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 .
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.
Claim Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 6 January 2026 have been received and considered for this Action. These amendments overcome the prior rejections of claims 3-7 and 13-18 under 35 USC § 112(b). The rejection under 35 USC § 112(d) is maintained for the reasons discussed below.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of minor informalities:
the group of alternatives recited in the claim should end with “and” not “or”; the claim should be amended to recite: “…wherein the liquid is selected from the group consisting of: water, deionized water, an organic liquid, [[or a]] and combinations [[combination]] thereof.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the organic liquid". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as none of claim 25, claim 18, nor claim 10 recite an organic liquid. For the purposes of further examination, claim 25 will be treated as if it is dependent upon claim 17, which does recite an organic liquid.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 10 limits the impurity content of the pure nanodiamonds to less than 0.01% by weight, but claim 18, which depends upon claim 10, limits the purified nanodiamonds to only less than 0.1% by weight of impurities. Claim 18 therefore fails to further limit claim 10 because it allows for more impurities than the limitations of claim 10.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-3, 6-8, 10-13, 16-18, 20, 22-23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolcott et al. (J. Phys. Chem. C 2014, 118, 26695−26702) in view of Takubo (JP H09328307 A), Myllymaki et al. (US 2017/0009350 A1), and Mobin et al. (J. Less-Common Met. 1990, 160, 1- 14). The previously provided English machine translation of Takubo (JP H09328307 A) is referenced in the analysis below.
Regarding claim 1, Wolcott teaches a method for purifying nanodiamonds (Graphitic and amorphous carbons can be removed from unoxidized HPHT NDs by
aerobic oxidation; Fig. 1 caption) comprising:
heating the nanodiamonds at a temperature of 475 °C to 570 °C for 2 hours (Nanodiamond powder was placed in a ceramic boat, loaded into a tube furnace, left open to the air, and heated to the desired temperature (475−575 °C) for 2 h; “Oxidation of Diamond Nanocrystals”, p. 26699).
Wolcott does not teach mixing the nanodiamonds with at least one salt to form a mixture, combining a liquid with the heated mixture and centrifuging, or any of the further limitations of these steps.
However, Takubo teaches that in addition to graphitic and amorphous carbon impurities targeted by the method of Wolcott, there are also metal and metal oxide impurities present on diamond nanopowders, that it is goal to provide a technology for safely and efficiently removing impurities such as metals, metal oxides, and non-diamond carbon that are mixed in diamond powder ([0007]), and that one method to do so is to mix the nanodiamonds with a salt to form a mixture and to heat the mixture (these impurities can be easily separated and removed by immersing impure diamond powder containing the above-mentioned various impurities in a molten salt whose main components are sulfates of alkali metals, particularly potassium and sodium, and treating it at a temperature in the range of 350°C to 800°C; [0008]), and that the salt can later be removed by combining a liquid with the heated mixture and centrifuging (200 ml of warm water was added to this to dissolve [the solidified salt], and the white precipitate was separated using a centrifuge; [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Wolcott to mix the nanodiamonds with at least one salt to form a mixture before heating this mixture, and to combine a liquid with the heated mixture and centrifuge it to isolate the purified nanodiamonds, as taught by Takubo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to remove the additional impurities identified by Takubo (metals and metal oxides) in a single step, as suggested by Takubo.
Neither Wolcott nor Takubo teach the salt being one of the chloride salts recited in claim 1, nor do they teach the centrifuging speed or time.
However, Myllymaki also teaches a method of treating and isolating nanodiamonds from aqueous solution where the nanodiamonds are isolated by centrifuging, and further teaches the centrifuging at a speed of 8240 rcf for a time of 30 minutes ([0186]), each of which lie in the claimed ranges for centrifuging speed and time, respectively.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to centrifuge the nanodiamonds in the method of modified Wolcott for 30 minutes at a speed of 8240 rcf, thereby arriving at the instantly clamed invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because while Takubo is silent with respect to the exact centrifuging conditions that are effective at isolating purified nanodiamonds, Myllymaki provides such details.
Regarding the identity of the salt, while Takubo uses sulfate salts, the purpose of the molten salts is to react with and remove the metal and metal oxide impurities on the surface of the nanodiamonds. Mobin teaches that at high temperatures NaCl is known to corrode metals and their oxides (At high temperatures, the conventional alloys are invariably attacked by NaCl; p. 1, ¶ 1; high temperature interaction of NaCl and metal oxides results invariably in weight losses indicating the expulsion of volatile metal chloride/Cl2(g)/NaCl).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use NaCl as the salt in the method of modified Wolcott, thereby arriving at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because hot NaCl would be able to attack and remove the metals and metal oxide impurities, as taught by Mobin and identified as desirable by Takubo.
Regarding claim 2, modified Wolcott teaches the method of claim 1, where Wolcott teaches the nanodiamonds having a size of 0−0.05 μm or 0.25-1 μm (HPHT ND powders (monocrystalline diamond powder MSY 0−0.05 μm, Microdiamant AG) and detonation nanodiamond powders (cluster diamond XP 0.25−1 μm, Microdiamant AG); p. 26699, “Materials and Methods”), each of which falls in the instantly claimed range of below 1 μm.
Regarding claims 3 and 20, modified Wolcott teaches the method of claim 1, where Takubo teaches that the weight of nanodiamonds (diamond powder) to salt is 5 g impure diamond powder to 25 g K2SO4, or nanodiamonds mixed with 5 times by weight of the salt ([0021]), which falls in the instantly claimed range of from 0.1 to 100 times by weight of the salt required by claim 3, as well as the range of 0.5 to 50 times by weight of the salt required by claim 20.
Regarding claim 6, modified Wolcott teaches the method of claim 1 where Myllymaki teaches centrifuging at a speed of 8240 rcf for a time of 30 minutes ([0186]), which meets the instant limitations of a speed from 100 rcf to 10,000 rcf for a time of from 30 seconds to 30 minutes.
Regarding claim 7, modified Wolcott teaches the method of claim 1 where Takubo teaches the liquid is water (200 mL of warm water; [0023]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Wolcott teaches the method of claim 1, but is silent with respect to the precise level of impurities in the purified nanodiamonds. However, Takubo does teach that their related process produces “high-purity diamond particles” ([0019]). The procedure of modified Wolcott is therefore expected to provide pure nanodiamonds where the purified nanodiamonds comprise at least 99.9% by weight with less than 0.1% impurities.
Even if the method of modified Wolcott does not produce the level of purity required by the instant claim, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to optimize the procedure by routine experimentation in order to achieve even more pure nanodiamonds, for example by longer oxidation conditions or by introducing more washing steps.
It is noted that the mere purity of a product, by itself, does not render the product nonobvious. MPEP 2144.04(VII).
Regarding claim 10, Wolcott teaches a method for preparing pure nanodiamonds (Graphitic and amorphous carbons can be removed from unoxidized HPHT NDs by aerobic oxidation; Fig. 1 caption) comprising:
heating unprocessed nanodiamonds at a temperature of 475 °C to 570 °C in air for a period of 2 hours (Nanodiamond powder was placed in a ceramic boat, loaded into a tube furnace, left open to the air, and heated to the desired temperature (475−575 °C) for 2 h; “Oxidation of Diamond Nanocrystals”, p. 26699).
Wolcott does not teach mixing the unprocessed nanodiamonds with at least one salt to form a mixture, combining a liquid with the heated mixture and centrifuging, or any of the further limitations of these steps. Nor does Wolcott teach the precise impurity level of the pure nanodiamonds.
However, Takubo teaches that in addition to graphitic and amorphous carbon impurities targeted by the method of Wolcott, there are also metal and metal oxide impurities present on diamond nanopowders, that it is goal to provide a technology for safely and efficiently removing impurities such as metals, metal oxides, and non-diamond carbon that are mixed in diamond powder ([0007]), and that one method to do so is to mix the nanodiamonds with a salt to form a mixture and to heat the mixture (these impurities can be easily separated and removed by immersing impure diamond powder containing the above-mentioned various impurities in a molten salt whose main components are sulfates of alkali metals, particularly potassium and sodium, and treating it at a temperature in the range of 350°C to 800°C; [0008]), and that the salt can later be removed by combining a liquid with the heated mixture and centrifuging (200 ml of warm water was added to this to dissolve [the solidified salt], and the white precipitate was separated using a centrifuge; [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Wolcott to mix the nanodiamonds with at least one salt to form a mixture before heating this mixture, and to combine a liquid with the heated mixture and centrifuge it to isolate the purified nanodiamonds, as taught by Takubo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to remove the additional impurities identified by Takubo (metals and metal oxides) in a single step, as suggested by Takubo.
Neither Wolcott nor Takubo teach the salt being one of the chloride salts recited in claim 1, nor do they teach the centrifuging speed or time.
However, Myllymaki also teaches a method of treating and isolating nanodiamonds from aqueous solution where the nanodiamonds are isolated by centrifuging, and further teaches the centrifuging at a speed of 8240 rcf for a time of 30 minutes ([0186]), each of which lie in the claimed ranges for centrifuging speed and time, respectively.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to centrifuge the nanodiamonds in the method of modified Wolcott for 30 minutes at a speed of 8240 rcf, thereby arriving at the instantly clamed invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because while Takubo is silent with respect to the exact centrifuging conditions that are effective at isolating purified nanodiamonds, Myllymaki provides such details.
Regarding the identity of the salt, while Takubo uses sulfate salts, the purpose of the molten salts is to react with and remove the metal and metal oxide impurities on the surface of the nanodiamonds. Mobin teaches that at high temperatures NaCl is known to corrode metals and their oxides (At high temperatures, the conventional alloys are invariably attacked by NaCl; p. 1, ¶ 1; high temperature interaction of NaCl and metal oxides results invariably in weight losses indicating the expulsion of volatile metal chloride/Cl2(g)/NaCl).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use NaCl as the salt in the method of modified Wolcott, thereby arriving at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because hot NaCl would be able to attack and remove the metals and metal oxide impurities, as taught by Mobin and identified as desirable by Takubo.
Regarding the impurity level, Wolcott and Takubo are both silent with respect to the precise level of impurities in the pure nanodiamonds. However, Takubo does teach that their related process produces “high-purity diamond particles” ([0019]). The procedure of modified Wolcott is therefore expected to provide pure nanodiamonds where the purified nanodiamonds comprise at least 99.99% by weight with less than 0.01% impurities by weight, as required by the instant claim.
Even if the method of modified Wolcott does not produce the level of purity required by the instant claim, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to optimize the procedure by routine experimentation in order to achieve even more pure nanodiamonds, for example by longer oxidation conditions or by introducing more washing steps.
It is noted that the mere purity of a product, by itself, does not render the product nonobvious. MPEP 2144.04(VII).
Regarding claim 11, modified Wolcott teaches the method of claim 10, where Wolcott teaches the nanodiamonds having a size of 0−0.05 μm or 0.25-1 μm (HPHT ND powders (monocrystalline diamond powder MSY 0−0.05 μm, Microdiamant AG) and detonation nanodiamond powders (cluster diamond XP 0.25−1 μm, Microdiamant AG); p. 26699, “Materials and Methods”), each of which falls in the instantly claimed range of below 1 μm.
Regarding claim 12, modified Wolcott teaches the method of claim 10, and Wolcott further teaches that the unprocessed nanodiamonds comprise impurities of amorphous carbon, which given the size of the powders (0-1 μm; p. 26699, “Materials and Methods”) would be in the form of amorphous carbon nanoparticles.
It is additionally noted that Takubo also teaches that unprocessed nanodiamond powders will contain metals and metal oxide impurities ([0007]).
Regarding claims 13 and 23, modified Takubo teaches the method of claim 10 where the weight of raw nanodiamonds (diamond powder) to salt is 5 g impure diamond powder to 25 g K2SO4, or raw nanodiamonds mixed with 5 times by weight of the salt ([0021]), which falls in the instantly claimed range of from 0.1 to 100 times by weight of the salt required by claim 13, as well as the range of 0.5 to 50 times by weight of the salt required by claim 23.
Regarding claim 16, modified Wolcott teaches the method of claim 10 where Myllymaki teaches centrifuging at a speed of 8240 rcf for a time of 30 minutes ([0186]), which meets the instant limitations of a speed from 100 rcf to 10,000 rcf for a time of from 30 seconds to 30 minutes.
Regarding claim 17, modified Wolcott teaches the method of claim 10 where the liquid is water (200 mL of warm water; [0023]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Wolcott teaches the method of claim 10, which also meets the limitations of claim 18 (see Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112).
Regarding claim 22, modified Wolcott teaches the method of claim 7, where the limitations of claim 7 are met with the liquid being water. Neither claim 7 nor claim 22 require the use of the organic liquid, and therefore all the required limitations of claim 22 are also taught by modified Wolcott.
Regarding claim 25, modified Wolcott teaches the method of claim 17, where the limitations of claim 17 are met with the liquid being water. Neither claim 7 nor claim 25 require the use of the organic liquid, and therefore all the required limitations of claim 25 are also taught by modified Wolcott.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolcott et al. (J. Phys. Chem. C 2014, 118, 26695−26702) in view of Takubo (JP H09328307 A), Myllymaki et al. (US 2017/0009350 A1), and Mobin et al. (J. Less-Common Met. 1990, 160, 1- 14), as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Stehlik et al. (Carbon 2021, 171, 230-239; available online 9 September 2020). The previously provided English machine translation of Takubo (JP H09328307 A) is relied upon in the analysis below.
Regarding claim 9, modified Wolcott teaches the method of claim 1, but is silent on the agglomeration of the nanodiamonds. However, Stehlik teaches a method for deaggregating nanodiamonds (abstract) which will provide nanodiamonds that are not agglomerated, and that doing is necessary to for understanding the properties of these nanodiamonds (p. 231, col. 1. ¶ 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deaggregate the nanodiamonds from the method of modified Wolcott, as taught by Stehlik and to arrive at nanodiamonds which are not agglomerated. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to better be able to study the purified nanodiamonds, as taught by Stehlik.
Regarding claim 19, modified Takubo teaches the method of claim 10, but is silent on the agglomeration of the pure nanodiamonds. However, Stehlik teaches a method for deaggregating nanodiamonds (abstract) which will provide nanodiamonds that are not agglomerated, and that doing is necessary to for understanding the properties of these nanodiamonds (p. 231, col. 1. ¶ 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deaggregate the pure nanodiamonds from the method of modified Wolcott, as taught by Stehlik and to arrive at nanodiamonds which are not agglomerated. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to better be able to study the purified nanodiamonds, as taught by Stehlik.
Claims 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolcott et al. (J. Phys. Chem. C 2014, 118, 26695−26702) in view of Takubo (JP H09328307 A), Myllymaki et al. (US 2017/0009350 A1), and Mobin et al. (J. Less-Common Met. 1990, 160, 1- 14), as applied to claims 6 and 16 above, and further in view of Volkov et al. (Diamond & Rel. Mater. 2020, 110, 108121; available online 8 October 2020), as evidenced by Westlab (“Differences Between RCF and RPM in Centrifugation,” Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://www.westlab.com/blog/difference-between-rcf-and-rpm-in-centrifugation>; Accessed 2026-02-09). The previously provided English machine translation of Takubo (JP H09328307 A) is relied upon in the analysis below.
Regarding claim 21, modified Wolcott teaches the method of claim 6 where Myllymaki teaches centrifuging at a speed of 8240 rcf for a time of 30 minutes ([0186]), which lie outside the instantly claimed speed from 500 rcf to 5,000 rcf for a time of from 1 minute to 15 minutes.
However, Volkov teaches that nanodiamonds can also be washed and isolated by centrifuging at 1000 rpm for 15 min, followed by multiple rounds of centrifuging for 5 min, and with increasing the centrifugation velocity up to 2000 rpm (Section 2.6.1). Volkov further teaches that high sedimentation force can lead to the formation of very dense and difficult to wash sediments (Section 2.6.1).
Volkov additionally teaches that these centrifugations were conducted on an centrifuge where 4000 rpm corresponds to 4000 rcf (A СМ-80.2S centrifuge (Russia; 4000 rpm, RCF 4000 g, 0–30 min, a fixed-angle rotor for 12 ×15 mL) …[was] used for centrifugation up to 4000 rpm; Section 2.5). Because rcf is related to the square of the rotational speed, as evidenced by Westlab (p. 2), the 2000 rpm centrifugation speed would have been operating at 1000 rcf, which lies in the instantly claimed range of 500 rcf to 5000 rcf.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the centrifugation speed and time taught by Myllymaki to multiple rounds of 5 min, including at 1000 rcf, as taught by Volkov. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Volkov teaches that such a method can wash nanodiamonds without causing the formation of dense and difficult to wash sediments.
It is further noted that the courts have found that “where 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.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II. Therefore, the claimed ranges merely represent an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the values of the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 24, modified Wolcott teaches the method of claim 16 where Myllymaki teaches centrifuging at a speed of 8240 rcf for a time of 30 minutes ([0186]), which lie outside the instantly claimed speed from 500 rcf to 5,000 rcf for a time of from 1 minute to 15 minutes.
However, Volkov teaches that nanodiamonds can also be washed and isolated by centrifuging at 1000 rpm for 15 min, followed by multiple rounds of centrifuging for 5 min, and with increasing the centrifugation velocity up to 2000 rpm (Section 2.6.1). Volkov further teaches that high sedimentation force can lead to the formation of very dense and difficult to wash sediments (Section 2.6.1).
Volkov additionally teaches that these centrifugations were conducted on an centrifuge where 4000 rpm corresponds to 4000 rcf (A СМ-80.2S centrifuge (Russia; 4000 rpm, RCF 4000 g, 0–30 min, a fixed-angle rotor for 12 ×15 mL) …[was] used for centrifugation up to 4000 rpm; Section 2.5). Because rcf is related to the square of the rotational speed, as evidenced by Westlab (p. 2), the 2000 rpm centrifugation speed would have been operating at 1000 rcf, which lies in the instantly claimed range of 500 rcf to 5000 rcf.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the centrifugation speed and time taught by Myllymaki to multiple rounds of 5 min, including at 1000 rcf, as taught by Volkov. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Volkov teaches that such a method can wash nanodiamonds without causing the formation of dense and difficult to wash sediments.
It is further noted that the courts have found that “where 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.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II. Therefore, the claimed ranges merely represent an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the values of the cited prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the indefiniteness rejections, page 6 of the reply filed 6 January 2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 3-7 and 13-18 under 35 USC § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the improper dependent form rejections, page 6 of the reply filed 6 January 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Amended claim is still of improper dependent form because it fails to further limit amended claim 10, as analyzed above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the obviousness rejections, pages 6-8 of the reply, 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.
In particular, in view of the amendments to independent claims 1 and 10, Wolcott is now used as the primary reference in the obviousness rejections, as analyzed above, and Wolcott teaches heating for 2 hours at temperatures within the claimed range.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the double patenting rejections have also been fully considered but are moot in view of the amendments to copending application 18/416,325. The prior NSDP rejections in the instant applications have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the new claims, page 9, are based upon the allowability of claims 1 and 10. These claims having been found obvious in view of the prior art, the new claims were examined based upon their further limitations and likewise found obvious, as analyzed above.
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 Nicholas A Piro whose telephone number is (571)272-6344. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00 am-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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (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.
/NICHOLAS A. PIRO/Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735