim 6, line 7, provides the gas injector as being disposed in the guide and as such all the gas supplied to the injector passes through the guide, and because both the molten metal and the gas pass through the guide, all the gas would be supplied to the molten metal and thereby rendering the claimed limitation redundant. Therefore, the limitation as written does not further limit claims. For prosecution purposes said limitation is not accorded any substantial patentable weight in the instant office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 11 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, in line 10, it is suggested to replace “wherein the first injector and the second injector are configured in a variable” with --wherein the first injector and the second injector are configured as a variable--.
In claim 1 at the beginning of line 26, “spherical fine power” should be replaced with --spherical fine powder--.
In claim 5, lines 7, “a second injector disposed close to the firs injector” should be
replaced with -- a second injector disposed close to the first injector--.
In claim 5 at the beginning of line 23, “spherical fine power” should be replaced with --spherical fine powder--.
In claim 11, it is suggested to replace “further comprising a gas barrier installed in the chamber to at least surround molten metal flowing from the induction coil to the guide, wherein some of gas that is supplied to the gas injector is diverted and supplied into the gas barrier” with -- further comprising a gas barrier installed in the chamber to at least surround the induction coil and the molten metal flowing to the guide, wherein a branch of a gas supply line to the gas injector is diverted and supplied into the gas barrier--.
In claim 15, lines 5-7, it suggested to replace “wherein some of gas that is
supplied to the gas injector is diverted and supplied into the first chamber, and pressure of the first chamber is higher than pressure of the second chamber” with -- wherein a branch line of a gas supply line to the gas injector is diverted and supplied into the first chamber, and pressure of the first chamber is higher than pressure of the second chamber--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 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.
Claims 1 and 5, each recites the limitation "a metal melter configured to heat and melt a metal bar by surrounding the metal bar with an induction coil and configured to continuously supply the metal bar without an orifice" in lines 1-5. Both claims are deemed indefinite for the following reasons: (i) It is unclear from the way the limitation is written if the metal melter is a melting vessel or chamber (ii) it is unclear if the metal bar, which in this instant case is the object to be melted is disposed within the melter and surrounded by the induction coil, because it is inconceivable from the way the limitation is written how the metal bar would be surrounded by the induction coil which is the heating means (i.e. it is inconceivable to bring the metal bar in direct contact with the induction coil without any containment vessel being provided the hold the melt generated during melting or the metal bar by the induction coil), (iii) it is unclear how the metal bar is continuously supplied, and also it is unclear what containment vessel is the metal bar supplied into. Furthermore, it is unclear what the limitation “continuously supply the metal bar without an orifice” means because the plain definition of the word orifice is a tube or a pipe, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not expect a metal bar to be supplied into a melter or a melting vessel via an orifice. The claim is rendered indefinite since the metes and bounds are unascertainable.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "and a second injector disposed under the first injector at a distance at which the molten metal drops by predicting time for which a melting point of the molten metal is reached" in lines 7-9. In particular, it is unclear how the time for reaching the melting point is predicted since no means or structure is recited in the claim for making said prediction; and particularly since no clear direction is given in the specification as to how said prediction is made; thereby rendering the scope of the claim indefinite.
Claims 1 and 5,each recites either one or both phrases: “variable type” or “amorphous type”. These claims are indefinite, in that the addition of the word "type" to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite because it was unclear what "type" was intended to convey Also see MPEP 2173.05(b).III.E.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "wherein the first injector and the second injector
are configured in a variable type such that heights thereof can be adjusted in
accordance with the melting point of the molten metal" in lines 10-12. It is unclear what
the term “heights thereof” means or in other words what reference distances/relative
distances are being referred to by the term “height”. The term height in this instant case is deemed vague, thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable.
Claims 1 and 5, each recites the limitation "the melting point of the molten metal”. It is unclear what this limitation is intended to convey " in that melting point is conventionally defined as the specific temperature at which a solid changed to liquid. Therefore, a material or matter already in molten state cannot be defined by a melting point, thereby rendering the scope of the claim indefinite.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "an induction coil disposed in the chamber and configured to melt a metal bar" in lines 3-4 without referencing any clear connection between the metal bar and the chamber, and how the heat generated by the induction coil is brought in contact with the metal bar to cause it to melt, the claim therefore appears incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01.
In claim 6, It is unclear what the limitation “molten metal melted by the induction coil” means, in that a material or matter already in molten state does not require melting by an induction coil, thereby rendering the scope of the claim indefinite.
Claims 6-8 and 10, each recites the limitation “the molten metal flowing from the induction coil”, it is unclear what this limitation means, in that neither each of the claims nor the specification suggests or describes the induction coil to be designed as a molten metal containing conduit as the limitation appears to suggest to allow molten metal to flow therefrom. The claims are therefore deemed indefinite, and their metes and bounds are unascertainable. For prosecution purposes the Examiner interprets the molten metal as flowing from the chamber.
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, 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 6, 8-10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (KR102072054 or KR20190092175 (IDS), also see The Espacenet English Machine Translation Version “EEMTV”) in view of Yang et al. (KR102074861 (IDS) , also see The Espacenet English Machine Translation Version “EEMTV”)
Regarding claim 6, Song et al. teaches a device (500, see figure 1 and “EEMTV” : para [0026]-[0027], [0066]) for manufacturing metallic powder (see “EEMTV”: para [0001], [0005], [0066]), the device comprising: a chamber (100, see figure 1 and “EEMTV”: para [0027] , [0066]); an induction coil (120, see figure 1 and “EEMTV”: para [0027] , [0066]) disposed in the chamber and configured to melt a metal bar or metal raw material to from a molten metal (2, see figure 1 and “EEMTV”: para [0017], [0029]-[0030], [0033],[0066]) ; a guide (i.e. tubular orifice 111 of the crucible 110, see figure 1 and “EEMTV”: para [0027]-[0033], [0066]) having a hole through which molten metal melted by the induction coil passes (see figure 1), and configured to guide the molten metal (see figure 1); a gas injector (200, see figure 1, and “EEMTV”: para [0033]-[0038], [0066]) disposed at the guide and configured to inject gas toward the molten metal that has passed through the hole (see figure 1 and “EEMTV”: para [0033]-[0038], [0066]); and a water injector (330,& 320 see figure 1 and “EEMTV”: para [0036]-[0049], [0066]) configured to inject water at room temperature or less (i.e., the spray water is derived from a cooled water thus meeting the claimed water at room temperature or less) at a downstream side (see figure 1) further than the gas injector (200) in a flow direction of the molten metal (see figure 1), wherein amorphous spherical metallic powder (see EEMTV: para [0001], [0015]) is manufactured after the molten metal passes through the gas injector (200) and the water injector (330 & 320).
Song et al. fails to teach a device for manufacturing metallic powder by using the gas injector to inject gas at 300℃ or more toward the molten metal that
has passed through the hole.
Yang et al. teaches a device for manufacturing metallic powder that comprises gas a heating unit (122, see Yang et al. , figures 1 and 2 and EEMTV: para [0033]-[0034]) to heat gas to be injected a gas injector (123, see Yang et al. , figures 1 and 2 and EEMTV: para [0033]-[0034]) toward the molten metal to a temperature of about 25°C to 750°C (which overlaps with the claimed range or 300°C or more, and thus meets the claimed limitation), with the benefit of producing fine powder (see EEMTV: para [0033]-[0034]).
It would have been obvious to oner of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the metallic powder manufacturing device of Song et al. to provide a heating unit for heating the gas to be injected a gas injector towards the molten metal as exemplified by Yang et al. to provide the benefit of producing fine
powder.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Song et al. in view of Yang et al. teaches a device for manufacturing metallic powder that comprises a heating unit (122, see Yang et al. , figures 1 and 2 and EEMTV: para [0033]-[0034]) to heat gas to be injected a gas injector (123, see Yang et al. , figures 1 and 2 and EEMTV: para [0033]-[0034]) toward the molten metal to a temperature of about 25°C to 750°C (which overlaps with the claimed range of 300°C to 400°C more, and thus meets the claimed limitation) and said gas injected at a pressurized state of about 1 bar to 150 bar (see Yang et al. , EEMTV: para [0035], (which overlaps with the claimed range of 60bar to 100 bar, and thus meets the claimed limitation). Though Song et al. in view of Yang et al. does not explicitly mention a pressurizer as claimed, however, there mere fact that the gas is injected at a
pressurized states as described in Yang et al. EEMTV: para [0035], adequately suggest the presence of a pressurizer, and therefore the disclosure of Song et al. and Yang et al. as combined encompasses the scope of the claims.
Regarding claims 10 and 16, Song et al. in view of Yang et al. teaches a device for manufacturing metallic powder that comprises a liquid injector (134, see Yang et al. figure 1-3 and EEMTV: para [0012], [0016],[0017] and [0040]-[0053]) for injecting liquid in the form cooled water or water and coolant (i.e., liquid nitrogen or liquid argon see Yang et al. EEMTV: [0037],) mixture (thus meets the claim temperature of 5°C or less) at a pressure of about 1 bar to 1500 bar (which overlaps with the claimed range of 100 bar to 1000 bar, and thus meets the claimed limitation, see Sang et al. EEMTV: para [0044]); wherein the water injector (134, see Yang et al. figures 1-3 and EEMTV: para [0012], [0016],[0017] and [0040]-[0053]) can be moved in the flow direction of the molten metal by a moving unit (132, see Yang et al. figure 3 and EEMTV: para [0043]). Song et al. and Yang et al. as combined, therefore encompasses the scope of the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Song et al. and Yang et al. either considered individually or as combined differs from the instant claimed invention by failing to teach and/or adequately suggest:
As in claim 11: a composite injection device for manufacturing ultrafine metallic powder, further comprising a gas barrier installed in the chamber to at least surround the induction coil and the molten metal flowing to the guide, wherein a branch of a gas supply line to the gas injector is diverted and supplied into the gas barrier.
As in claim 15: a composite injection device for manufacturing ultrafine metallic powder, further comprising a branch line of a gas supply line to the gas injector is diverted and supplied into the first chamber, and pressure of the first chamber is higher than pressure of the second chamber.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Reed et al. (US 3,752,611), Güther et al. (US 12,226,833), Gerkings et al. (US 10,946,449) and Tsao et al. (US 6,773,246) are alco cited in PTO-
892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ABOAGYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8165. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-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.
/M.A/ Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JESSEE R ROE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights