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 .
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Polshettiwar et al (US 2013/0089739). No distinction is seen between the process disclosed by Polshettiwar et al, and that recited in claims 1, 3 and 4. Polshettiwar et al disclose the synthesis of mixed oxides of nickel wherein nickel acetate precursor and copper chloride are stirred. (See Paragraph [0127}.) The nickel acetate is considered to constitute a catalyst, and the irradiation would inherently result in acoustic waves. In any event, it would be obvious to carry out the irradiation step of Polshettiwar et al to result in acoustic waves, since acoustic waves would be expected to be formed during the irradiation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 17, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polshettiwar et al. Polshettiwar et al is relied upon as discussed hereinbefore.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Polshettiwar et al disclose in Paragraph [0075] that the dimensions of the nanoparticles are about 1 to about 500 nm.
Regarding claim 21, it would be expected that the nanoparticles formed according to the process of Polshettiwar et al would be porous, since they are made by substantially the same process recited in applicant’s claims 1. It would be obvious to provide conditions which would result in pores having a diameter of about 1 nm to7 nm.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 5-16, 19 and 20 are objected to as based on a rejected parent claim, and would be allowed if written in independent form.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Polshettiwar et al (US 2013/0089739) discloses the synthesis of mixed oxides of nickel wherein nickel acetate precursor and copper chloride are stirred. (See Paragraph [0127}.) The nickel acetate is considered to constitute a catalyst and the irradiation would inherently result in acoustic waves. In any event, it would be obvious to carry out the irradiation step of Polshettiwar et al to result in acoustic waves, since acoustic waves would ve expected to be formed during the irradiation. However there would be no motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Polshettiwar et al with the limitations recited in claims 4-16, 19 and 20. For example, Polshettiwar et al disclose in Paragraph [0104] that the solution is exposed to microwave energy for about 2 minutes to 6 hours. There would be no motivation from such teaching to irradiate for no more than about 30 seconds, as recited in claims 2 and 14-16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE A LANGEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-1353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:15 am to 4:15 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/WAYNE A LANGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736