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 .
Response to Amendments and Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed November 10, 2025, are acknowledged. Claim 1 is amended, and Claims 6-7 are cancelled.
Claims 1-4 are currently pending and considered in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surendran (“Printable Hierarchical Nickel Nanowires for Soft Magnetic Applications”) in view of Zhang (“Synthesis of High-Aspect-Ratio Nickel Nanowires by Dropping method”).
Regarding Claim 1, Surendran discloses a nickel nanowire having a face-centered cubic lattice structure (Abstract; Section 2.2; Fig. 2(a), wherein face-centered cubic structure is associated with the (111), (200) and (220) diffraction peaks, and no other peaks are present in XRD pattern),
an average crystallite size of 39nm with a preferred direction for the (111) plane, which reads on the claimed range of 30nm or more (Pg. 14247, Col. 2, Para. 1; Pg. 14248, Col. 1, Para. 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate an average grain size of 39nm requires a grain size in the (111) plane direction of 39nm or more because the crystallites in this direction would be larger than those of the (200) and (220) directions (see Fig. 2(a), wherein (200) and (220) peaks are broader than (111) peak, indicating smaller grain sizes in these directions than in the (111) direction, and wherein the intensity is greatest (preferred) in the (111) direction).
Surendran further discloses the XRD pattern depicting the intensity and pattern data for the (200) and (220) peaks (Fig. 2(a)). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the (200) and (220) peak pattern may be used to calculate the crystallite size in the (100) and (110) directions, respectively, by using the Scherrer formula and the peak position and FWHM (full width half maximum) values from the XRD pattern (see Pg. 14247, Col. 2 – Pg. 14248, Col. 1). The Scherrer formula, when further applied to the (200) and (220) peaks of the XRD pattern of Surendran result in a crystallite grain size of approximately 18nm and 20nm for the (100) direction ((200) peak data) and for the (110) direction ((220) peak data), respectively, which reads on the claimed ranges of 10-80nm for the (110) direction and 10-80nm for the (100) direction.
Surendran further discloses a saturation of magnetization of 20 emu/g or more (Abstract; 51 emu/g).
Surendran discloses wherein the length is on the order of several microns (see Fig. 2(c); Pg. 14248, Col. 1, Para. 2-Col. 2, Para. 1), but fails to disclose an average length of 10um or more.
Zhang teaches wherein achieving a high aspect ratio improves the quality and performance of nickel nanowires and when utilized for materials such as catalytic, microwave-absorbing material, sensor, and memory device applications (Background, para. 1; Abstract; Conclusions). Zhang teaches obtaining similar lengths of about 45um with conventional and inventive manufacturing methods (Pg. 3, Col. 2, Para. 1; Fig. 2(a)-(b) insets; Fig. 5, length 45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have comprised a length of 10um or more, such as 45um, and by conventional and known methods, as taught by Zhang, for the invention disclosed by Surendran, in order to comprise a high aspect ratio, thereby improving quality and performance of the nickel nanowires in applications such as catalytic materials, microwave-absorbing material, sensors, and memory devices (see teachings above).
Regarding Claim 2, Surendran discloses an average diameter of 150-300nm, which reads on the claimed range of 50nm-1um (Pg. 14248, Col. 1, Para. 2).
Regarding Claim 3, Surendran discloses wherein a content ratio (hcp/fcc) of a hexagonal closest packing structure to the face-centered cubic lattice structure in the nickel wire is 0.2 or less (see Fig. 2(a), only XRD peaks associated with the face-centered cubic structure (111), (200) and (220) are present, and the hcp/fcc ratio would therefore be 0).
Regarding Claim 4, Surendran discloses wherein the nickel nanowire is composed of nickel having only the face-centered cubic lattice structure (see Fig. 2(a), only peaks associated with the face-centered cubic structure (111), (200) and (220) are present, and the hcp/fcc ratio would therefore be 0).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed November 10, 2025, with respect to Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2-7, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Tang and over Surendran, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims further limiting the crystal grains sizes. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Surendran in view of Zhang, as detailed above.
Applicant’s arguments directed to the claimed combination of crystal sizes and wire lengths are deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant argues that the prior art references do not disclose the high temperature resistance properties of the instant invention.
This argument is not found persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., high temperature resistance properties) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim (US 20190276948 A1): discloses a nickel nanowire with the claimed grain sizes in the (111) direction, and crystal grain sizes in the (200) and (220) direction which equate to the grains sizes in the (100) and (110) directions (Fig. 4). Kim discloses coercivity but is silent towards saturation magnetization.
Tang (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed May 8, 2023, CN 103586479 A, English Machine Translation provided): discloses a nickel nanowire having a face-centered cubic lattice structure (Abstract; para. [0057], wherein face-centered cubic structure is associated with the (111), (200) and (220) diffraction peaks, and no other peaks are present in XRD pattern – see Fig. 6), comprising a saturation of magnetization of 20 emu/g or more (see Fig. 7, greater than 40 emu/g for saturation of magnetization), a length reaching tens of microns (para. [0050]; see also Fig. 1), and an average diameter of 70-380nm (Abstract).
Tang discloses a crystallite size in a direction of (111) lattice plane of up to 25nm (para. [0001]; para. [0057], up to 25nm for (111) peak for 50mM sample).
Tang discloses the XRD pattern depicting the intensity and pattern data for the (200) and (220) peaks (Fig. 6). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the (200) and (220) peak pattern may be used to calculate the crystallite size in the (100) and (110) directions, respectively, by using the Scherrer formula and the peak position and FWHM (full width half maximum) values from the XRD pattern (see for example, para. [0057] of Tang, half height method refers to calculation by the Scherrer formula). The Scherrer formula, when further applied to the (200) and (220) peaks of the XRD pattern of Tang (see the 40mM example (top pattern) in Fig. 6), results in a crystallite grain size of approximately 17nm and 16nm for the (100) direction ((200) peak data) and for the (110) direction ((220) peak data), respectively, which reads on the claimed ranges of 10-80nm for the (110) direction and the (100) direction.
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 CATHERINE P SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00-4:00 MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)-272-3458. 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.
CATHERINE P. SMITH
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/CATHERINE P SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735