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 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, JR. et al. (US2018/0352643A1) (hereafter Park ‘643) in view of Zhao et al. (In vacuo XPS investigation of surface engineering for lithium metal anodes with plasma treatment) (hereafter Zhao).
With respect to claim 1, Park ‘643 teaches a method of manufacturing a neutron generation target, the method comprising: (ii) contacting the first surface of the lithium foil (108/203/206) with a surface of a substrate (106/202/203) (figures 1C and 2A-B; and paragraphs 33-34, 38, and 44-49); and (iii) applying a mechanical force to a second surface of the lithium foil that is opposite to the first surface of the lithium foil, thereby adhering the first surface of the lithium foil to the surface of the substrate to obtain the neutron generation target comprising a lithium layer on the surface of the substrate (figures 1C and 2A-B; and paragraphs 33-34, 38, and 44-49).
With respect to claim 1, Park does not teach (i) removing contamination from a first surface of a lithium foil to expose lithium, wherein the removing comprises plasma-cleaning the first surface of the lithium foil in an atmosphere of an inert gas.
However, Zhao teaches removing contamination from a first surface of a lithium foil to expose lithium, wherein the removing comprises plasma-cleaning the first surface of the lithium foil in an atmosphere of an inert gas (section 3.2; and figure 3).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the Ar plasma cleaning of lithium foil as taught by Zhao in the process of Park ‘643 in order to remove contaminants and/or the native skin.
With respect to claim 2, Park ‘643 teaches wherein the contacting is continuous (figures 1C and 2A-B).
With respect to claim 3, Park ‘643 teaches roughening the surface of the substrate prior to contacting the first surface of a lithium foil with the surface of the substrate (paragraphs 5-6, 41, 43-44, 47-48).
With respect to claim 4, Park ‘643 teaches etching the surface of the substrate (paragraphs 5-6, 41, and 48).
With respect to claim 7, Zhao teaches wherein the plasma-cleaning is carried out by hot or cold plasma at a temperature not exceeding a melting point of lithium (Section 2. Experimental Plasma treatment of Li surface).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, JR. et al. (US2017/0062086A1) (hereafter Park ‘086) in view of Zhao et al. (In vacuo XPS investigation of surface engineering for lithium metal anodes with plasma treatment) (hereafter Zhao).
With respect to claim 18, Park ‘086 teaches a method of manufacturing a neutron generation target, the method comprising: (i) applying a material (intermediate material) to a surface of a substrate (106) to obtain a first layer (intermediate layer) on the surface of the substrate, wherein the material is capable of forming an alloy with lithium metal or is otherwise capable of chemically or physically adhering to lithium metal (figures 1C and 1F; and paragraphs 10, 48, 57-58, 60, and 105); (iii) contacting the first layer (intermediate layer) and the first surface of the lithium foil (108); and (iV) applying a mechanical force to a second surface of the lithium foil that is opposite to the first surface of the lithium foil, thereby causing the first layer to adhere to the lithium foil to the substrate to obtain the neutron generation target comprising a lithium layer on the surface of the substrate (figures 1C and 1F; and paragraphs 10, 48, 57-58, 60, and 105).
With respect to claim 18, Park ‘086 does not teach (ii) removing contamination from a first surface of a lithium foil to expose lithium, wherein the removing comprises plasma-cleaning the first surface of the lithium foil in an atmosphere of an inert gas.
However, Zhao teaches removing contamination from a first surface of a lithium foil to expose lithium, wherein the removing comprises plasma-cleaning the first surface of the lithium foil in an atmosphere of an inert gas (section 3.2; and figure 3).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the Ar plasma cleaning of lithium foil as taught by Zhao in the process of Park ‘643 in order to remove contaminants and/or the native skin.
With respect to claim 19, Park ‘086 teaches wherein the contacting is continuous (figures 1C and 2A-B).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park ‘643 and Zhao as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Higdon et al. (US 6,375,062B1) (hereafter Higdon).
With respect to claims 5 and 6, Park ‘643 and Zhao do not teach wherein etching the surface of the substrate is carried out using an acid; and wherein etching the surface of the substrate is carried out by heating the substrate in the presence of hydrogen.
However, Higdon teaches wherein etching the surface of the substrate is carried out using an acid (column 6, lines 54-66); and wherein etching the surface of the substrate is carried out by heating the substrate in the presence of hydrogen (column 6, lines 54-66).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the acid etching of Higdon in the collective process of Park ‘643 and Zhao in order to remove oxidation and/or form a surface of the desired finish.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park ‘643 and Zhao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of (JP-2022058161A) (hereafter JP ‘161).
With respect to claims 16-17, Park ‘643 and Zhao do not teach wherein the mechanical force is from about one megapascal (MPa) to about three MPa; and wherein the mechanical force is about two MPa.
However, JP ‘161 teaches bonding a target at a pressure of 0 Pa or more and 80 MPa or less (machine translation; and claims).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the pressure of JP ‘161 in the collective process of Park ‘643 and Zhao in order to ensure that the components properly contact one another during bonding and a strong bond is formed between the components.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park ‘086 and Zhao as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Park ‘643.
With respect to claim 20, Park ‘086 and Zhao do not teach heating the neutron generation target in while applying the mechanical force to facilitate diffusion and/or induce alloying between the material of the first layer and the lithium foil and/or vibrating the neutron generation target while applying the mechanical force to create friction between the first layer and the first surface of the lithium foil.
However, Park ‘643 teaches elevated temperatures and durations for lithium that will intrinsically form a diffusion bond and an alloy with an aluminum or copper substrate at the disclosed elevated temperatures and durations (paragraphs 9 and 45; and claims 6-8). The multiple use of “and/or” language does not positively require vibrating in view of the broadest reasonable interpretation.
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the elevated temperatures of Park ‘643 in the collective process of Park ‘086 and Zhao in order to ensure that a strong and satisfactory bond is formed between the components.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner agrees that Park ‘643 and Park ‘086 do not teach removing contamination from a first surface of a lithium foil to expose lithium, wherein the removing comprises plasma-cleaning the first surface of the lithium foil in an atmosphere of an inert gas. However, the newly cited Zhao reference teaches this limitation with motivation for doing so.
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 KILEY SHAWN STONER whose telephone number is (571)272-1183. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday.
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, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KILEY S STONER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights