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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the objections and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the prior Office action.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 to recite that the clamping element is electrically insulated from the elements (that generate mechanical vibrations) by an air gap or an insulating sleeve is sufficient to overcome the rejection grounds under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the prior Office action solely because Hall et al do not describe a presence or absence of an insulation gap between the clamping element and the elements. However, further search was conducted in view of the new claim limitation, resulting in new grounds of rejection being presented below.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al (US 2008/0028858 A1) in view of Compton et al (“Electrode Processes at the Surfaces of Sonotrodes”), Takazakura et al (US 2015/0352713 A1), and Hood (US 5,695,510 A).
Hall et al teach (see figs 2-3, paragraphs [0029], [0031]-[0035] and [0040]-[0044]) a device comprising a first circuit comprising a conductor 101b, a flowable medium (“when the tip of the horn is immersed in liquids”, and a conductor 101a, which is subjected to resonant mechanical vibration as part of an ultrasonic horn. The first circuit was mechanically connected to elements (65) that generated the resonant mechanical vibration. The device included a second circuit (implicitly required to power the ultrasonic transducer 65). The first circuit and the second circuit of Hall et al were electrically isolated/insulated from each other.
Hall et al fail to teach (1) the conductors being metallic, (2) the second circuit being isolated from the other parts by means of electrically non-conductive coupling elements on two sides of the vibration generating elements (ultrasonic transducer 65), and (3) insulation between the elements which generate mechanical vibrations and the clamping element.
Regarding (1), Compton et al teach (see abstract and Cell and Sonotrode Design section spanning pages 315 and 316) that an ultrasonically vibrating horn may include embedded electrode elements made from metal (e.g. platinum).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have substituted metallic conductors as taught by Compton et al in place of the diamond conductors taught by Hall et al with a reasonable expectation of success given that the vibrating electrodes of Compton et al and Hall et al both teach using electrodes embedded in and electrically insulated from a vibrating ultrasonic horn. See MPEP 2143.I.B.
Regarding (2), Takazakura et al teach (see fig. 8, paragraphs [0082]-[0083]) providing insulating layers (124) on both sides of an ultrasonic transducer (118a/116/118b) for the purpose of transmitting the vibrations to an attached ultrasonic horn while also insulating the ultrasonic horn from the transducer thereby reducing the danger of electric shock.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have electrically insulated/isolated the ultrasonic transducer of Hall et al from the adjacent components on both sides as suggested by Takazakura et al for the purpose of allowing the vibrations to be transmitting from the transducer to the horn while also avoiding dangers associated with electric shock.
Regarding (3), Hood teaches (see figs. 7 and 8) a clamping element (central bolt 116) that sandwiches an element which generated mechanical vibrations (piezo-ceramic washers 164) wherein the mechanical vibrations were transmitted into an acoustic horn (26). The clamping element (116) included an insulating sleeve (168) that electrically isolated the clamping element from the element that generated mechanical vibrations (164).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have added an insulating sleeve between the central clamping element and the element that generated mechanical vibrations of Hall et al as suggested by Hood for the purpose of electrically insulating the element that generated mechanical vibrations from the central clamping element.
Regarding claim 2, Hall et al teach (see paragraph [0027]) using frequencies in the range of 10-250 kHz.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, it would have been within the ordinary level of skill in the art to have conducted routine experimentation to determine suitable clamping forces between the different elements to ensure adequate attachment that is not affected by the vibration of the elements.
Regarding claim 5, the water of Hall et al is considered an electrolyte as claimed. Alternatively, Compton et al suggest (see first paragraph of Results and Discussion section on page 316) using the vibrating electrode surface for conducting the reduction of p-benzoquinone in aqueous solution or oxidation of ferrocene in acetonitrile, either of which constitutes an electrolyte.
Regarding claim 6, Compton et al teach using fully metallic electrode areas.
Regarding claim 7, Hall et al teach (see claim 35) that the vibration generated cavitation in the flowable medium.
Regarding claim 8, Compton et al suggest (see first paragraph of Results and Discussion section on page 316) using the vibrating electrode surface for conducting the reduction of p-benzoquinone in aqueous solution or oxidation of ferrocene in acetonitrile, either of which constitutes an electrolyte. It would have been within the ordinary level of skill in the art to use the modified device of Hall et al to perform one of the processes taught by Compton et al to combine the benefits of the device of Hall et al with the benefit of the vibrating electrode surface in the methods suggested by Compton et al.
Regarding claim 10, Hall et al teach (see paragraph [0005]) using the device in a high pressure environment and a structure (115) that separates the interior of the device from the flowable medium located in a vessel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have provided a liquid tight seal at the structure (115) to prevent liquid from entering into the interior of the device from the vessel.
Regarding claim 11, Hall et al teach (see paragraph [0005]) using the device in high temperature environments.
Regarding claim 12, it would have been well within the ordinary level of skill in the art to conduct routine experimentation to determine an optimal distance to achieve electrical isolation of the two circuits balanced against using too large a distance which would have made the device unnecessarily large.
Regarding claim 13, Compton et al teach (see figures) using voltages in the range of 0.3 to 2.2 volts between the working and counter electrodes.
Regarding claim 14, amperage is directly proportional to the rate of reaction in electrolysis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined a workable range of amperage in relation to the desired rate of reaction.
Regarding claim 16, Compton et al teach application of a direct current voltage to the circuit.
Regarding claim 17, Hall et al teach (see paragraph [0029]) that the acoustic horn needed to apply at least 0.5-1 W per square centimeter of the horn tip. Compton et al teach (see paragraph spanning columns on page 316) using up to 55 W per square centimeter. It would have been well within the ordinary level of skill in the art to conduct routine experimentation to determine viable power per square centimeter values for conducting electrolysis processes according to Compton et al.
Regarding claim 18, Takazakura et al teach (see paragraph [0083]) that the insulating elements were made from ceramic.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al (US 2008/0028858 A1) in view of Compton et al (“Electrode Processes at the Surfaces of Sonotrodes”), Takazakura et al (US 2015/0352713 A1), and Hood (US 5,695,510 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Islam et al (“Recent developments in the sonoelectrochemical synthesis of nanomaterials”).
Hall et al and Compton et al fail to teach using a pulsed electric field.
Islam et al teach (see abstract, figure 1, paragraph spanning pages 1 and 2) using sonoelectrochemistry for metal nanoparticle formation, wherein the direct current was pulsed on and off.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have utilized a pulsed electric current as suggested by Islam et al in the device of Hall et al to achieve the advantages of the device of Hall et al in the sonoelectrochemical process of Islam et al.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al (US 2008/0028858 A1) in view of Compton et al (“Electrode Processes at the Surfaces of Sonotrodes”), Takazakura et al (US 2015/0352713 A1), and Hood (US 5,695,510 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Weaver (US 4,290,873).
Hall et al fail to teach the presence of a fuse.
Weaver teaches (see abstract, col. 8, lines 11-31) that fuses are used in electrolysis devices to protect electrical circuitry.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have added a fuse as suggested by Weaver to protect at least one of the electrical circuits of Hall et al.
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 HARRY D WILKINS III whose telephone number is (571)272-1251. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am -6:00pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/HARRY D WILKINS III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights