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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 12-18, 22, 27 and 28 of G. Larsen et al., US 16/880,275 (May 21, 2020) are pending. Claims 6-8 to the non-elected species stand withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b). Claims 1-4, 9, 12-18, 22, 27 and 28 are under examination on the merits and are rejected.
Election/Restrictions
Pursuant to the election of species requirement, Applicant elected the species of gold nanoparticles. Claims 1-4, 9, 12-18, 22, 27 and 28 read on the elected species. The elected species were searched and found unpatentable for the reasons discussed below in the § 103 rejection. Pursuant to MPEP § 803.02, the search was not extended to additional species. In view of cited art, the election of species requirement maintained in effect. Claims 6-8 are withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as not reading on the elected catalyst species. See, MPEP § 803.02.
Claim Interpretation
During examination, a claim must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2173.01(I); § 2111.01. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. MPEP § 2173.01(I).
Interpretation of the Claim 1 Term “plasmonic peak of the nanoparticles”
Claim 1 recites:
Claim 1 . . . exposing the first aqueous solution to at least one wavelength of light of the electromagnetic spectrum within 20% of the plasmonic peak of the nanoparticles . . .
The specification teaches that:
[0027] According to the UV-visible absorbance spectroscopy measurements, a distinctive peak emerges for the nanoparticles indicating a plasmonic peak.
[0028] In this regard, in one embodiment, the plasmonic peak of the nanoparticles may overlap the wavelength of light utilized for exposure of the aqueous solution.
Specification at page 9, [0027], [0028].
The art teaches that metal nanoparticles absorb light and have a particular [Symbol font/0x6C] max. See e.g., S. Link et al., 103 Journal of Chemical Physics B, 4212-4217 (1999) (“Link”). For example, Link teaches that Figure 2a shows the absorption spectra of four different size gold nanoparticles, where the plasmon absorption is clearly visible and its maximum red-shifts with increasing particle diameter ([Symbol font/0x6C] max) 517, 521, 533, and 575 nm for the 9, 22, 48, and 99 nm particles). Link at page 4213, col. 2.
The term “plasmonic peak” is therefore broadly and reasonably interpreted consistently with the specification as the wavelength absorption maximum ([Symbol font/0x6C] max) of the nanoparticles when exposed to electromagnetic radiation.
Interpretation of the Claim 1 Term “hydrogen isotope”
Claim 1 recites:
Claim 1 . . . providing a first aqueous solution comprising a mixture of hydrogen isotopes comprising a first hydrogen isotope and a second hydrogen isotope which is heavier than the first hydrogen isotope . . .
Hydrogen can be in the form of molecular hydrogen (dihydrogen or H2) or hydrogen atoms can be substituents in a larger molecule, for example water or H2O.
Note that hydrogen consists of three isotopes: (1) hydrogen or protium (P or H), (2) deuterium (D); and (3) tritium (T), with mass numbers 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The natural isotopic abundance of Hydrogen 1H is 99.985 % and that of 2H is 0.015 %. W. Meier-Augenstein et al., Stable Isotope Analysis: General Principles and Limitations, In Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science, 1-15 (2012). The radioactive isotope tritium is the least common hydrogen isotope and has been estimated to be on the order of 1 tritium atom (half-life of 12.32 years) for every 1017 protium atoms (one 3H in a quintillion of hydrogen atoms). Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Attachment A Physical and Chemical Properties of Tritium (1999).
Absent any guidance on this point in the specification to the contrary, the meaning of “hydrogen isotope” is broadly and reasonably interpreted as encompassing protium (P), deuterium (D), and tritium (T), whether in molecular form (e.g., H2 or D2) or as a substituent in a larger molecule (e.g., H2O, D2O, CH3CH2-OH, or CH3CH2OD).
Interpretation of the Claim 1 Term “metal nanoparticle”
Claim 1 recites “the nanoparticles being metal nanoparticles”. Previously, Applicant provided the following argument with respect to “metal nanoparticle” as an art-distinguishing feature.
Particularly, Applicant respectfully submits that paragraph [0051] of Sharma discloses a gold speckled silicate doped with gadolinium, which is readily distinguishable from a metal nanoparticle.
Reply filed on June 23, 2023 (emphasis added). The specification provides the following discussion with respect to “metal nanoparticle”:
[0022] The nanoparticles may not necessarily be limited by the present invention and may include any number of plasmonic materials that may be selected for plasmonic heating of the aqueous solution. In this regard, in one embodiment, the nanoparticles may include a metal nanoparticle, a metal oxide nanoparticle, a metal nitride nanoparticle, etc., or a mixture thereof. In one embodiment, the nanoparticles include metal nanoparticles. In this regard, in one embodiment, the nanoparticles may consist of metal. In one embodiment, the nanoparticles may include gold, silver, copper, palladium, platinum, nickel, titanium, chromium, germanium, tungsten, iridium, aluminum, indium, zirconium, zinc, gallium, etc., or any mixture or alloy thereof. In one particular embodiment, the nanoparticles may include at least gold nanoparticles.
The plain meaning of “metal” implies the metal in its elemental form (i.e., a metal in the zero-oxidation state). Further, the above portion of the specification clearly differentiates “metal nanoparticle” from, for example, “metal oxide nanoparticle”. The above specification portion also differentiates between “metal nanoparticle” and the “embodiment, the nanoparticles may consist of metal” (where the specification use of consist is interpreted as closed-ended. MPEP § 2111.03(II).
Upon consideration of the forgoing, the claim 1 term “the nanoparticles being metal nanoparticles” is broadly and reasonably interpreted, consistently with the specification, as nanoparticles that are an elemental metal (i.e., a metal in the zero-oxidation state).
Interpretation of the Claim 1 Term “the nanoparticles . . . in a concentration of from 1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10-7 M to 1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10-1 M”
Independent claim 1 recites the following limitation respecting the concentration of the nanoparticles “in solution”.
Claim 1 . . . the nanoparticles being present in the first aqueous solution in a concentration of from 1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10-7 M to 1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10-1 M . . .
In the Reply filed on June 26, 2024, Applicant argued that the following calculation:
1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10-7 M = 1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10-7 mol/L ➔
1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10-7 mol/L * (6.022 [Symbol font/0xB4] 1023 particles/mol) = 6.022 [Symbol font/0xB4] 1016 particles/L
requires that the claimed concentration be interpreted such that one mole of nanoparticles is Avogadro’s number (i.e., there are 6.022 [Symbol font/0xB4] 1023 discrete nanoparticles in one mole of nanoparticles); that is each elementary unit/entity is a nanoparticle (rather than, for example, an atom or molecule). In the art, mole is defined as the amount of substance of a system which contains as many elementary entities as there are atoms in 0.012 kilogram of carbon 12. J. Lorimer et al., Chemistry International, 6-10 (2010) (“Lorimer”) (see page 6, col. 1); Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary, pages 933-934 (16th ed., 2016, R.J. Larrañaga ed.) (defining “mole” and “molar”). Lorimer teaches that when the mole is used, the elementary entities must be specified and may be atoms, molecules, ions, electrons, other particles, or specified groups of particles.
For example, under Applicant’s interpretation one mole of gold nanoparticles is 6.022 [Symbol font/0xB4] 1023 individual nanoparticles (rather than this number of gold atoms), which number must be calculated/estimated, for example, by dividing by the total mass in solution by the average mass of a single nanoparticle.
Applicant’s interpretation is reasonable and consistent with the specification. See specification at page 10, [0029].
Interpretation of the Claim 1 Term “the nanoparticles being in solution”
Claim 1 recites “the nanoparticles being in solution”. In previous Office actions, this recitation was broadly and reasonably interpreted, consistently with the specification as the nanoparticles are in contact with the solution. This recitation is not interpreted as meaning the nanoparticles are dissolved in the solution.
Maintained 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
The § 103 Rejection
Claims 1-4, 9, 12-18, 22, 27 and 28 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over primary reference O. Neumann et al., 7 ACS Nano, 42-49 (2013) (“Neumann”) in view of B. Andreev, Separation of isotopes of biogenic elements in two-phase systems, 41-45 (Elsevier, 2006) (“Andreev”); A. Govorov et al., 2 nanotoday, 30-38 (2007) (“Govorov”); S. Link et al., 103 Journal of Chemical Physics B, 4212-4217 (1999) (“Link”); and J. Adleman et al., US 2008/0245430 (2008) (“the ‘430 publication” or “Adleman”).
O Neumann et al., 7 ACS Nano, 42-49 (2013) (“Neumann”)
Neumann teaches that submicrometer particles that can absorb light across the solar spectrum produce steam in a matter of seconds when dispersed in water and can achieve steam temperatures well above 100 ˚C in compact geometries. Neumann at page 42, col. 1. Neumann teaches that
Subwavelength metallic particles are intense absorbers of optical radiation, due to the collective oscillations of their delocalized conduction electrons, known as surface plasmons. When excited on resonance, energy not reradiated through light scattering is dissipated through Landau (nonradiative) damping, resulting in a dramatic rise in temperature in the nanometer-scale vicinity of the particle surface.
Neumann at page 42, col. 2 (emphasis added). Neumann teaches that light-absorbing nanoparticles, when appropriately illuminated, can reach temperatures well above the boiling point of liquid water, and once vapor is formed at the particle-liquid interface, the metallic nanoparticle is enveloped in a thin layer of steam with a reduced thermal conductance compared to the liquid. Neumann at page 42, col. 2 – page 43, col. 1. Neumann teaches that under continued illumination, the vapor volume increases, may possibly coalesce with other nanobubble complexes, and eventually moves to the liquid-air interface, where the vapor is released and the nanoparticles revert back to the solution to repeat the vaporization process. Neumann at page 43, col. 1 (see Figure 1). Thus, Neumann teaches that the process operates in fashion whereby each irradiated nanoparticle is enveloped in steam bubble that moves to the liquid surface and releases the steam then falls back into the bulk liquid where the process is repeated.
The nanoparticle surface serves as a boiling nucleation site. Vapor is formed around the nanoparticle surface, and the complex moves to the liquid-air interface, where the steam is released. New liquid is replenished at the hot nanoparticle surface, and the process is repeated.
Neumann at page 43, Figure 1; Id. at page 46, col. 1 (“Such a bubble with its encapsulated nanoparticle is therefore expected to rise to the surface of the liquid, where the steam will be released, with the nanoparticle subsequently sinking back into the liquid.”). One of ordinary skill can clearly infer cycle whereby one nanoparticle releases a steam parcel then falls back into the bulk liquid. The number (or concentration of nanoparticles) in the bulk liquid is thus a result-effective variable respecting the amount of steam generated.
Neumann teaches one of ordinary skill that the process is more efficient than conventional boiling-point distillation because the heat produced by nanoparticle irradiation is initially contained within compact geometries (Neumann at page 42, col. 1), thus the bulk liquid initial temperature rises only slowly (i.e. steam generation is accomplished without first heating the bulk liquid to boiling temperature):
While steam is produced virally instantaneously . . . As the nanoparticles move to the liquid-vapor interface, they exchange heat with the fluid, slightly raising the fluid temperature. During prolonged periods of illumination, the bulk temperature of the liquid gradually increases, ultimately resulting in conventional boiling of the fluid volume as a parallel effect. However, because there is no need to heat the fluid, the process is intrinsically more efficient than any vapor-producing method that requires volume heating of the fluid in macroscopic quantities, such as conventional thermal sources.
Neumann at page 43, col. 1.
Gold Nanoparticles Employed by Neumann
Neumann teaches that the Au/SiO2 nanoparticles were prepared by adding a very small gold colloid (1-3 nm diameter) to functionalized silica particles, whereby the gold colloid adsorbs to the amine groups on the silica surface, resulting in a silica nanoparticle covered with islands of gold colloid called the seed, then the Au/SiO2 nanoshells were grown by reacting HAuCl4 with the seeds. Neumann at page 48, col. 1.
Solar Steam Generation
Neumann teaches that to quantify the energy efficiency of solar steam generation, an open volume with an aqueous solution of particles (particle concentration not disclosed by Neumann) was irradiated using focused sunlight for a ten-minute duration, while both the mass loss due to steam generation and the temperature increase due to heating of the liquid were simultaneously monitored (Figure 3). Neumann at page 44, col. 2 (citing Figure 3). Per the Figure 3 graph, Neumann teaches that for a 25 mL volume of water, sunlight irradiation of SiO2/Au nanoshells resulted in about 6 g of water evaporating over 10 minutes. Neumann at page 45, Figure 3A. Neumann teaches that this experiment indicated that 82% of the solar energy absorbed by the nanoparticles contributes directly to steam generation. Neuman at page 45, col. 1. Neumann teaches that “the experiment clearly reveals that this energy is not squandered by heating the liquid, but results instead in the generation of water vapor”. Neumann at page 46, col. 1.
Distillation
Neumann teaches that:
Nanoparticle-enabled vaporization can also be applied to the separation of liquids, for a solar-based distillation process with distillate fractions significantly richer in the more volatile component than the case of distillation using a conventional thermal heat source (Figure 5).
Neumann at page 47, col. 1. Neumann teaches distillation of ethanol-water mixtures (20 mL) with Au nanoshell particle dispersants (2.5 [Symbol font/0xB4] 1010 particles/mL) using focused sunlight (a 26.67 cm [Symbol font/0xB4] 26.67 cm area Fresnel lens with a 44.5 cm focal length). Neumann at page 47, col. 1. The mixtures were initially contained in a 100 mL vessel with a vacuum jacket to prevent heat loss. Id. Vapors generated by solar illumination were cooled by a simple water-cooled condenser (Figure 5A), and 10 drops of each distillate fraction were collected. Id. The distillation samples were diluted (1/1000 in water) and analyzed by gas chromatography. Id. Neumann teaches that the mole% ethanol obtained in the distillate is consistently higher than that obtained by conventional flash distillation, most likely because the hot surfaces of the illuminated nanoparticles induce preferential vaporization of the more volatile component of the mixture. Neumann at page 47, col. 2. Neumann teaches that the nanoparticles employed are Au/SiO2 nanoshells. Neumann at page 43, col. 1; Id. at page 48, col. 1. Neumann teaches that:
The mole% ethanol obtained in the distillate is consistently higher than that obtained by conventional flash distillation, most likely because the hot surfaces of the illuminated nanoparticles induce preferential vaporization of the more volatile component of the mixture.
Neumann at page 47, col. 2 (emphasis added); Id. at page 42, cols. 1-2 (“Under these unusual nonequilibrium conditions, the water-ethanol azeotrope is breached and ethanol fractions approaching 99% are straightforwardly obtained”).
Differences between Neumann and Independent Claim 1
Neumann differs from claim 1 in that Neumann teaches a plasmonic heating of nanoparticles to generate steam from water and practically applied to separate a water ethanol mixture by distillation. On the other hand, the instant claims are directed to plasmonic heating to separate hydrogen isotopes based on boiling point difference between a compound comprising heavy hydrogen (D or T) and the same compound comprising only protium (H).
A second difference is that Neumann teaches distillation of ethanol-water mixtures (20 mL) with Au nanoshell particle dispersants (2.5 [Symbol font/0xB4] 1010 particles/mL). Neumann at page 47, col. 1. However, the instant independent claims require:
Claim 1 . . . the nanoparticles being present in the first aqueous solution in a concentration of from 1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10-7 M to 1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10-1 M . . .
That is, per Claim Interpretation above, the independent claims require at least 1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10-7 mol/L * (6.022 [Symbol font/0xB4] 1023 particles/mol) = 6.022 [Symbol font/0xB4] 1016 particles in one liter of solution (i.e., claimed range of at least 6.022 [Symbol font/0xB4] 1016 nanoparticles per ml of solution or more, versus Neuman’s much lower concentration of 2.5 1010 particles/ml). The ratio of the claimed range versus Neuman is as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claimed concentration of nanoparticles is therefore 2,408.8 times greater than the concentration of nanoparticles taught by Neumann. Thus, the claims differ from Neuman in that they require a higher concentration of nanoparticles to effect the distillation.
B. Andreev, Separation of isotopes of biogenic elements in two-phase systems, 41-45 (Elsevier, 2006) (“Andreev”)
Andreev teaches that water rectification is the simplest method of heavy water production because it offers a variety of apparent advantages such as limitless raw material resources and the possibility carry out the process on the simplest non-depiction principle, absence of corrosion, toxicity, inflammability and explosion hazards, freedom from chemicals. possibility of using natural and waste low-temperature heat sources, and simplicity of utilized apparatus. Andreev at page 41, lines 1-5. Andreev teaches the values of separation factor (αHD) versus temperature in Table 2.1. Andreev at page 41.
Andreev teaches that the boiling point of heavy water is 101.42 ˚C and the evaporation heat is 2-3 % higher than that of natural water. Andreev at page 42, lines 1-3.
Andreev teaches that in such water rectification, steam is used for rectification column heating. Andreev at page 42, last paragraph. Andreev teaches that a primary problem with water distillation/reactivation are the power costs associated with heating (steam formation). Andreev at page 42, lines 20 to end of page; Id. at page 43, lines 5-7.
A. Govorov et al., 2 nanotoday, 30-38 (2007) (“Govorov”)
Govorov teaches that crystalline NPs composed of various materials (such as Au, Ag, and semiconductors) can efficiently release heat under optical excitation by which the laser electric field strongly drives mobile carriers inside the nanocrystals, and the energy gained by carriers turns into heat. Govorov at page 31, col. 1. Then the heat diffuses away from the nanocrystal and leads to an elevated temperature of the surrounding medium. Id. Heat generation becomes especially strong in the case of metal NPs in the regime of plasmon resonance. Id.
S. Link et al., 103 Journal of Chemical Physics B, 4212-4217 (1999) (“Link”)
Link teaches that metal nanoparticles absorb light and have a particular [Symbol font/0x6C] max. See e.g., S. Link et al., 103 Journal of Chemical Physics B, 4212-4217 (1999) (“Link”). For example, Link teaches that Figure 2a shows the absorption spectra of four different size gold nanoparticles, where the plasmon absorption is clearly visible and its maximum red-shifts with increasing particle diameter ([Symbol font/0x6C] max) 517, 521, 533, and 575 nm for the 9, 22, 48, and 99 nm particles). Link at page 4213, col. 2.
J. Adleman et al., US 2008/0245430 (2008) (“the ‘430 publication” or “Adleman”)
Adleman is cited here for the teaching that when gold nanoparticles (15 nm) dispersed in water are exposed to light at 532 nm, heat is generated and rapid water evaporation occurs.
Adleman teaches a method for optically controlling fluid in a microchannel using a plasmon resonance in fixed arrays of nanoscale metal structures to produce localized evaporation of the fluid when illuminated by a stationary, low power laser. Adleman at page 1, [0004].
Adleman teaches Figs. 1 and 2, which corresponds to the following text of Adleman:
[0040] FIG. 1 is a simplified diagram of a microfluidic system including a channel over a base placed with an array of nanoparticles according to an embodiment of the present invention. This diagram is merely an example, which should not unduly limit the scope of the claims herein. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize many variations, alter natives, and modifications. As shown, the microfluidic system includes a channel structure 120 in micrometer scale. For example, the channel structures can be provided by casting from poly-dimethylsiloxane (PDMS) sealed to a base region 100. In one embodiment, a standard microchannel ranged in width from about 20 um to about 60 um and the heights all at about 5um can be used and sealed to a glass substrate with a prefabricated gold (Au) nanoparticle array (labeled as 130). Then the microchannel is filled (at least partially) with a working fluid. Unless noted otherwise, de-ionized water is used exclusively as the working fluid 110. The array of Au nanoparticles can be created by block-copolymer lithography. The particle size and inter-particle spacing distribution determines a plasmon resonance frequency associated with a strong absorbance band. Details of the fabrication as well as the characterization of the nanoparticle array can be found in a later section of the specification.
[0041] FIG. 2 is a simplified diagram of the microfluidic system showing a laser illuminating the array of nanoparticles . . . As shown, a laser beam 140, which is characterized by a determined frequency close to the plasmon resonant frequency, is focused either through the microchannel 120 or the base 100 on the nanoparticles 135 (which are just a portion of all nanoparticles 130 formed on the base 100), causing them to be heated. The heat from the nanoparticles 135 is transferred to the surrounding fluid. For example, A 532 nm laser, which is close to plasmon resonant frequency of the Au nanoparticle arrays, was focused through the glass substrate base onto the Au nanoparticles. The power at the sample is 14 mW and the diameter of the beam spot is about 10 um. When the laser beam is focused at the base of channel near the liquid-air interface, rapid evaporation from the free surface and re-condensation in the channel are observed. The nucleation of small condensed drops near the contact line causes the free surface to “wet forward slightly, and by scanning the sample relative to the beam, the fluid can be dragged along the channel. Of course, there can be other alternatives, variations, and modifications.
[0044] . . . Throughout these experiments, arrays with an average particle diameter of about 15 nm and an average inter-particle spacing of about 50 nm are used
Adleman at page 4, [0040], [0041], and [0044].
Adleman employs a laser at 532 nm, which pursuant to the specification is the plasmonic resonance of gold. Specification at page 9, [0027] (“[i]n particular, in one embodiment, a peak emerges at a wavelength of approximately 532 nm, which matches the localized surface plasmonic resonance of the pure gold nanoparticles”).
As such, Adleman teaches the nucleation of small condensed water drops as a result of evaporation of water induced by gold nanoparticle plasmonic heating at the plasmonic peak. Adleman’s teaching of laser energy at 532 nm (plasmonic peak of gold nanoparticles) exposure of the water (2H concentration of 0.015 %)1 in contact with the 15 nm diameter gold nanoparticles, whereby plasmonic heating causes water to evaporate.
In sum, Adleman teaches that when gold nanoparticles (15 nm) dispersed in water are exposed to light at 532 nm, heat is generated and rapid water evaporation occurs.
Obviousness Rationale for Claims 1-4, 9, 12-18, 27 and 28 over Neumann in view of Andreev, Govorov, Adleman and Link
Claims 1-4, 9, 12-18, 27 and 28 are obvious for the following reasons. One of ordinary skill is motivated rectify water to produce heavy water, as taught by Andreev by employing plasmonic heating of Au/SiO2 nanoparticles (silica nanoparticles covered with islands of gold colloid) as taught by Neuman or gold nanoparticles as taught by Adleman or Govorov at or near the plasmonic peak of gold (plasmonic resonance, about 532 nm), as taught by both Neumann and Govorov), to vaporize the water and condense the lower boiling P2O (P is protium, bp = 100 °C) vapor while concentrating the higher boiling D2O (bp = 101.42 ˚C) and/or T2O.
One of ordinary skill is so motivated because Neumann teaches that plasmonic nanoparticle heating is more energy efficient2 than traditional bulk thermal heating (Neumann at page 43, col. 1) and Andreev teaches that a primary problem with water distillation/reactivation are the power costs associated with heating (steam formation) (Andreev at page 42, lines 20 to end of page; Id. at page 43, lines 5-7).
One of ordinary skill has a reasonable expectation of success because Neumann teaches that (at least for ethanol-water mixtures) plasmonic distillation is more separation effective than traditional bulk thermal heating:
The mole% ethanol obtained in the distillate is consistently higher than that obtained by conventional flash distillation, most likely because the hot surfaces of the illuminated nanoparticles induce preferential vaporization of the more volatile component of the mixture.
Neumann at page 47, col. 2 (emphasis added); Id. at page 42, cols. 1-2 (“Under these unusual nonequilibrium conditions, the water-ethanol azeotrope is breached and ethanol fractions approaching 99% are straightforwardly obtained”). In any case, one of ordinary skill has no expectation that plasmonic water-isotope separation would be any less separation efficient than conventional bulk thermal heating to separate heavy water.
The following claim 1 limitation, respecting the concentration of the nanoparticles in solution is obvious for the following reasons:
Claims 1 . . . the nanoparticles being present in the first aqueous solution in a concentration of from 1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10-7 M to 1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10-1 M . . .
As discussed above, Neumann teaches distillation of ethanol-water mixtures (20 mL) with Au nanoshell particle dispersants (2.5 [Symbol font/0xB4] 1010 particles/ml) using focused sunlight (a 26.67 cm [Symbol font/0xB4] 26.67 cm area Fresnel lens with a 44.5 cm focal length). Neumann at page 47, col. 1. However, the claims require a lower range-end concentration of 1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10-7 mol/L * (6.022 [Symbol font/0xB4] 1023 particles/mol) = 6.022 [Symbol font/0xB4] 1016 particles in one liter of solution or 6.022 [Symbol font/0xB4] 1013 nanoparticles per ml of solution. In sum, the lower claimed concentration range end of nanoparticles is therefore 2,408.8 times greater than the concentration of nanoparticles taught by Neumann.
First, Neumann does not purport to disclose an optimized process. Neumann at page 48, col. 1. It is a well-settled tenet that one of ordinary skill in the art to develop workable or optimum ranges for result-effective parameters, where Applicant can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality (unexpected result) of the range. MPEP § 2144.05; see also, In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,276 (CCPA 1980); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) (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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (explaining that, in cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims, "the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range").3
The concentration (or number of nanoparticles) in a medium is clearly a result-effective variable4 suitable for modification/experimentation because the nanoparticle concentration is directly related to the bulk steam generation from the medium in which they are immersed. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B).
In this regard, Neumann teaches that plasmonic nanoparticle heating of water operates in fashion whereby each irradiated nanoparticle is enveloped in steam bubble that moves to the liquid surface and releases the steam then falls back into the bulk liquid where the process is repeated.
The nanoparticle surface serves as a boiling nucleation site. Vapor is formed around the nanoparticle surface, and the complex moves to the liquid-air interface, where the steam is released. New liquid is replenished at the hot nanoparticle surface, and the process is repeated.
Neumann at page 43, Figure 1; Id. at page 46, col. 1 (“Such a bubble with its encapsulated nanoparticle is therefore expected to rise to the surface of the liquid, where the steam will be released, with the nanoparticle subsequently sinking back into the liquid.”). One of ordinary skill can clearly infer cycle whereby one nanoparticle releases a steam parcel then falls back into the bulk liquid. The number (or concentration of nanoparticles) in the bulk liquid is thus a result-effective variable respecting the amount of steam generated; that is each nanoparticle repeatedly generates and releases a steam bubble.
One of ordinary skill is motivated to optimize the concentration of nanoparticles to within the claimed range to optimize the efficiency of the plasmonic distillation. MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A). For example, one of ordinary skill is motivated to increase Newman’s disclosed nanoparticle concentration of 2.5 [Symbol font/0xB4] 1010 particles/ml (to separate an ethanol water mixture) to the higher claimed range of 1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10-7 mol/L (i.e., 6.022 [Symbol font/0xB4] 1013 nanoparticles per ml of solution) to generate more steam flowing through the system so as to optimize the distillation efficiency. Another rational, motivating one of ordinary skill to increase the concentration of nanoparticles over that of Neumann, is that more efficient heavy water rectification may require more theoretical plates because the boiling points of water and heavy water are very close. The high theoretical plate requirement necessitates more steam/heat to drive the steam through, for example, a longer, packed-column rectification system. See Andreev at page 43 (discussing packing of columns for water rectification). Thus, one of ordinary skill is motivated to increase the nanoparticle concentration over that of Neumann, as previously stated, in order to separate the close-boiling water isotopes so as to optimize the distillation efficiency. This is a prima facie case subject to Applicant’s rebuttal.
Here, the specification provides no evidence of criticality with respect to concentration of nanoparticles employed. The most relevant specification portion is cited below:
[0029] The solution may contain nanoparticles as disclosed herein in an appropriate concentration for achieving the desired separation. For instance, in one embodiment, the concentration may be 1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10-7 M or more, such as 1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10-6 M or more, such as 1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10-5 M or more, such as 1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10-4 M or more, such as 1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10-3 M or more to 1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10 M or less, such as 1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10-1 M or less, such as 1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10-2 M or less, such as 1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10-3 M or less. However, it should be understood that the present invention is not necessarily limited by the concentration of the nanoparticles.
Specification at page 19, [0029] (emphasis added). The specification provides three working Examples conducted using gold nanoparticles dispersed in water to provide a condensate with a very small increases (ppm levels) in deuterium concentration. Specification at pages 13-14. For instance, in Example 1, specification Fig. 1 shows enrichment in sample 1’s deuterium content, over control, of about 152.35 ppm versus 152.70 ppm (about 0.35 ppm deuterium enrichment). Specification at pages 13-14. However, none of the specification working examples disclose the concentration of nanoparticles employed. In sum, the specification evidences no criticality with respect to the claimed concentration range of “of from 1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10-7 M to 1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10-1 M” nor has Applicant proffered evidence in support of criticality.
Respecting the claim 1 and 27 particle dimension limitations of:
1. . . nanoparticles having an average surface area of from 0.1 m2/g to 100 m2/g . . . the metal nanoparticles having an average diameter of from 10 nm to 75 nm . . .
27. The method of claim 1, wherein the metal nanoparticles have an average diameter of from 10 nm to 50 nm and an average surface area of from 0.15 m2/g to 40 m2/g.
Neumann does not disclose the nanoparticle surface area or diameter. 5 But Adleman teaches that when gold nanoparticles (15 nm) dispersed in water are exposed to light at 532 nm, heat is generated and rapid water evaporation occurs. Adleman’s gold nanoparticle fall within the claim 1 and 27 diameter range. The total nanoparticle “average surface area” (per claims 1 and 27) is the number of nanoparticle’s multiplied by the surface area of each nanoparticle. As discussed above, one of ordinary skill is motivated to employ Adleman’s 15 nm gold nanoparticles in the above-proposed rectification of water. And for the same reasons discussed above, one of ordinary skill is motivated to optimize or develop workable nanoparticle concentrations (i.e., number of nanoparticles) within the claim 1 range “of from 1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10-7 M to 1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10-1 M”, which at the same time, is optimization of the total nanoparticle average surface area within the narrowest claim 27 range of “0.15 m2/g to 40 m2/g”. As discussed in more detail above, the concentration (or number of nanoparticles) in a medium is a result-effective variable that one of ordinary skill is motivated to optimize upon adapting Neumann’s teachings to the rectification of water. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A) (citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) ("[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”)).
Finally, in practice of the above-proposed water distillation, the higher boiling heavy waters (D2O and T2O) will concentrate in the distillation vessel and the lower boiling protium water (H2O) will be concentrate at the top of the distillation column.6 Thus, the claim 1 and 23 limitation of:
Claims 1. . . wherein a concentration of the second hydrogen isotope is greater in the concentrated aqueous solution than in the first aqueous solution and a concentration of the first hydrogen isotope is less in the concentrated aqueous solution than in the first aqueous solution.
is met.
As such practice of the cited art as proposed above meets clearly each and every limitation of claims 1-4, 9, 12-16, 18 and 27.
The limitations of claims 17 and 28 are necessarily met by practice of the cited art as proposed above. As taught by Neumann, water is initially subjected to plasmonic heating starting at room temperature (no preheating required) whereby vaporization begins immediately and the bulk temperature rises gradually. This expressly taught by Neumann:
While steam is produced virally instantaneously . . . As the nanoparticles move to the liquid-vapor interface, they exchange heat with the fluid, slightly raising the fluid temperature. During prolonged periods of illumination, the bulk temperature of the liquid gradually increases, ultimately resulting in conventional boiling of the fluid volume as a parallel effect.
Neumann at page 43, col. 1.
Applicant’s Argument
Applicant argues that Neumann expressly characterizes the process as a nonequilibrium system for which classical heat transfer models fail, and explains that behavior becomes increasingly nonlinear as concentration increases. Reply at page 7 (citing Neumann at page 45, cols. 1-2). Applicant argues therefore that the system’s behavior changes qualitatively with nanoparticle concentration and does not scale in a predictable manner and a person of ordinary skill would not have a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the claim 1 nanoparticle concentration of “of from 1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10-7 M to 1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10-1”, which is 240,780 percent greater than that disclosed in Neumann. Id.
The argument is not persuasive because the cited portion of Neumann does not relate to the nanoparticle concentration. Rather, in the cited portion, Neuman teaches a calculation using the conventional macroscopic model for nanoparticle-induced heating of a surrounding liquid. Neumann at page 45, col. 1. Neumann performs calculation in an analysis of the heat generation around the gold nanoshell and bulk liquid’s temperature change ([Symbol font/0x44]T) during nanoparticle irradiation. Neumann at page 45, col. 1. Neumann states that “[a] calculation using the conventional macroscopic model for nanoparticle-induced heating of a surrounding liquid yields a negligible heating of the surrounding water”. Neumann at page 45, col. 1. Neumann concludes that the convention model fails. Neumann at page 45, col. 1. However, this cited portion of Neumann does not relate to the nanoparticle concentration. Rather, Neumann concludes that the experiment clearly reveals that the light irradiation imputed into is not squandered by heating the liquid, but results instead in the generation of water vapor. Neumann at page 46, col. 1.
Applicant further argues that the concentration changes at issue in In re Aller were on the order of a 250% variation and a 20% variation, which are fundamentally different in scale and character from the present case, which involves a concentration change of 240,780 percent. Reply at page 7. Applicant argues that deeming a 240,780 percent change as a result of routine optimization would require classifying a 240,780 percent change as "routine", which is far beyond what a person having ordinary skill in the art would consider routine and cannot reasonably be viewed as a predictable or conventional adjustment.
Applicant’s point is well taken; however, this argument is not persuasive for the following reasons. Each case is different and must be decided on its own facts. MPEP § 2141(II). The focus when making a determination of obviousness should be on what a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have known at the relevant time, and on what such a person would have reasonably expected to have been able to do in view of that knowledge; regardless of whether the source of that knowledge and ability was documentary prior art, general knowledge in the art, or common sense. MPEP § 2141(II) (discussing the flexible approach of KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)). In addressing Applicant’s argument, it is first noted that legal precedent can provide the rationale supporting obviousness as long as the facts in the case are sufficiently similar to those in the application. MPEP § 2144(I)-(III). As discussed in the previous Office action, the facts in In re Aller are sufficiently similar to those at issue because they can be analogized to each other such that they present the same legal issue. MPEP § 2144(III). As was the case in Aller, here the claimed ranges fall outside the prior art ranges.
And as discussed in detail above, the concentration (or number of nanoparticles) in the water to be distilled is a result-effective variable suitable for modification/experimentation because the nanoparticle concentration is directly related to the bulk steam generation from the medium in which they are immersed. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B). From Neumann, one of ordinary skill can clearly infer a cycle whereby one nanoparticle releases a steam parcel then falls back into the bulk liquid. The number (or concentration of nanoparticles) in the bulk liquid is thus a result-effective variable respecting the amount of steam generated; that is each nanoparticle repeatedly generates and releases a steam bubble.
Here, one of ordinary skill is motivated to optimize or develop a workable nanoparticle concentration to within the claimed range to optimize the efficiency of the plasmonic distillation. MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A). However, the proposed § 103 rational does not rely on legal precedent alone. For example, one of ordinary skill is motivated to increase Newman’s disclosed nanoparticle concentration of 2.5 [Symbol font/0xB4] 1010 particles/ml (to separate an ethanol water mixture) to the higher claimed range of 1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10-7 mol/L (i.e., 6.022 [Symbol font/0xB4] 1013 nanoparticles per ml of solution) to generate more steam flowing through the system so as to optimize the distillation efficiency. Another rational, motivating one of ordinary skill to increase the concentration of nanoparticles over that of Neumann, is that more efficient heavy water rectification may require more theoretical plates because the boiling points of water and heavy water are very close. The high theoretical plate requirement necessitates more steam/heat to drive the steam through, for example, a longer, packed-column rectification system. See Andreev at page 43 (discussing packing of columns for water rectification). Thus, one of ordinary skill is motivated to increase the nanoparticle concentration over that of Neumann, as previously stated, in order to separate the close-boiling water isotopes so as to optimize the distillation efficiency. This is a prima facie case subject to Applicant’s rebuttal.
Applicant argues that the cited art’s disclosure of (1) particles having a diameter of 1-3 nm, (2) the § 103 rationale’s assertion that one of ordinary skill is motivated to optimize the surface area of the gold nanoparticles to within the claimed ranges, and (3) the § 103 rationale’s assertion that increasing particle concentration can result in faster distillation and/or increase temperature provides no reasonable expectation of success of combining the cited references to arrive at the specific ranges of amended claim 1. Reply at page 8. Applicant argues that these parameters are not independent, each affects the optical absorption behavior, the thermal response of the solution, and the onset of vapor generation in complex and unpredictable ways and varying any one of them alters the effective behavior of the remaining parameters, resulting in a multi variable system that cannot be navigated through general statements of motivation alone.
In response, Applicant argues critically and interdependency of the claimed ranges. But the specification provides no evidence of such criticality or interdependency. With respect to nanoparticle concentration, the most relevant specification portion is cited below:
[0029] The solution may contain nanoparticles as disclosed herein in an appropriate concentration for achieving the desired separation. For instance, in one embodiment, the concentration may be 1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10-7 M or more, such as 1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10-6 M or more, such as 1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10-5 M or more, such as 1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10-4 M or more, such as 1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10-3 M or more to 1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10 M or less, such as 1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10-1 M or less, such as 1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10-2 M or less, such as 1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10-3 M or less. However, it should be understood that the present invention is not necessarily limited by the concentration of the nanoparticles.
Specification at page 19, [0029] (emphasis added). The specification provides three working Examples conducted using gold nanoparticles dispersed in water to provide a condensate with a very small increases (ppm levels) in deuterium concentration. Specification at pages 13-14. For instance, in Example 1, specification Fig. 1 shows enrichment in sample 1’s deuterium content, over control, of about 152.35 ppm versus 152.70 ppm (about 0.35 ppm deuterium enrichment). Specification at pages 13-14. However, none of the specification working examples disclose either the concentration, the diameter or surface area of nanoparticles employed. Absent supporting evidence, for example, teachings in the specification or prior art, these arguments of counsel are insufficient to overcome the § 103 rejection. MPEP § 2145(I).
Applicant further argues that using a disclosure ‘as a roadmap to piece together various elements of [the prior art reference] ... represents an improper reliance on hindsight’. Reply at page 10. Applicant argues that Neumann fails to disclose or encompass a range for the nanoparticles being present in the first aqueous solution in a concentration corresponding to the pending claims, fails to disclose a particle size diameter encompassing the presently claimed ranges, and fails to disclose an average surface area corresponding to the claimed values. Neumann further provides no teaching or suggestion that these parameters should be selected or combined together in the manner recited in the amended claims. Applicant argues that the cited references do not even disclose broad ranges and are silent as to the claimed ranges altogether. Id. Applicant argues that therefore, the arrival at the claimed features of the pending claims in view of Neumann would represent an even stronger instance of hindsight reconstruction than in Merck, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is improper. Reply at page 10 (citing Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Warner Chilcott Co., LLC, 711 Fed. Appx. 633 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
In response, the facts in Merck, directed to a claimed medical device, are distinguishable. In Merck, the court held that to arrive at the hypothetical ring that the district court relied on for obviousness, the person of ordinary skill must make the second compartment 97% of the total ring, which is outside of the usual or preferred range disclosed in PCT '015 and must also pick a concentration of ETO from the high end of the disclosed range, but conversely select a concentration of EE from the low end of the range. Merck at 637. The court found that nothing in PCT '015 suggests picking these values out of the innumerable possible combinations of ETO concentrations, EE concentrations, and compartment length ratios. Id. Instead, the only way to arrive at the hypothetical ring is by using the '581 patent as a roadmap to piece together various elements of PCT '015. Id.
Here, different than Merck, the concentration (or number of nanoparticles) in the water to be distilled is clearly a result-effective variable suitable for modification/experimentation. This is because Neumann teaches that plasmonic nanoparticle heating of water operates in fashion whereby each irradiated nanoparticle is enveloped in steam bubble that moves to the liquid surface and releases the steam then falls back into the bulk liquid where the process is repeated.
The nanoparticle surface serves as a boiling nucleation site. Vapor is formed around the nanoparticle surface, and the complex moves to the liquid-air interface, where the steam is released. New liquid is replenished at the hot nanoparticle surface, and the process is repeated.
Neumann at page 43, Figure 1; Id. at page 46, col. 1 (“Such a bubble with its encapsulated nanoparticle is therefore expected to rise to the surface of the liquid, where the steam will be released, with the nanoparticle subsequently sinking back into the liquid.”). Rather than mixing and matching numerous parameters to arrive at the claimed invention, as in Merck, here one of ordinary skill is motivated to simply increase the nanoparticle concentration disclosed in Neuman, to within the claimed range, to generate more steam flowing through the system so as to optimize the distillation efficiency.
Simona E. Hunyadi Murph, Declaration Under 37 C.F.R. §1.132 (Feb. 5, 2026)
Applicant submits a Declaration Under 37 C.F.R. §1.132 (Feb. 5, 2026), by Simona E. Hunyadi Murph (the “Murph Declaration”).
The Murph Declaration avers that in my opinion, a person having ordinary skill in this field would not reasonably expect the behavior of plasmonic nanoparticles in an illuminated aqueous solution to scale linearly with nanoparticle concentration across all concentrations, and particularly across an increase in concentration of 240,780%. Murph Declaration at page 3. In support of the opinion, the Murch Declaration avers that in plasmonic heating systems, as nanoparticle concentration increases, additional physical effects arise that alter system behavior in a manner that is not linear or monotonic. Id. For instance, the effects can include vapor shell formation, nanobubble growth and coalescence, optical and thermal shielding, and buoyancy-driven migration of nanoparticle-bubble complexes. Id. As these effects depend on interparticle spacing and collective behavior, their influence increases disproportionately with concentration.
In response, here the Murph Declaration offers opinion evidence. Although factual evidence is preferable to opinion testimony, such testimony is entitled to consideration and some weight so long as the opinion is not on the ultimate legal conclusion at issue. MPEP § 716.01(c)(III). With respect to the cited non-linear effects of vapor shell formation, nanobubble growth and coalescence, optical and thermal shielding, and buoyancy-driven migration of nanoparticle-bubble complexes, Neumann provides a detailed discussion of each of these effects. For example, with respect to vapor shell formation, nanobubble growth, and buoyancy-driven migration of nanoparticle-bubble complexes, Neumann teaches that:
The nanoparticle surface serves as a boiling nucleation site. Vapor is formed around the nanoparticle surface, and the complex moves to the liquid-air interface, where the steam is released. New liquid is replenished at the hot nanoparticle surface, and the process is repeated.
Neumann at page 43, Figure 1; Id. at page 46, col. 1 (“Such a bubble with its encapsulated nanoparticle is therefore expected to rise to the surface of the liquid, where the steam will be released, with the nanoparticle subsequently sinking back into the liquid.”). Neumann goes on to discuss how the nanoparticle steam bubble rise and coalescence, thereby further enhancing the steam generation process. Neumann at page 46, Figure 4 (“After 20 ms of steam generation, the size of the bubbles becomes larger than half the average distance between the nanoshells (horizontal gray line), allowing the bubbles to coalesce, thus further enhancing the steam generation process”); see also, page 46, col. 2 (“coalescence of bubbles reduces the heat transfer into the surrounding liquid”). Here, the Examiner notes that reduction of heat transfer to the surrounding liquid is advantageous because the light energy input is efficiently utilized for steam generation around the nanoparticle rather wasted in heating the surrounding liquid. Neumann further discusses thermal shielding or thermal barriers in terms of “interfacial thermal resistance between the nanoparticle and the surrounding water”. Neumann at page 45, col. 2. In sum, one of ordinary skill is informed by Neumann of theoretical considerations related to plasmonic heating of nanoparticles and can take these effects into consideration in scaling the nanoparticle concentration. It is noted however, that the cited effects, such as thermal shielding and coalescence (which relate to heat transfer between the nanoparticle and surrounding liquid) do not facially appear to present challenges to scaling the nanoparticle concentration. And the Murph Declaration has not explained how such theoretical considerations present an obstacle to nanoparticle concentration scaling. As noted above, reduction of heat transfer to the surrounding liquid is advantageous because the light energy input is efficiently utilized for steam generation around the nanoparticle rather wasted in heating the surrounding liquid.
The Murph Declaration further avers that the nanoparticle concentration range recited in claim 1 was found to advantageously address the concentration-dependent effects, such as the aforementioned effects. Declaration at page 3. The Murph Declaration avers that within this range, nanoparticle density is sufficient to induce localized vaporization events that effectively separate the lighter hydrogen isotope, while limiting adverse concentration-dependent effects. Murph Declaration at page 3.
In response, statement is not persuasive to overcome the § 103 rejection at least because such evidence is not of record for consideration. The specification provides no guidance with respect to implementation of the claimed nanoparticle concentration of “of from 1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10-7 M to 1 [Symbol font/0xB4] 10-1”; and as discussed above, the specification working examples do not disclose the concentration of nanoparticles employed. If Applicant has additional data, evidence, or experiments outside of the specification, these should be submitted in the form of affidavit or declaration; for example, to support unexpected results. 37 C.F.R. 1.132.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R PAGANO whose telephone number is (571)270-3764. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM through 5:00 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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
ALEXANDER R. PAGANO
Examiner
Art Unit 1692
/ALEXANDER R PAGANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
1 The natural isotopic abundance of Hydrogen 1H is 99.985 % and that of 2H is 0.015 %. W. Meier-Augenstein et al., Stable Isotope Analysis: General Principles and Limitations, In Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science, 1-15 (2012).
2 While Neumann teaches that plasmonic heating is more energy efficient generally than conventional bulk heating, one of ordinary skill is particularly motivated to employ sunlight (as taught by Neumann) as an almost free efficient plasmonic heat source. Solar energy has a wavelength range primarily over the wavelengths between about 400-700nm. See e.g., D. Schultz et al., 343 Science (2011), see Page 1239176-1, Fig. 1). As discussed above, Link teaches that Figure 2a shows the absorption spectra of four different size gold nanoparticles, where the plasmon absorption is clearly visible and its maximum red-shifts with increasing particle diameter ([Symbol font/0x6C] max) 517, 521, 533, and 575 nm for the 9, 22, 48, and 99 nm particles). Link at page 4213, col. 2.
3 To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. MPEP § 716.02(d) (citing In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960)).
4 One exception to the rule is where the parameter optimized was not recognized in the prior art as one that would affect the results; i.e., the parameter is not result effective variable. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977); Ex Parte Whalen, Appeal No. 2007-4423, 10/281,142 (PTAB 2008) (precedential).
5 Neumann teaches that the Au/SiO2 nanoparticles were prepared by adding a very small gold colloid (1-3 nm diameter) to functionalized silica particles, whereby the gold colloid adsorbs to the amine groups on the silica surface, resulting in a silica nanoparticle covered with islands of gold colloid called the seed, then the Au/SiO2 nanoshells were grown by reacting HAuCl4 with the seeds. Neumann at page 48, col. 1.
6 As discussed above, Andreev teaches that the boiling point of heavy water is 101.42 ˚C and the evaporation heat is 2-3 % higher than that of natural water. Andreev at page 42, lines 1-3.
Prosecution Insights