DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on (8/16/2023), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims (1-45) are pending and being examined.
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 1-36 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.
Independent claim 1 recites “energy sufficient to break” “shock wave of sufficient energy”. These terms make this claim indefinite since the term sufficient is a relative term. This term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 2 recites “hydrocarbon radicals transit through said mass flow conduit by non-diffusive propagation under the influence of a magnetic field to which unpaired valence electrons of said paramagnetic C1 hydrocarbon radicals are aligned and coupled.” This limitation is unclear as to which process or apparatus disclosed in the specification it is associated.
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.
Claims 1-7, 10-11, 19-20, 30-37, 39, 41 and 44-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Louis K Bigelow (US 5310512) in view of Vranich et al (US 20180130639).
Louis K Bigelow discloses that a method and apparatus was known for fabricating diamond by generating plasma of hydrocarbon which would generate radicals. The plasma could be generated using microwave (a microwave radiolysis power source). The plasma could be accelerated towards the substrate using accelerating magnets (Col 1 lines 23-35). Louis K Bigelow disclose modification of the prior art to fabricate diamond on a predetermined shape on a surface where it could be released properly. In Fig 3 is disclosed a plasma jet accelerated by cylindrical magnets (217). The magnets are cooled by liquid nitrogen (output heat exchanger) (234).
Regarding interface component, it is not different from a magnetic field creator with heat exchanger for cooling and is therefore duplicate of such components in Bigelow.
Louis K Bigelow discloses permanent magnet. However, electromagnets are known to provide an alternative means of creating magnetic field. Vranich et al discloses electromagnets (Fig 1) in a heat exchanger fluid.
Having an electromagnet in place of a permanent magnet would have been obvious for the controllability provided by an electromagnet.
Therefore, replacing permanent magnet of Louis K Bigelow by electromagnet would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of this application.
Regarding claim 2 radicals produced by microwave pass through under the influence of magnetic field.
Regarding claim 3 “output heat exchanger” as disclosed is an electromagnet in cooling fluid as in Vranich.
Regarding claim 4-7 permanent magnet to influence non-diffusive propagation is disclosed as above.
Regarding claim 10 since methane is disclosed by Louis K Bigelow, methyl radicals are disclosed as the product of dissociation.
Regarding claim 11, microwave radiolysis source is disclosed as discussed above.
Regarding claim 19 and 41, Vranich et al do not disclose superconducting magnets.
Regarding claim 20 cooling fluid is disclosed as nitrogen as discussed above.
Claim 30-36 discloses transit of hydrocarbon radicals to the site of diamond fabrication as disclosed in Louis K Bigelow.
Regarding claim 37 directed to an apparatus, radical generation and fabrication is disclosed by Louis K Bigelow.
Regarding claim 39 microwave source is disclosed as above.
Claim 45 is rejected along with claim 1 as above.
Claims 8-9, 14, 29 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Louis K Bigelow (US 5310512) in view of Vranich et al (US 20180130639) and John C Angus (US 3630679).
Regarding claims 8-9 and 29, Louis K Bigelow do not disclose hydrocarbon for generating radicals for depositing diamond being diluted in an inert gas.
John C Angus disclose diamond growth process where methane is diluted with hydrogen or helium as an alternative carrier gas (Col 3 lines 1-17).
Regarding claims 14 and 38, John C Angus discloses diamond seed for diamond growth (Abstract) on a heated support (Col 2 lines 1-16).
Therefore, dilution of hydrocarbon with inert gas as discussed above would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of this application.
Claims 12 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Louis K Bigelow (US 5310512) in view of Vranich et al (US 20180130639) and Asmussen et al (US 9890457).
K Bigelow in view of Vranich et al disclose microwave power for diamond deposition but do not disclose typical frequency used.
Asmussen et al disclose an apparatus for synthesizing diamond (Fig 1A) using Microwave energy at 2.45 GHz at 1-10 KW (Col 25 line 55- Col 26 line 11).
Therefore, having this frequency at rated power would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of this application.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Louis K Bigelow (US 5310512) in view of Vranich et al (US 20180130639) and Crewson et al (US 8232747).
K Bigelow in view of Vranich et al disclose electromagnet but not a plurality of them.
Crewson et al disclose particle accelerator having plural magnetic core sections (Fig 2, 130).
Therefore, electromagnet for magnetic accelerator in several parts for finer control would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of this application.
Claims 15-16 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Louis K Bigelow (US 5310512) in view of Vranich et al (US 20180130639), John C Angus (US 3630679) and Malhotra et al (US 5336828).
Regarding claim 15 and 16 term “remediated” is understood to clean or remove impurities; in this case from seed.
John C Angus discloses diamond growth process using diamond seed and hydrocarbon like methane diluted with helium and cleaning of seed (Col 4 lines 52- Col 4 lines 2). John C Angus However does not disclose cleaning by hydrogenolysis.
Using hydrogenolysis for cleaving hydrocarbon to remove impurities was well known as disclosed in Malhotra et al (Col 4 line 45-Col 6 line24).
Regarding claim 23 additionally remediating or removing impurity using hydrogen is disclosed by Angus (Col 1 line58-75).
Therefore, post deposition remediation using the teaching as above would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of this application.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Louis K Bigelow (US 5310512) in view of Vranich et al (US 20180130639) and H J Hibshman (US 3371996).
Regarding claims 17 and 18 Louis K Bigelow does not disclose diamond seed as being diamond powder impressed into malleable metal.
H J Hibshman discloses a diamond growth process using a seed where the seed is a diamond powder impressed into malleable metal like platinum (Col 5 lines 58- 65).
Therefore, using seed for start of diamond growth would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of this application.
Claims 21-22 and 42-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Louis K Bigelow (US 5310512) in view of Vranich et al (US 20180130639) and Larry Keith Knight (US 20050111159).
Louis K Bigelow does not disclose magnet being a super conducting magnet. super conducting magnet are known to provide large magnetic fields and magnetic attraction efficiently with low loss.
Larry Keith Knight discloses superconducting magnet system using helium as cooling fluid (Para 31).
Therefore, having super conducting magnet system for its efficiency in getting higher magnetic field would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of this application.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Louis K Bigelow (US 5310512) in view of in view of Vranich et al (US 20180130639), John C Angus (US 3630679), Malhotra et al (US 5336828) and Bhandari (US 20100242834).
Louis K Bigelow in view of in view of John C Angus and Malhotra et al as discussed above do not disclose remediation by alcohol wash.
Alcohol wash was however well known in view of alcohol being an industrial solvent.
Bhandari et al teach that CVD grown diamonds are cleaned in ultrasonic device and with isopropyl alcohol (Para 71).
Therefore, post deposition remediation using alcohol would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of this application.
Claim 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Louis K Bigelow (US 5310512) in view of Vranich et al (US 20180130639), John C Angus (US 3630679), Bhandari (US 20100242834) and Newman et al (US 20150259790).
Regarding these claims directed to post diamond growth cleaning, Newman discloses diamond growing apparatus and method (Abstract) using metal as substrate and disclose removal of metal to obtain free standing diamond mass (Para 91). The removal could mechanical, chemical or electromechanical.
Therefore, using abrasion or heating or application of acid and rinsing with water would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of this application.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 37-45 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No.11802053. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims recite an apparatus for growing diamond using high energy activation of hydrocarbon radicals under magnetic field and the patented apparatus claims are directed to the same subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Aizawa et al (US 2014/0377472) teach a plasma deposition apparatus comprising a magnetic accelerator 15 (magnetic field lenses – Figs. 1, 2 and 0067) to accelerate ions of plasma passing through a conduit (ring magnet), and teach that the ring magnet can use electromagnets also.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAM N KACKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1436. The examiner can normally be reached 09:00 AM-05:00 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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 5712721435. 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.
RAM N. KACKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1716
/RAM N KACKAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716