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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s remarks filed 11/21/2025 have corrected the previous reply filed on 08/04/2025 which made the election of group I, claims 1-10 and 14-18 with traverse. Applicant has corrected that to instead make the election of group I without traverse. Accordingly, Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 and 14-18 in the reply filed on 11/21/2025 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/21/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-10 and 14-18 are actively being examined in the application while claims 11-13 and 19-20 are withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have not introduced new matter and are supported in the specification in at least [0033] of the instant specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 7 filed 11/21/2025 with respect to claim 1, have been fully considered however are solely directed to a claim limitation “wherein the carbon raw material includes a carbon raw material that is included as the explosive component and/or another carbon raw material, the another carbon raw material is at least one type selected from the group consisting of substituted or unsubstituted alicyclic hydrocarbon compounds, graphite, carbon nanotubes, and fullerenes” introduced in the amendment filed 11/21/2025, which postdates the non-final rejection mailed 08/22/2025.
Applicant’s further arguments, see Pg. 8 filed 11/21/2025, regarding the prior art Takehiro no longer meeting the required 99 mass% due to paraffin wax being excluded from the carbon component, are convincing. As Applicant argues, paraffin wax is known by skilled artisans to be comprised of saturated hydrocarbons and not alicylic hydrocarbons (i.e. compounds comprised of carbon rings that are not aromatic), and accordingly no longer meets the required “carbon raw material” as claimed. Takahiro exclusively teaches examples using paraffin wax and accordingly it can not be said that Takahiro anticipates the mass% portion of the claim.
However, Examiner notes instant claim 1 of the amendment 11/21/2025 allows for the explosive component to also be the carbon raw material. The claims are interpreted such that they do not require a carbon raw material so long as an explosive component is present.
Upon further search and consideration and as necessitated by the amendment and arguments, the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) rejection of 08/22/2025 is withdrawn and a new grounds of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takehiro et al. (JPH02241536A English; cited in IDS dated 11/30/2022) in view of Pang et al. (CN101955177A English).
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art
relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness
rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the
claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the
differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or
nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takehiro et al. (JPH02241536A English; cited in IDS dated 11/30/2022) in view of Pang et al. (CN101955177A English). The machine translation provided by the Examiner for Takehiro is cited below and was provided in the action mailed 08/22/2025.
Regarding claim 1, Takehiro teaches an explosive composition for synthesizing diamond that consists of an explosive such as HMX (i.e. octogen; IUPAC name 1,3,5,7-Tetranitro-1,3,5,7-tetrazocane), RDX (i.e. hexogen, cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine; IUPAC name 1,3,5-Trinitro-1,3,5-triazinane), 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT), penslit, and nitrate or perchlorates of amines, an organic substance comprising 2,5-dinitrobenzene and graphite, and diamond powder of small particle size (Pg. 1, Description, par. 4-6; Abstract; Claims). Takehiro states the content of the explosive is set to 60 wt.% with the remainder constituted of diamond powder and organic (or inorganic) matter (Abstract). Takehiro teaching an explosive composition comprising an explosive component, graphite, and diamond particles is equivalent to the instantly claimed “explosive component, a carbon raw material, and diamond particles, wherein the carbon raw material includes a carbon raw material that is included as the explosive component and/or another carbon raw material, the another carbon raw material is at least one type selected from the group consisting of substituted or unsubstituted alicyclic hydrocarbon compounds, graphite, carbon nanotubes, and fullerenes.”
The claim further requires “total proportion of the explosive component, the carbon raw material, and the diamond particles relative to a total amount of the explosive composition for diamond synthesis is 99 mass% or greater.” Takahiro only discusses the weight/mass percentages in the context of examples, all of which utilize paraffin wax, which does not meet the instantly claimed “carbon raw material.”
Pang teaches the preparation of diamond power that is prepared from an explosive assembly comprising 10-60 weight% ultrafine diamond powder, 20-70 weight% explosive, and 0-20 weight% additive (Abstract; Claim 3; Pg. 1-2, Summary of Invention). Pang teaches the ultrafine diamond powder can include a carbon material such as graphite (Pg. 1, Summary of Invention). When the additive is set to zero, Pang teaches an explosive assembly for manufacturing diamonds that contains 100 mass% of diamond particles and explosive component. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Pang (100 mass%) overlaps with the claimed range (99 mass% or greater). Therefore, the range in Pang renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, the method provides micron sized diamond powder that has a tangible cost advantage due to using less explosive material (Pg. 3-4, The present invention has actively useful effect).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an explosive assembly comprising 10-60 weight% ultrafine diamond powder, 20-70 weight% explosive, and 0-20 weight% additive in the explosive composition of Takehiro in order to provide micron sized diamond powder in a cost effective way as taught by Pang.
Regarding claim 7, Takehiro in view of Pang teach the explosive composition of claim 1 and Takehiro further teaches the diamond particles present in the explosive composition are at least 0.5% by weight (Pg. 2, par. 1), while teaching an example using 4.6% of diamond powder (Pg. 2, Example 1).
Regarding claim 8, Takehiro in view of Pang teach the explosive composition of claim 1 and Takehiro further teaches the explosive component of the explosive composition includes two or more high performance explosives, where the explosives include RDX and TNT (Pg. 1, Description, par. 4-6).
Claims 2 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takehiro et al. (JPH02241536A English; cited in IDS dated 11/30/2022) in view of Pang et al. (CN101955177A English) and further in view of Saha et al. (Surface Science 1998, 400, 134, 39).
Regarding claim 2, Takehiro in view of Pang teach the explosive composition of claim 1 and the claim further requires a “crystallite diameter of primary particles of the diamond particles as determined by an XRD method is 100 nm or less” to which Takehiro and Pang are silent.
Saha teaches the structural properties of diamond fine particles prepared by detonation and decomposition synthesis of TNT (Title; Abstract), where the diamond particles have fine particle sizes ranging from 144-195 Å (i.e. 14.4 to 19.5 nm) that are measured by X-ray diffraction (Abstract; Table 1; Pg. 135, Experimental; Pg. 135-136, Results). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Saha (14.4 to 19.5 nm) overlaps with the claimed range (less than 100 nm). Therefore, the range in Saha renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, diamond particles with sizes ranging in the nanometer range display a range of properties, including use in super polishing materials (Pg. 135, left col.). Additionally, measuring the particle size by XRD allows determination of the thermal parameter, B, which provides information about lattice distortions and vibrations in the particles, while additionally inversely correlating with particle size (e.g. increasing B is associated with decreasing particle size) (Abstract; Pg. 134-135, Introduction).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce diamond particles with sizes ranging from 14.4 to 19.5 nm with analysis by XRD methods in the explosive composite of Takehiro in order to provide particles with application in super polishing materials, as taught by Saha.
Regarding claim 18, Takehiro in view of Pang and Saha teach the product of claim 2 and Takehiro further teaches the diamond particles present in the explosive composition are at least 0.5% by weight (Pg. 2, par. 1), while teaching an example using 4.6% of diamond powder (Pg. 2, Example 1). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Takehiro (at least 0.5% by weight) overlaps with the claimed range (15 parts by mass or less per 100 parts by mass). Therefore, the range in Takehiro renders obvious the claimed range.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takehiro et al. (JPH02241536A English; cited in IDS dated 11/30/2022) in view of Pang et al. (CN101955177A English) and further in view of Sankaran et al. (US20150274534A1).
Regarding claim 3, Takehiro in view of Pang teach the explosive composite of claim 1. Takehiro further teaches the diamond powder to be mixed in the explosive composite may be of any particle size, but it is preferably of small particle size in order to mix uniformly with high performance explosives and the like (Pg. 1, Description, par. 6). Takehiro nor Pang explicitly state the diamond particles used include “cluster diamonds.”
Sankaran teaches cluster diamonds, also known as nanodiamonds, have an array of mechanical properties, including improved thermodynamic stability compared to other precursors to diamond phases ([0015]). Advantageously, cluster diamonds are more stable than polycyclic aromatics as precursors to diamonds ([0015]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce diamond particles cluster diamonds in the explosive composite of Takehiro in order to provide a precursor with improved thermodynamic stability relative to polycyclic aromatics, as taught by Sankaran.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takehiro et al. (JPH02241536A English; cited in IDS dated 11/30/2022) in view of Pang et al. (CN101955177A English) and further in view of Nanotech (Nanodiamonds market, 2016).
Regarding claim 4, Takehiro in view of Pang teach the explosive composite of claim 1. Takehiro further teaches the diamond powder to be mixed in the explosive composite may be of any particle size, but it is preferably of small particle size in order to mix uniformly with high performance explosives and the like (Pg. 1, Description, par. 6). Takehiro nor Pang explicitly state the diamond particles used include “detonation diamonds.”
However, Nanotech teaches detonation diamonds are typically prepared via detonation and display particle sizes of sub-10 nm (Pg. 2, Synthesis of Nanodiamonds). Advantageously, Nanotech teaches detonation diamonds are inexpensive and display excellent mechanical, optical and thermal properties, high surface areas and tunable surface structures and chemical stability (Pg. 1).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use detonation diamonds as the diamond particle in the explosive composite of Takehiro in order to use an inexpensive feedstock that also displays excellent mechanical, optical and thermal properties, high surface areas and tunable surface structures and chemical stability, as taught by Nanotech.
Claims 5-6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takehiro et al. (JPH02241536A English; cited in IDS dated 11/30/2022) in view of Pang et al. (CN101955177A English) and further in view of Mahiko et al. (WO2018225433A1 English).
Regarding claims 5-6, Takehiro in view of Pang teach the explosive composite of claim 1 and the claims further require “wherein the explosive component includes an explosive component that serves as the carbon raw material” and “wherein the explosive component serving as the carbon raw material includes a compound having a nitro group.” Takehiro teaches only examples that include an organic component (paraffin). Pang is silent regarding these limitations.
Mahiko teaches an explosive body for nanodiamond synthesis where the composite explosive contains 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT) and hexogen (RDX; IUPAC name: 1,3,5-Trinitro-1,3,5-triazinane) as the explosive main agents (Claims 9-10; Abstract). TNT and RDX contain nitro groups, as indicated in their names. Mahiko teaches these components alone, TNT and RDX, provide detonation nanodiamonds (Pg. 2, par. 13) and that the carbon liberated by the explosion is transformed to diamond by the reaction conditions (Pg. 3, par. 6-7), meeting the limitation “the explosive component includes an explosive component that serves as the carbon raw material.” Advantageously, using explosive components to form nanodiamonds provides improved yields (Pg. 2, par. 5-6; Pg. 4, par. 2).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce diamond particles using the explosive component as the carbon raw material, where the explosive component includes a nitro group, in the explosive composite of Takehiro in order to provide an improved yield of nanodiamonds as taught by Mahiko.
Regarding claim 9, Takehiro in view of Pang teach the explosive composite of claim 1 and 8. The claims further require “a mass ratio of 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene to cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine [2,4,6-trinitrotoluene/cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine] in the explosive component is from 30/70 to 95/5.” Takehiro and Pang are silent regarding a ratio of these two explosives.
Mahiko teaches an explosive body for nanodiamond synthesis where the composite explosive contains 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT) and hexogen (RDX; IUPAC name: 1,3,5-Trinitro-1,3,5-triazinane) as the explosive main agents (Claims 9-10; Abstract). TNT and RDX contain nitro groups, as indicated in their names. Mahiko teaches the mass ratio of TNT and RDX in the explosive main component in the composite explosive is preferably 30:70 to 70:30 (Pg. 2, par. 12). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Mahiko (mass ratio TNT/RDX 30:70 to 70:30) overlaps with the claimed range (mass ratio TNT/RDX is from 30/70 to 95/5). Therefore, the range in Mahiko renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, using explosive components to form nanodiamonds provides improved yields (Pg. 2, par. 5-6; Pg. 4, par. 2).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce diamond particles using the explosive components TNT and RDX in a mass ratio that is preferably 30:70 to 70:30 in the explosive composite of Takehiro in order to provide an improved yield of nanodiamonds as taught by Mahiko.
Regarding claim 10, Takehiro in view of Pang teach the explosive composite of claim 1 and the claim further requires “the explosive body being a compressed filler of the explosive composition for diamond synthesis.” Takehiro teaches the explosive composition is molded into a cylinder prior to detonation, however Takehiro nor Pang explicitly mention compression.
Mahiko teaches an explosive body for nanodiamond synthesis where the composite explosive components (Claims 9-10; Abstract) that are compressed in a mold to produce the explosive body (Pg. 3, par. 3). Advantageously, the compressed molded particles are able to be configured into a shape that increases the proportion of area that reaches steady detonation during the detonation synthesis which improves the yield (Pg. 2, par. 7-9).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a compressed filler explosive body in the explosive composite of Takehiro in order to provide an improved yield of nanodiamonds as taught by Mahiko.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takehiro et al. (JPH02241536A English; cited in IDS dated 11/30/2022) in view of Pang et al. (CN101955177A English) and Saha et al. (Surface Science 1998, 400, 134, 39) and further in view Sankaran et al. (US20150274534A1).
Regarding claim 14, Takehiro in view of Pang teach the explosive composite of claim 1 and Takehiro in view of Pang and further in view of Saha teach the product of claim 2. Takehiro further teaches the diamond powder to be mixed in the explosive composite may be of any particle size, but it is preferably of small particle size in order to mix uniformly with high performance explosives and the like (Pg. 1, Description, par. 6). Takehiro does not explicitly state the diamond particles used include “cluster diamonds.” Pang and Saha are silent regarding cluster diamonds.
Sankaran teaches cluster diamonds, also known as nanodiamonds, have an array of mechanical properties, including improved thermodynamic stability compared to other precursors to diamond phases ([0015]). Advantageously, cluster diamonds are more stable than polycyclic aromatics as precursors to diamonds ([0015]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce diamond particles cluster diamonds in the explosive composite of Takehiro in order to provide a precursor with improved thermodynamic stability relative to polycyclic aromatics, as taught by Sankaran.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takehiro et al. (JPH02241536A English; cited in IDS dated 11/30/2022) in view of Pang et al. (CN101955177A English) and Saha et al. (Surface Science 1998, 400, 134, 39) and further in view Nanotech (Nanodiamonds market, 2016).
Regarding claim 15, Takehiro in view of Pang teach the explosive composite of claim 1 and Takehiro in view of Pang and further in view of Saha teach the product of claim 2. Takehiro further teaches the diamond powder to be mixed in the explosive composite may be of any particle size, but it is preferably of small particle size in order to mix uniformly with high performance explosives and the like (Pg. 1, Description, par. 6). Takehiro does not explicitly state the diamond particles used include “detonation diamonds.” Pang and Saha are silent regarding using detonation diamond particles.
Nanotech teaches detonation diamonds are typically prepared via detonation and display particle sizes of sub-10 nm (Pg. 2, Synthesis of Nanodiamonds). Advantageously, Nanotech teaches detonation diamonds are inexpensive and display excellent mechanical, optical and thermal properties, high surface areas and tunable surface structures and chemical stability (Pg. 1).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use detonation diamonds as the diamond particle in the explosive composite of Takehiro in order to use an inexpensive feedstock that also displays excellent mechanical, optical and thermal properties, high surface areas and tunable surface structures and chemical stability, as taught by Nanotech.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takehiro et al. (JPH02241536A English; cited in IDS dated 11/30/2022) in view of Pang et al. (CN101955177A English) and Saha et al. (Surface Science 1998, 400, 134, 39) and further in view Mahiko et al. (WO2018225433A1 English).
Regarding claims 16-17, Takehiro in view of Pang teach the explosive composite of claim 1 and Takehiro in view of Pang and further in view of Saha teach the product of claim 2. The claims further require “wherein the explosive component includes an explosive component that serves as the carbon raw material” and “wherein the explosive component serving as the carbon raw material includes a compound having a nitro group.” Takehiro teaches only examples that include an organic component (paraffin). Pang and Saha are silent regarding an explosive component serving as the carbon raw material.
Mahiko teaches an explosive body for nanodiamond synthesis where the composite explosive contains 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT) and hexogen (RDX; IUPAC name: 1,3,5-Trinitro-1,3,5-triazinane) as the explosive main agents (Claims 9-10; Abstract). TNT and RDX contain nitro groups, as indicated in their names. Mahiko teaches these components alone, TNT and RDX, provide detonation nanodiamonds (Pg. 2, par. 13) and that the carbon liberated by the explosion is transformed to diamond by the reaction conditions (Pg. 3, par. 6-7), meeting the limitation “the explosive component includes an explosive component that serves as the carbon raw material.” Advantageously, using explosive components to form nanodiamonds provides improved yields (Pg. 2, par. 5-6; Pg. 4, par. 2).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce diamond particles using the explosive component as the carbon raw material, where the explosive component includes a nitro group, in the explosive composite of Takehiro in order to provide an improved yield of nanodiamonds as taught by Mahiko.
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 Jordan Wayne Taylor whose telephone number is (571)272-9895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5 PM EST; Second Fridays Off.
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, Sally A. 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.
/J.W.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738