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 .
This is the initial Office action based on application number 19/090870 filed March 26, 2025. Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 7-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 22, 2026.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dassel et al. (US 2018/0051373).
Regarding claim 1: Dassel et al. discloses a particulate coating reactor (600) having a reaction vessel (30) which is a chamber with a large volume, a gas supply system (70) having control elements (76, 82) which are valves, through which the gas supply system (70) introduces one or more predetermined gasses into the vessel (30), a gas recovery system (110) including an exhaust valve (118) which discharges gas from the vessel (30), one or more thermal energy emitting devices (14) for heating inside the vessel (30), a plurality of pans (12a-12n) accommodated in the vessel (30) and configured to hold the particulate material in fluidized beds (20a-n) at a predetermined depth (pars. 105-109, 120-121, 171, 290, figures 1, 3, 6). Dassel et al. fails to explicitly disclose the exact volume of the vessel (30), the gap size between adjacent trays, or the conductance between the trays.
However, Dassel et al. does teach that the volume of the chamber (30), particularly the upper chamber (33), relative to the size of the pans (12) is an important process variable which can be defined as between 5:1- 100:1 relative to the displacement volume of the pans (12) which itself is defined by the overall diameter of the pans (12) which can be anywhere between 1 inch and 120 inches and the displacement distance which can be anywhere between 0.01 inches to 2 inches, indicating that the chamber volume being between 10L and 100L is well within the range of these related parameters, as well as being an art recognized result effective variable (par. 123, 144, 181). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to experiment and optimize the chamber volume to be between 10 and 100 liters because as discussed above this range falls within the operating procedure of the other various parameters (pars. 123, 144, 181), because simple changes in size are not considered be a patentable advance, and because routine optimization of a result effective variable is not considered to be a patentable advance (Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215).
Dassel et al. fails to explicitly disclose the gaps between the adjacent pans (12a-12n). However, Dassel et al. does teach that the pans can have any shape, size and geometric configuration, giving a range of sizes and shapes (par. 123), and that this required pan (12) size is a result effective variable which can be calculated by other requirements (par. 205), while the volume of the pans (12a-12n) relative to the volume of the chamber is another important variable which needs to be considered and ideally maintained constant during oscillatory cycling of the pans (12a-12n) (par. 292). All of this considered, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to experiment with pan sizes, pan amounts, pan volume, and related chamber volume such that the gaps between the pans would be between 5mm and 200mm because simple changes in size and shape are not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04) and because routine experimentation and optimization of result effective variables (pan size and chamber size, which are said to be directly related) is not considered to be a patentable advance (Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215).
Dassel et al. does not explicitly disclose anything about the conductance between the trays, however, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (MPEP § 2114) and In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2112.01). In the instant case, the conductance is considered to be solely a property of fluid flow through the chamber and therefore is solely dependent on the structure of the claims which Dassel et al. reads on.
Regarding claims 2-3: Dassel et al. discloses that the particles treated can have diameters of anywhere from 1-100 microns (par. 150), or possibly even less than 1 micron (par. 137), and teaches that the height of the perimeter wall (12c) of the pans (12) can be any number of different heights and gives examples in the range of 0.25 inches to 20 inches (pars. 248-250) which equates to a minimum of 6mm, but also states that the fluidized bed (20) can be as shallow as 0.1 inches which is 3mm (par. 218), and since Dassel et al. teaches that the perimeter wall (12c) can either be the same height, taller than or lower than the depth of the fluidized bed (20) (par. 120-122), the height of the wall (12c) in various embodiments would be less than 5mm. Regardless, Dassel et al. teaches that these heights are all result effective variables (pars 120-122, 248-250) and as such it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to experiment and optimize the pan (12) depth to less than 5mm or less than 10mm because routine experimentation and optimization of result effective variables are not considered to be a patentable advance (Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215).
Regarding claim 5: Dassel et al. discloses that a thermally reflective material (18) can be included as part of the vessel (30) or pan (12), and can comprise gold (par. 177).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dassel et al. as applied to claims 1-3 and 5 above, and further in view of Tolle et al. (US 2016/0362783).
Regarding claim 4: Dassel et al. discloses that the pan (12) includes materials or coatings that are resilient in order to resist abrasion or erosion, reduce product buildup and reduce the likelihood of contamination, teaching that it can comprise 99.9% pure silicon with uniform thickness, suggesting that the surface roughness is meant to be extremely low (pars. 124-126), however Dassel et al. fails to explicitly disclose any specific surface roughness value. However, Tolle et al. discloses a similar reaction vessel with a substrate holding tray (16) and teaches that the material of the tray can be partially or entirely smoothed, with a surface roughness Ra of less than 0.4 microns (par. 20). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pan with a roughness Ra of 0.1 microns or less as taught by Tolle et al. because Tolle et al. teaches that this helps prevent unwanted reactions (par. 20) which Dassel et al. also desires (pars. 124-126), and because both Dassel et al. and Tolle et al. show that roughness is a result effective variable that helps prevent unwanted reactions and material buildup, and optimization of result effective variables is not considered to be a patentable advance (Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dassel et al. as applied to claims 1-3 and 5 above, and further in view of Lin (CN 114381713, attached translation used for citation purposes).
Regarding claim 6: Dassel et al. discloses that the pan (12) includes coatings that are resilient in order to resist abrasion or erosion, reduce product buildup and reduce the likelihood of contamination (pars. 124-126) but fails to explicitly disclose that any of those coatings include fluorine. However, Lin discloses a similar powder coating reaction chamber (11), parts of which are coated with an anti-adhesive layer like Teflon to prevent the powder from adhering to side surfaces of the chamber (11), where Teflon includes fluorine (page 9). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a Teflon coating like that of Lin for parts of the pan (12) and/or vessel (30) of Dassel et al. because Lin teaches that this helps prevent particle adhesion (page 9) which Dassel et al. is also drawn to (pars. 124-126), and because Lin shows that Teflon is a functionally equivalent coating for the same purpose as that of Dassel et al. and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
8/21/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights