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 Amendment
The amendment presents claims 1-3, 6-7, 11-12, 14, and 16 as amended, claim 15 as cancelled, and claims 17-22 as withdrawn. Claims 1-14 and 16 remain pending examination.
The claim amendments are sufficient in addressing the previously indicated objections, rejections under 35 USC 112 (b), and the rejections under 35 USC 102 (a)(1) to Liu.
Additionally, the amended specification sufficiently addresses the previously indicated objections to the same.
Further grounds of rejection, necessitated by the amendment, are presented herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2010/0196192) in view of Conneely (US2010/0301013), as evidenced by Toller (US 8785814).
Note: as used herein “nanofluid” is understood to refer to a “solid-liquid mixture or suspension produced by dispersing nano scaled metallic or nonmetallic solid particles in liquid” as defined in paragraph 0003 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches a method of producing a nanofluid which includes laser ablating a target on a surface of which a liquid is flowing (See Abstract; “Various embodiments include a method of producing chemically pure and stably dispersed metal and metal-alloy nanoparticle colloids with ultrafast pulsed laser ablation. A method comprises irradiating a metal or metal alloy target submerged in a liquid with ultrashort laser pulses at a high repetition rate, cooling a portion of the liquid that includes an irradiated region, and collecting nanoparticles produced with the laser irradiation and liquid cooling.”) (See para. 0039; liquid flow causes cooling…and transporting of the nanoparticles away from a target region and toward a collection location) (See also Figure 1 and para. 0052; laser 1 is directed to target 4, via lens 2 and mirror 3, to ablate the target. The ablation produces nanoparticles in the liquid.) (para. 0055 discloses the use of a liquid circulation system to produce liquid flow over the target) (paragraphs 0022-0025 disclose various metallic elements for the target.
Here, the nanoparticle formed by ablating the target with the laser are suspended in the flowing liquid, thus forming a nanofluid.
Liu teaches the claimed method, as detailed above, including flowing a liquid over the surface to form a thin coating.
Specifically, Liu teaches, in paragraph 0052, that “[l]iquid flow is introduced through the container so that the nanoparticles 8 can be carried away and collected elsewhere” and that the flow “cools the laser focal volume.” Liu also states that a controller is operatively coupled “to the pulsed source, motion system, and/or circulation system” and coordinates “liquid flow.” Additionally, Liu teaches, in paragraph 0062, that the liquid flow “helps reduce nanoparticle thermal movement that may overcome the kinetic barrier of coagulation” and that such liquid is introduced at a speed “preferably greater than 10 mL/s” (para. 0055).
In this case, Liu teaches laser ablating the target while a controlled flow of liquid flowing over the surface forms a thin coating [While Liu does not explicitly state that a thin coating is formed, this is necessarily present as a result of the controlled flow of liquid over the surface. The claims do not require a particular thickness of the thin coating. As such, the amount of liquid that is formed over the surface during flow is considered to correspond to a thin coating.].
Liu does not explicitly disclose that the flow is a controlled laminar flow.
However, those of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a flowing liquid over a surface can be provided to be either laminar or turbulent (See Toller, Col.3, lines 23-45, that discloses that liquid flow across a surface can be turbulent or laminar).
Conneely relates to the field of laser ablation (para. 0001) and is concerned with the production of nano-scale materials. Conneely teaches providing a laminar flow to a machining zone to entrain droplets/particles (see paragraphs 0076-0078; detailing laser ablation and entraining particles in a laminar flow to transport such particles away).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Liu with Conneely, by substituting the flow (being either laminar or turbulent) of Liu, with the laminar flow taught by Conneely, for in doing so would provide a controlled flow that minimizes collisions between captured particles, thereby preventing agglomeration of particles (See Conneely, para. 0077).
Regarding claim 2, the primary combination teaches the claimed method, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches [Liu) wherein said method includes a step of moving the target and a laser beam relative to each other (paragraph 0052 discloses moveable mirror 3 for guiding the movement of the laser beam relative to the target 4 and that the target is placed on a translation stage 7) (para. 0014 discloses producing relative motion between the laser beam and the target, or both) (claim 1 also recites “relative motion between said pulsed laser beams and said target”).
Regarding claim 3, the primary combination teaches the claimed method, as applied in claim 2, and further teaches wherein [Liu] said method includes the step of moving the target and the laser beam relative to each other such that the laser beam scans across the surface of the target in an X or Z direction when the laser beam is oriented in a Y direction and the target faces the laser beam (As detailed above, the laser is guided by mirror 3, which scans the laser across the surface of target 4. Target 4 is also on a translation stage moving in the horizontal direction. Accordingly, the target is moved relative to the laser beam such that the laser beam scans across the surface of the target in the horizontal direction when the laser beam is oriented in the vertical direction and the target faces the laser beam.).
Regarding claim 4, the primary combination teaches the claimed method, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches [Liu] wherein the liquid is continuously flowing on the surface of the target that is being laser ablated, and the liquid is arranged to flow on the target at a predefined speed (para. 0055 details using a liquid circulation system to produce a flow speed greater than 10 ml/s. Para. 0052 details that the target is submerged several millimeters below the surface of the liquid.) so as to maintain a predefined thickness of the liquid flowing on the target (based on the aforementioned a predefined thickness of liquid flowing on the target is maintained).
Regarding claim 5, the primary combination teaches the claimed method, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches [Liu] wherein the liquid is heated to a predefined temperature (para. 0068; laser ablation causes localized heating of the liquid) [The beam parameters, fluence, pulse rate, etc., chosen to ablate the target are predefined and lead to localized heating of the liquid. As such, the temperature of the liquid upon the target being ablated is at least partially predefined].
Regarding claim 7, the primary combination teaches the claimed method, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches [Liu] wherein the target (4) is selected from the group consisting of a metallic target (para. 0022-0025 discloses various metallic elements such as gold, copper, platinum, palladium, and alloys thereof), an oxide target, a nitride target, and a carbide target.
Regarding claim 8, the primary combination teaches the claimed method, as applied in claim 7, and further teaches [Liu] wherein the metallic target is in the form of non-oxidized but pristine metals, based on platinum group metals (PGMs) (para. 0025; target can be precious metal comprising platinum, palladium or alloys containing platinum or palladium).
Regarding claim 9, the primary combination teaches the claimed method, as applied in claim 7, and further teaches [Liu] wherein the metallic target is in the form of Cu or Al (para. 0022; target comprises gold, silver, or copper).
Regarding claim 10, the primary combination teaches the claimed method, as applied in claim 7, but does not explicitly state wherein the oxide target is in the form of oxidized metals.
However, claim 7 sets forth an alternative limitation. In this case, the prior art need only teach one of the alternatives as claim 10 is not limited to requiring the target to be an oxide target. Rather, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 10 merely defines what the oxide target would include if the target were an oxide.
As Liu already teaches the target being a metallic target, Liu does not need to teach the alternatives in order to anticipate the claim.
Regarding claim 11, the primary combination teaches the claimed method, as applied in claim 10, but does not explicitly state wherein the oxidized metals are selected from the group consisting of CuO, A12O3, TiO2, and MgO.
However, claim 7 sets forth an alternative limitation by recited “any one or more.” In this case, the prior art need only teach one of the alternatives as claim 11 is not limited to requiring the target to be an oxide target. Rather, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 11 merely defines what the oxide metals would include if the target were an oxide.
As Liu already teaches the target being a metallic target, Liu does not need to teach the alternatives in order to anticipate the claim.
Regarding claim 12, the primary combination teaches the claimed method, as applied in claim 7, but does not explicitly state wherein the nitride target is in the form of TiN.
However, claim 7 sets forth an alternative limitation. In this case, the prior art need only teach one of the alternatives as claim 12 is not limited to requiring the target to be an nitride target. Rather, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 12 merely defines what the nitrides would include if the target were a nitride.
As Liu already teaches the target being a metallic target, Liu does not need to teach the alternatives in order to anticipate the claim.
Regarding claim 13, Liu teaches the claimed method, as applied in claim 7, but does not explicitly state wherein the carbide target is in the form of TiC or WC.
However, claim 7 sets forth an alternative limitation by recited “any one or more.” In this case, the prior art need only teach one of the alternatives as claim 13 is not limited to requiring the target to be an carbide target. Rather, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 13 merely defines what the carbides would include if the target were a carbide.
As Liu already teaches the target being a metallic target, Liu does not need to teach the alternatives in order to anticipate the claim.
Regarding claim 14, the primary combination teaches the claimed method, as applied in claim 1, wherein said method includes the step of collecting the liquid carrying laser ablated particles, wherein the laser ablated particles are in suspension in the collected liquid (As detailed above in claim 1 and detailed in paragraph 0039, Liu teaches causing a liquid flow over the target surface being ablated to transport the nanoparticles toward a collection location. It logically follows that the liquid and nanoparticles within the liquid are collected together), wherein the liquid and suspended laser ablated particles define the nanofluid (see claim 1, above, for analysis regarding the definition of nanofluid).
Regarding claim 16, the primary combination teaches the claimed method, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches a nanofluid manufactured according to the method as claimed in claim 1 (see above in claim 1).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view Conneely (US2010/0301013) and in view of Naumov (US2020/0061741)
Regarding claim 6, the primary combination teaches the claimed method, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the liquid is water (Liu, para. 0052 discloses water).
The primary combination is silent on the liquid being an oil.
Naumov relates to laser ablation of a workpiece (para. 0001) and is concerned with providing a flowing liquid during the ablation. Naumov teaches that the liquid may be “water, glycerin, oil, nano water or a mixture” (para. 0022, 0031-0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Lui, as modified by Conneely, with Naumov, by substituting the liquid being water of Lui, with the liquid being oil as taught by Naumov, for in doing so would amount to the mere selection of a known material based on its suitability its intended purpose (liquid flow used during laser ablation). See MPEP 2144.07. Additionally, using a oil in lieu of a water would amount to a simple substitution of art recognized liquids used to during laser ablation and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2144.06-II.
Claim(s) 10-11 are, alternatively, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Conneely (US2010/0301013) and in view of Mitra et al. (US2020/0197897).
Regarding claims 10-11, the primary combination teaches the claimed method, as applied in claim 7, except for wherein the oxide target is in the form of oxidized metals (claim 10) and wherein the oxidized metals are selected from the group consisting of CuO, A12O3, TiO2, or MgO (claim 11).
Mitra relates to the generation of nanoparticles via femtosecond laser ablation (para. 0001) and teaches laser (101A-101N) ablating a target (107) submerged in a liquid (105) (Fig. 1).
Mitra teaches that the target can be chosen from a variety of metal, semiconductor, or metal-oxide targets, for instance CuO (para. 0047)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Lui, as modified by Conneely, with Mitra, by substituting the metallic material of the target of Lui, with the metal oxide material taught by Mitra, for in doing so would amount to the mere selection of a known material based on its suitability its intended purpose (forming nanoparticles via laser ablation). See MPEP 2144.07. Additionally, the prior art of record suggests that generating nanoparticles via laser ablation a target can be accomplished using various metals, semiconductor, or metal-oxide materials. Using a metal oxide material in lieu of a metallic material would amount to a simple substitution of art recognized materials used to generate nanoparticles via laser ablation and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2144.06-II.
Claim(s) 12-13 are, alternatively, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Conneely (US2010/0301013) and in view of Lappalainen et al. (KR20090004885).
Regarding claim 12, Liu teaches the claimed method, as applied in claim 7, but does not explicitly state wherein the nitride target is TiN.
Lappalainen relates to a method for producing nanoparticles by laser ablating a target (“wherein the method produces the high quality surfaces or nanoparticles in vacuum, at normal atmospheric pressure, or at overpressure.”) (“The present invention also relates to a method of forming nanoparticles in which nanoparticles are formed by ablation by a pulsed laser in a space of at least 10 .sup.−3 atm of target material.”).
Lappalainen teaches the target being titanium nitride (“ Specific particular decorative metals or metal compounds utilized as targets in accordance with the present invention include, for example, gold, silver, chromium, platinum, tantalum, titanium, copper, zinc, aluminum, iron, steel, zinc black, ruthenium Ruthenium black, ruthenium, cobalt, vanadium, titanium nitride, titanium aluminum, zirconium nitride, chromium nitride, titanium carbide silicon and chromium carbide.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Lui, as modified by Conneely, with Lappalainen, by substituting the metallic material of the target of Lui, with the nitride material taught by Lappalainen, for in doing so would amount to the mere selection of a known material based on its suitability its intended purpose (forming nanoparticles via laser ablation). See MPEP 2144.07. Additionally, the prior art of record suggests that generating nanoparticles via laser ablation a target can be accomplished using various metals and metal alloys. Using a metal nitride material in lieu of a metallic material would amount to a simple substitution of art recognized materials used to generate nanoparticles via laser ablation and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2144.06-II.
Regarding claim 13, Liu teaches the claimed method, as applied in claim 7, but does not explicitly state wherein the carbide target is in the form of TiC or WC.
Lappalainen relates to a method for producing nanoparticles by laser ablating a target (“wherein the method produces the high quality surfaces or nanoparticles in vacuum, at normal atmospheric pressure, or at overpressure.”) (“The present invention also relates to a method of forming nanoparticles in which nanoparticles are formed by ablation by a pulsed laser in a space of at least 10 .sup.−3 atm of target material.”).
Lappalainen teaches the target being titanium carbide (“Specific particular decorative metals or metal compounds utilized as targets in accordance with the present invention include, for example, gold, silver, chromium, platinum, tantalum, titanium, copper, zinc, aluminum, iron, steel, zinc black, ruthenium Ruthenium black, ruthenium, cobalt, vanadium, titanium nitride, titanium aluminum, zirconium nitride, chromium nitride, titanium carbide silicon and chromium carbide.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Lui, as modified by Conneely, with Lappalainen, by substituting the metallic material of the target of Lui, with the carbide material taught by Lappalainen, for in doing so would amount to the mere selection of a known material based on its suitability its intended purpose (forming nanoparticles via laser ablation). See MPEP 2144.07. Additionally, the prior art of record suggests that generating nanoparticles via laser ablation a target can be accomplished using various metals and metal alloys. Using a metal carbide material in lieu of a metallic material would amount to a simple substitution of art recognized materials used to generate nanoparticles via laser ablation and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2144.06-II.
Claim(s) 14 is, alternatively, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Conneely (US2010/0301013) and in view of Ichikawa et al. (US20140322138).
Regarding claim 14, Liu teaches the claimed method, as applied in claim 1, wherein said method includes the step of collecting the liquid carrying laser ablated particles,
While it logically follows that Liu implies that the laser ablated particles are in suspension in the collected liquid, this is not explicitly stated in the disclosure.
Ichikawa relates to a similar system and method for ablating a target in a liquid flow via laser (Figure 2A) and is concerned with producing an aqueous suspension of precious metal nanoparticles with reliable particle size control (para. 0003).
Ichikawa teaches producing a nanofluid which includes laser ablating (via beam 202) a target (208) on a surface of which a liquid (212) is flowing (Fig. 2A provides arrows indicating liquid flow).
Ichikawa provides an explicit teaching for collected the liquid carrying laser ablated particles wherein the laser ablated particles are in suspension in the collected liquid (See container 270; Fig. 2A) (See para. 0050; “Container 214 has inlet 226 and outlet 228 and suspension liquid 212 flows through container 214 from inlet 226 to outlet 228, so that generated PMNPs 218 are carried away and collected out of container 214 in a container 270.”) (para. 0080; “A portion of the suspension liquid 212 in which the generated PMNPs 218 exist is collected in a form of a colloidal suspension, illustrated as region 250 of liquid 212, and is collected and stored in a container 270 as an outcome of step 306. A collection of the colloidal suspension 250 may be done after or during step 306. For a circulation system, the colloidal suspension 250 may be taken at any suitable location through which the suspension liquid 212 moves from outlet 228 to inlet 226.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Lui, as modified by Conneely, with Ichikawa, by modifying the collecting of the nanoparticles of Lui, with the collecting the liquid carrying laser ablated particles wherein the laser ablated particles are in suspension in the collected liquid of Ichikawa, in order to collect both the suspension liquid and the nanoparticles generated during the laser ablation of the target so that the resulting nanofluid can be stored for later use.
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 JUSTIN C DODSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 12:00-8:00 PM (ET).
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights