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 Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 12-17 are objected to because of the following informalities: these claims recite variations of “closed current circuit A”, “vibrating metallic conductor C” and “current circuit B”. However, the “A”, “B” and “C” are not depicted in the drawings and do not provide clarity to the scope of the claim. It is suggested to remove the “A”, “B” and “C” from the claims or to replace them with the corresponding numbered elements seen in the figures, e.g. vibrating metallic conductor (100). Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 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 1 recites the limitation "the current circuit B” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the components transmitting mechanical vibrations” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further, the claims use small variations in wording to refer back to an already recited element, e.g. (claim 1, line 8) “the elements generating vibrations”, (claim 1, lines 10-11) “the vibration-generating elements” and (claim 4, line 4) “the elements which generate vibrations” instead of the original recitation (claim 1, line 4) “elements which generate mechanical vibrations”; (claim 1, lines 5-6) “the previously mentioned resonant mechanical vibrations” instead of the original recitation (claim 1, line 4) “mechanical vibrations”; (claims 6-10, 13, 14. and 17) “the resonantly mechanically vibrating metal conductor C” instead of the original recitation (claim 1, line 3) “a resonantly mechanically vibrating metallic conductor C”; (claim 17, lines 3-4) “the surrounding flowable medium” instead of the original recitation (claim 1, line 2) “a flowable medium”. These small inconsistencies lead to potential confusion as to exactly which previously recited element is being referred to by the claim language. The listed examples are all those that were found in the review by the Office, but Applicant’s assistance in double checking all claims is requested. For purposes of further examination, the above noted examples will be assumed to refer back to the corresponding original recitation.
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”) and Takazakura et al (US 2015/0352713 A1).
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 and (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).
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 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”) and Takazakura et al (US 2015/0352713 A1) 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”) and Takazakura et al (US 2015/0352713 A1) 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
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