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 .
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.
Claims 2-3, 11-12, and 20 are 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 2 recites “zinc oxide” and “phosphoric acid”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the above limitations will be interpreted as “the zinc oxide” and “the phosphoric acid”, respectively.
Claim 3 recites “the product”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the above limitations will be interpreted as “the zinc phosphate”.
Claims 11-12, and 20 recite “a power density … W”. The claims recites “a power density” while the unit is W , which is a unit for power, not for a power density. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 13-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sutapun et al (“Sonochemical synthesis of Zn3(PO4)2.4H2O and Zn3(PO4)2 powders”, Advanced Materials Research, Vol. 506, pp 94-97, 2012).
Regarding claim 1, Sutapun et al disclose a method of synthesizing zinc phosphate (ABSTRACT). The method comprises a step consisting of reaction of zinc oxide with phosphoric acid with ultrasound sonication using 750 kHz (i.e., … comprising a step consisting of … greater than 100 kHz, page 95).
Regarding claim 4, Sutapun teaches to wash and dry the produced zinc phosphate (page 95).
Regarding claim 6, Sutapun teaches 50 mL of 0.1M ZnO and 50 mL of 0.1M H3PO4 (page 95).
Regarding claim 9, Sutapun teaches 86.4% of H3PO4 (e.g., 62% of P2O5, page 95).
Regarding claim 13, Sutapun teaches a sonication cell with a probe (page 95).
Regarding claim 14, since Sutapun teaches a method comprises substantially step as claimed(page 95), it must have the same outcome.
Regarding claim 16, Sutapun teaches H3PO4 available from industry commercial source (page 95).
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 2-3, 5, 10-12, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutapun et al (“Sonochemical synthesis of Zn3(PO4)2.4H2O and Zn3(PO4)2 powders”, Advanced Materials Research, Vol. 506, pp 94-97, 2012) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Achsel et al (EP 0009717, cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 2, Sutapun teaches to mix zinc oxide with phosphoric acid and then to sonicate the solution (page 95), but does not teach to add zinc oxide to phosphoric acid while stirring. However, Achsel et al disclose a method of making zinc phosphate from zinc oxide and phosphoric acid under sonication (ABSTRACT). Achsel teaches that it is not necessary to prepare zinc oxide suspension and zinc oxide can be slowly added to phosphoric acid while stirring using a stirrer (page 2 line 25-35 & Examples).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to slowly add zinc oxide to phosphoric acid solution as suggested by Achsel in order not to prepare zinc oxide suspension while using the method of Sutapun.
Regarding claims 3, 15, and 17, Achsel teaches to stir for about 10 to 90 min. (Examples).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Sutapun teaches to wash and dry the produced zinc phosphate (page 95). Achsel teaches to conventionally wash and dry at around 80⁰C (page 1 line 20-25). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to wash and dry at around 80⁰C as suggested by Achsel in order to obtain desired product while using the method of Sutapun.
Regarding claims 10-12, and 19-20, Sutapun teaches ultrasonic frequency of 750 kHz (page 95). Achsel teaches that ultrasonic frequency and power level affect the reaction speed and zinc phosphate is produced with various ultrasonic frequencies and power levels (page 3 line 3-11, & Examples). Thus, ultrasonic frequency and power level are result-effective variables. Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the ultrasonic frequency and power level in order to achieve desired products while using the method of Sutapun/Achsel.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutapun et al (“Sonochemical synthesis of Zn3(PO4)2.4H2O and Zn3(PO4)2 powders”, Advanced Materials Research, Vol. 506, pp 94-97, 2012) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Inbe et al (PG-PUB US 20120160372) and Sueda et al (PG-PUB US 20140212669).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Sutapun does not teach to grind zinc oxide particles to have particle size in a range of 0.1 to 5 µm. However, Inbe et al disclose a method of making zinc phosphate from zinc oxide and phosphoric acid (ABSTRACT). Inbe teaches that zinc phosphate is produced by reacting zinc oxide with phosphoric acid in an ultrasonic device, wherein the zinc oxide is milled to have an average particle diameter in a range of 0.05 to 3 µm for producing stable products (paragraphs [0034] –[0035], [0037], [0040] –[0041] & Example).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to mill zinc oxide to have an average particle diameter in a range of 0.05 to 3 µm as suggested by Inbe in order to produce stable zine phosphate while using the method of Sutapun.
Sutapun/Inbe does not teach to measure particle size with a laser device. However, Sueda et al disclose a method of measuring zinc oxide particles (ABSTRACT). Sueda teaches that zinc oxide particle size can be measured with a laser device (paragraph [0063]). Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Sueda, would have realized to utilize a laser device for determining particle size in order to obtain proper zinc oxide particle for the method of Sutapun/Inbe.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUYU TAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1855. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:00-5:00.
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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/XIUYU TAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights