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 .
Finality
Upon reconsideration of the reply filed on 09/10/2025, the following action is set forth. In light of the new grounds of rejection set forth below, the following action is non-final.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 403 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 02/12/2025.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 315-316, 324-330, 332-333, 341, 344-346, 348, and 401 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20070221635A1, hereinafter ‘Boulos’, in view of US20080148905A1, hereinafter ‘Hung’.
Regarding Claim 315, Boulos discloses a method for producing nanoparticles ([0015]), comprising:
feeding a precursor material toward a reaction zone along a feed path, the reaction zone being in a reaction chamber, the reaction chamber having a longitudinal axis ([0016]: feeding a reactant material into a plasma reactor; Fig. 1b: reactants are fed toward a reaction zone along a feed path, the reaction zone being in a reaction chamber, the reaction chamber having a longitudinal axis),
generating a plasma in the reaction zone, the plasma contacting the precursor material to produce a reactant gaseous mixture ([0016]: feeding a reactant material into a plasma reactor in which is generated a plasma flow having a temperature sufficiently high to vaporize the material;),
injecting gas to generate a radial gas flow in the reaction chamber along at least a portion of the longitudinal axis ([0018]: injecting a preheated quench gas into the plasma flow in the quenching zone to form a renewable gaseous condensation front; Fig. 1b: see quenching zone 34b, wherein quench gas is injected radially), and
cooling the reactant gaseous mixture in a cooling zone to cause nucleation and produce the nanoparticles ([0044]: a cold quench section is disclosed as upstream from the warm quench section, which would result in condensation, or nucleation, of nanoparticles).
Further regarding Claim 315, Boulos does not disclose that the feed is fed to the reactor in fluid form.
Hung discloses the production of ultrafine metal carbide powders from solid metal carbide and nitrogen-containing material using a plasma system (abstract). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Hung as analogous to Boulos, as both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, plasma synthesis of ultrafine metal particles - a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Further, Hung discloses a feed line for solid metal carbide and nitrogen-containing material powders entrained in a carrier gas ([0009]). The carrier may be a gas that acts to suspend or atomize the feed materials in the gas, thereby producing a gas-stream in which the solid feed materials are entrained. Suitable carrier gases include, but are not limited to, argon, helium, nitrogen, hydrogen, or a combination thereof ([0021]).
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to utilize a carrier gas to supply the reactants to the reactor of Boulos, as the use of a carrier gas system is a known, predictable way to deliver precursor to a plasma reactor and is expressly taught within plasma powder formation.
Regarding Claim 316, Boulos as modified above makes obvious the method of claim 315, wherein a feeding mechanism comprising an elongated structure feeds the precursor material in fluid form toward the reaction zone, the elongated structure defining a channel for receiving the precursor material (Fig. 1b, 32b).
Regarding Claim 324, Boulos as modified above makes obvious the plasma is discharged into the reaction zone via a nozzle having an outlet ([0011]: the plasma torch is considered to be ejected from a type of nozzle).
Regarding Claim 325-326, Boulos discloses the plasma is generated from a gas comprising argon, helium, or a combination thereof ([0048]: using an argon/hydrogen (80/20% vol) plasma).
Regarding Claim 327-328, Boulos as modified above makes obvious the feeding mechanism further feeds a carrier gas into the reaction zone (as discussed above, Hung makes obvious the use of a carrier gas system).
Regarding Claim 329, Boulos as modified above makes obvious the carrier gas comprises argon, helium, or a combination thereof (as discussed above, Hung discloses the use of argon as the carrier gas).
Regarding Claim 330, Boulos as modified above makes obvious the use of a carrier gas further comprising hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, or any combinations thereof (as discussed above, Hung discloses the use of argon, helium, nitrogen, hydrogen, or a combination thereof as carrier gas).
Regarding Claim 332, Boulos as modified above makes obvious the reactant gaseous mixture comprises dissociated or chemically transformed forms of the precursor material (upon exposure to high-temperature plasma, the gaseous mixture of Boulos would necessarily contain at least some precursor material thermally decomposed by thermal energy).
Regarding Claim 333, Boulos as modified above makes obvious the injection of hydrogen to the apparatus of Boulos as plasma fuel – such hydrogen gas is considered an additive gas.
Regarding Claim 341, Boulos as modified above makes obvious generating a plasma jet in the reaction zone impinging upon the precursor material at a convergence point between streamlines of the plasma jet and the feed path to produce the reactant gaseous mixture, the plasma jet streamlines being at an angle with respect to the feed path (Fig. 1b: the plasma is at an angle from the feed path and impinges on the precursor material, at least partially at a portion of convergence between streamlines of the plasma jet and the feed path).
Regarding Claim 344, Boulos as modified above makes obvious the gas generating the radial gas flow has a temperature sufficient to extend the reaction zone to a zone downstream therefrom causing precursor material present downstream from the reaction zone to produce an additional volume of the reactant gaseous mixture ([0009]: a quenching chamber in which a renewable laminar “controlled temperature gaseous condensation front” is generated through the injection of a preheated quench gas in an upstream section of the quench zone, followed by the injection of progressively cooler quench gases in a downstream section of the quench zone, on which front the gaseous reactants/reaction products condense and nucleate – this staged quenching zone design would at least partially extend the reaction zone downstream; [0051]: the location of the peak indicative of maximal plasma gas cooling rate is shifted in the downstream direction by about 0.1 meters).
Regarding Claims 345-346, Boulos as modified above makes obvious the gas generating the radial gas flow comprises an oxygen containing molecule, a nitrogen containing molecule, or a carbon containing molecule, and that the gas comprises Ar, N₂, or He ([0047]: Boulos discloses the use of an oxygen-containing gas as the quench gas, which may also include ammonia).
Regarding Claim 348, Boulos discloses the radial gas flow prevents reactive species in the gaseous mixture from reaching an internal wall of the reaction chamber (Fig. 1b: the quench gas is provided in a direction normal to the wall, which would prevent reactive species from reaching the internal wall of the zone).
Regarding Claim 401, Boulos discloses injecting the gas to generate the radial gas flow comprises injecting a pre-heated gas ([0018]).
Claim(s) 342 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20070221635A1, hereinafter ‘Boulos’, in view of US20080148905A1, hereinafter ‘Hung’, in view of Alexeev et al. (Controlled Synthesis of Alumina Nanoparticles in a Reactor with Self-Impinging Plasma Jets, International Journal Of Chemical Reactor Engineering, 2007), hereinafter ‘Alexeev’.
Regarding Claim 342, while Boulos discloses the synthesis of nanoparticles via a plasma torch that creates an angle between the streamlines of the precursor material and the plasma, Boulos does not disclose that the angle of the plasma jet streamlines with respect to the feed path angle is between about 10° and about 80°.
Alexeev discloses the controlled synthesis of alumina nanoparticles by the use of self-impinging plasma jets (Title). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Alexeev as analogous to Boulos, as both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, systems and methods for manufacture of nanoparticles using plasma - a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Further, Alexeev discloses a three-jet reactor, in which the angle between the axis of the plasma torch and the axis of the reactor were set at 15°, 30°, and 60° (2.1 Three-jet Reactor). Further, Alexeev discloses that the angle between the axis of the plasma torch and the axis of the reactor affects the residence time of particles in the reactor, in that, as the angle decreases, the axial velocity decay rate and axial temperature decay rate also decrease, resulting in a decrease of the residence time (3.3 Three-jet Reactor). Alexeev further discloses that the angle may be selected on the basis of the desired experimental result with regard to the desired specific surface area (4. Conclusion). In light of this, the angle of impingement, or the angle of the plasma jet streamlines with respect to the feed path streamline, is recognized by Alexeev as a variable that may be manipulated in order to influence the residence time and specific surface area of the produced nanoparticles.
Accordingly, as the residence time and specific surface area of the produced nanoparticles is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the angle of the plasma jet streamlines with respect to the feed path streamline, the precise angle would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed range cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the angle of the plasma jet streamlines with respect to the feed path streamline in Boulos to obtain the desired residence time and specific surface area of the produced nanoparticles, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claims 319-320 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20070221635A1, hereinafter ‘Boulos’, in view of US20080148905A1, hereinafter ‘Hung’, in view of US20130064750A1, hereinafter ‘Zettl’.
Regarding Claims 319-320, Boulos as modified above does not disclose the feeding mechanism comprises a plurality of elongated structures placed sequentially along and around the longitudinal axis.
Zettl discloses a method for producing chemical nanostructures comprising nitrides using a plasma jet (abstract). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Zettl as analogous to Boulos et al., as both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, the plasma synthesis of nanostructures - a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Further, Zettl discloses the materials to comprise the BN-based nanomaterial, e.g., boron, nitrogen or nitrides and elemental carbon or hydrocarbons are introduced via ports A, B, D or E. They are introduced separately at separate ports ([0042]). The number and arrangement of ports may be varied to suit the plasma plume conditions, the BN-based nanomaterial to be created, etc ([0034]). Further, Fig. 1 shows such a plurality of feed ports to be arranged around the axis of the reactor.
Given this, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to utilize multiple separate feed ports arranged around the axis of the reactor for providing reactants to the plasma torch, as such a configuration has been shown by Zettl to be a known, predictable way to deliver feed to a plasma reactor and is expressly taught within plasma powder formation
Claim 331 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20070221635A1, hereinafter ‘Boulos’, in view of US20080148905A1, hereinafter ‘Hung’, in view of US5047612A, hereinafter ‘Savkar’.
Regarding Claim 331, Boulos as modified above does not disclose that the feeding mechanism is configured to adjust a relative flow rate of the carrier gas to control a concentration of the precursor material in the reaction zone.
Savkar discloses an apparatus and method for controlling the powder deposition and deposit pattern in a plasma spray process (abstract). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Savkar as analogous to Boulos et al., as both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, plasma spray powder formation - a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Further, Savkar discloses a portion of the carrier gas may be bypassed or separated from the powder delivery stream and diverted away from the injector tube. The amount of carrier gas drawn off in the bypass can be regulated to control the gas flow rate at the injector tube, thus permitting control of the velocity (Col 3, lines 9-17).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to utilize a gas flow regulation scheme as disclosed by Savkar in the process of Boulos as modified above. The use of such a scheme would allow for control of the carrier gas flow, thereby providing control of the flow of reactants being fed into the reactor, and the reactor throughput thereby.
Claim(s) 402 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20070221635A1, hereinafter ‘Boulos’, in view of US20080148905A1, hereinafter ‘Hung’, in view of Jang et al. (US20160016143A1), hereinafter ‘Jang’.
Regarding Claim 402, while Boulos discloses the synthesis of nanoparticles by the use of plasma as discussed above, Boulos is silent regarding the identity of the preferred precursor materials, and does not disclose that the precursor material comprises silane, trichlorosilane, or silicon tetrachloride.
Jang discloses the manufacture of silica nanoparticles by the use of a plasma ([0003]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Jang as analogous to Boulos, as both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, systems and methods for manufacture of nanoparticles using plasma - a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212. Further, Jang discloses that silica nanoparticles may be synthesized by contacting silica precursor particles, such as silicon tetrachloride or silane gas (SiH4), with plasma to form nanoparticles ([0135]).
Accordingly, given that Boulos discloses the synthesis of metal and ceramic powders, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to utilize silicon tetrachloride or silane as precursor materials in the process of Boulos, as the use of such precursors would result in ceramic powders as contemplated by Boulos.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 09/10/2025, are acknowledged.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOGAN LACLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-1815. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5:30.
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.
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sally Merkling can be reached on (571) 272-6297. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/L.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738