DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraph [0023], Ce2O should be CeO2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 21, the Examiner recognizes “the melting point of the raw material” is an inherent element of the raw material, and therefore has antecedent basis.
Claim 30 claims the cerium oxide nanoparticles are configured to be released when the glass is dissolved. The Examiner notes this is configured to language and there is no active step of dissolving the glass in claim 30 or claim 21.
The Examiner interprets, lines 1-3 of claim 31 as the preamble of the claim, lines 4-9 include the active steps of the claim.
Claim 32 claims the cerium oxide nanoparticles are configured to be released when the glass is dissolved. The Examiner notes this is configured to language and there is no active step of dissolving the glass in claim 32 or claim 31.
Double Patenting
Applicant is advised that should claim 35 be found allowable, claim 36 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Both claim 0.01 to 0.09 mol% CeO2 in the raw material.
Claim Objections
Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error Ce2O should be CeO2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public 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.
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) 21-24 and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ranasinghe et al. (“Evidence of the coexistence of multivalence cerium oxide nano-particles in a sodium borate glass”).
Regarding claim 21, Ranasinghe (pg. 76 text and Tables) discloses a sodium borate glass doped with cerium oxide ranging from 0.01 to 0.05 mol%. Ransinghe discloses melting raw material comprising cerium oxide at 1100 degrees C, 1200 degrees C, and 1300 degrees C for 1, 2, and 3 h. The disclosure including melting and the melting time is interpreted as equivalent to heating a raw material comprising CeO2 to a temperature above the melting point of the raw material and maintaining the temperature for a specified amount of time. Additionally, the melting temperatures disclosed by Ransinghe include a temperature of 1100 degrees C, 1200 degrees C, and 1300 degrees C, which provides for specific temperatures within Applicant’s claimed range of 1100 degrees C and 1300 degrees C, including the end points, as claimed.
Additionally, Ranasinghe (pg. 76) discloses quenching the melt between two steel plates and the quenched glass is then ground to powder. This disclosure provides for a step of cooling the melted raw material to form the glass. Ranasinghe (pg. 77-78) discloses cerium oxide nanoparticles (Fig. 2a) from dissolving the glass in DI water, and discloses dissolving the glass powder to obtain a nanoparticle suspension. Ranasinghe (pgs. 77-80 including Figures) discloses evidence of the coexistence of CeO2 (tetravalent cerium oxide) and Ce2O3 (trivalent cerium oxide). Accordingly, based on the evidence, the method disclosed by Ranasinghe produced both trivalent cerium oxide and tetravalent cerium oxide nanoparticles sealed within the glass. Additionally, since dissolving of the glass was required, and since a set melting temperature and a melting time is disclosed, the method provides for the glass contains a ratio of the trivalent cerium oxide and tetravalent cerium oxide that is controlled by melting temperature and time and sealed within the glass.
Alternatively, while only individual values of 1100, 1200, and 1300 degrees C are disclosed, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in the step of heating to a temperature above the melting point, as disclosed by Ranasinghe, it would be obvious the temperature would include all temperatures within the claimed range between 1100 degrees C and 1300 degrees C, including end points since melting is successful at 1100, 1200, and 1300 degrees C.
Regarding claim 22, in addition to the rejection of claim 21 above, Ranasinghe (pg. 76) discloses the glass comprises 0.01 to 0.05 mol% cerium oxide, and (pg. 76) discloses specific examples comprising 0.01, 0.02, 0.03, 0.05 and 0.05 mol% cerium oxide. Accordingly, Ranasinghe provides for a cerium oxide concentration of 0.01, 0.02, 0.03, 0.04, and 0.05 mol%, which is within Applicant’s claimed range.
Regarding claim 23, in addition to the rejection of claim 21 above, Ranasinghe (pg. 76) discloses the glass comprises a sodium borate glass.
Regarding claim 24, in addition to the rejection of claim 21 above, Ranasinghe (pg. 77) discloses the nanoparticles ranged from about 2.02 nm to about 4.75 nm. Accordingly, Ranasinghe provides for nanoparticles each have a size ranging from about 2.02 nm to about 4.75 nm, which is within Applicant’s claimed range of between 2 and 5 nm.
Regarding claim 26, as discussed in the rejection of claim 21 above, the melting temperatures disclosed by Ranasinghe include a temperature of 1200 degrees C and 1300 degrees C, which provides for specific temperatures within Applicant’s claimed range of 1100 degrees C and 1300 degrees C, including the end points, as claimed.
Alternatively, while only individual values of 1200, and 1300 degrees C are disclosed, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the step of heating to a temperature above the melting point includes the claimed range between 1200 degrees C and 1300 degrees C, including end points.
Regarding claim 27, as discussed in the rejection of claim 21 above, Ranasinghe discloses melting times of 1, 2, and 3 hours. Accordingly, the method of Ranasinghe to maintain the temperature 1, 2, or 3 hours, which is within Applicant’s claimed range of between 1 and 24 hours, including end points.
Alternatively, Ranasinghe (pg. 80) discloses the Ce3+ and Ce4+ amounts significantly differed with changes in melting time. Accordingly, based on this disclosure, Ranasinghe teaches the melting time is a result effective variable, and therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the melting time could be optimized in order to optimize the amount of Ce3+ and Ce4+.
Regarding claim 28, in addition to the rejection of claim 21 above, Ranasinghe (pg. 80, 1st paragraph) discloses the melting temperatures of the glasses are around 700 degrees C, and the glass is melted at temperatures ranging from 400-600 degrees C above the melting point to achieve full dissolution of CeO2 and CeF3 and a higher homogeneity. Accordingly, the method of Ranasinghe provides for the temperature is 400-600 degrees C above the melting point of the raw material, as claimed.
Regarding claim 29, in addition to the rejection of claim 21 above, Ranasinghe discloses one of the raw materials, as sodium carbonate (corresponding to a reducing agent) or borax (corresponding to a reducing agent). Accordingly, Ranasinghe provides for the method including adding a reducing agent, as claimed.
Regarding claim 30, as discussed in the rejection of claim 21 above, Ranasinghe discloses dissolving the glass powder to obtain a nanoparticle suspension. Since a nanoparticle suspension is obtained from dissolving the glass, the method of Ranasinghe provides for the cerium oxide nanoparticles are configured to be released when the glass is dissolved, as claimed.
Claim(s) 31-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Ranasinghe et al. (“Evidence of the coexistence of multivalence cerium oxide nano-particles in a sodium borate glass”).
Regarding claim 31, Ranasinghe (pg. 76 text and Tables) discloses a sodium borate glass doped with cerium oxide ranging from 0.01 to 0.05 mol%. Ransinghe discloses melting raw material comprising cerium oxide at 1100 degrees C, 1200 degrees C, and 1300 degrees C for 1, 2, and 3 h. This provides for the steps of melting a raw material at a temperature and maintaining the temperature for a specified amount of time.
Additionally, Ranasinghe (pg. 76) discloses quenching the melt between two steel plates and the quenched glass is then ground to powder, which provides for the step of cooling the melted raw material to form the glass. Ranasinghe (pg. 77-78) discloses cerium oxide nanoparticles (Fig. 2a) from dissolving the glass in DI water, and discloses dissolving the glass powder to obtain a nanoparticle suspension. This provides for the formed glass is a soluble glass, and as discussed above, Ranasinghe discloses the glass is a sodium borate glass, which provides for cooling the melted raw material to form the soluble sodium borate glass.
Regarding the preamble, in addition to the glass being a soluble sodium borate glass (see discussion above), Ranasinghe (pgs. 78-80 including Figures) discloses evidence of the coexistence of CeO2 (tetravalent cerium oxide) and Ce2O3 (trivalent cerium oxide) within the glass. Accordingly, based on the evidence, the method disclosed by Ranasinghe produced both trivalent cerium oxide and tetravalent cerium oxide nanoparticles within the glass.
Regarding the modulating step, Ranasinghe (pgs. 79-80 – Conclusion) teaches Na2O and B2O3 were mixed with different amounts of CeO2, changing the melting time, changing the melting temperature, and introducing different raw materials. Ranasinghe discloses the Ce3+ concentration increases as the melting time increases, teaches glass melted at 1200 degrees C had the highest Ce4+ concentration, and glass melted with borax raw material had the highest amount of Ce3+ ions reaching higher oxidization to reduced status. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Ranasinghe, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, modulating one or more synthesis parameters, such as raw materials, melting time, or temperature, of the soluble borate glass would provide for the ability to achieve a controlled ratio of the trivalent Ce3+ (Ce2O3) and the tetravalent Ce4+ (CeO2) nanoparticles by the claimed steps of melting, maintaining, and cooling steps discussed above.
Regarding claim 32, as discussed in the rejection of claim 31 above, Ranasinghe discloses dissolving the glass powder to obtain a nanoparticle suspension. Since a nanoparticle suspension is obtained from dissolving the glass, the method of Ranasinghe provides for the cerium oxide nanoparticles are configured to be released when the glass is dissolved, as claimed.
Regarding claim 33, in addition to the rejection of claim 31 above, Ranasinghe (pg. 76 text and Tables) discloses a sodium borate glass doped with cerium oxide ranging from 0.01 to 0.05 mol%. Ranasinghe (pgs. 78-80 including Figures) discloses evidence of the coexistence of CeO2 (tetravalent cerium oxide) and Ce2O3 (trivalent cerium oxide). Accordingly, based on the evidence, the method disclosed by Ranasinghe further comprises doping the glass with cerium oxide (CeO2) to produce both trivalent cerium oxide nanoparticles and tetravalent cerium oxide nanoparticles.
Regarding claim 34, in addition to the rejection of claim 31 above, Ranasinghe (pg. 77) discloses the nanoparticles ranged from about 2.02 nm to about 4.75 nm. Accordingly, the nanoparticles each have a size ranging from about 2.02 nm to about 4.75 nm, which is within Applicant’s claimed range of between 2 and 5 nm.
Regarding claims 35 and 36, in addition to the rejection of claim 31 above, Ranasinghe (pg. 76) discloses the glass comprises 0.01 to 0.05 mol% cerium oxide. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide for a cerium oxide concentration ranging from 0.01 to 0.05 mol%, which overlaps Applicant’s claimed range.
Regarding claim 37, as discussed in the rejection of claim 31 above, the melting temperatures disclosed by Ranasinghe include a temperature of 1100 degrees C, 1200 degrees C, and 1300 degrees C, which provides for temperatures within Applicant’s claimed range of 1000 degrees C and 1300 degrees C, including the end points, as claimed. Alternatively, while only individual values of 1100, 1200, and 1300 degrees C are disclosed, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the step of heating to a temperature above the melting point includes the claimed range between 1100 degrees C and 1300 degrees C, including end points, which overlaps Applicant’s claimed range of between 1000 degrees C and 1300 degrees C, including end points, as claimed.
Regarding claim 38, as discussed in the rejection of claim 31 above, Ranasinghe discloses melting times of 1, 2, and 3 hours. Accordingly, the method of Ranasinghe maintains the temperature 1, 2, or 3 hours, which provides times within Applicant’s claimed range of between 1 and 24 hours, including end points. Alternatively, Ranasinghe (pg. 80) discloses the Ce3+ and Ce4+ amounts significantly differed with changes in melting time. Accordingly, based on this disclosure, Ranasinghe teaches the melting time is a result effective variable, and therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the melting time could be optimized in order to optimize the amount of Ce3+ and Ce4+.
Regarding claim 39, in addition to the rejection of claim 31 above, Ranasinghe (pg. 80, 1st paragraph) discloses the melting temperatures of the glasses are around 700 degrees C, and the glass is melted at temperatures ranging from 400-600 degrees C above the melting point to achieve full dissolution of CeO2 and CeF3 and a higher homogeneity. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the method of Ranasinghe provides for the temperature is 400-600 degrees C above the melting point of the raw material, as claimed.
Regarding claim 40, in addition to the rejection of claim 31 above, Ranasinghe discloses one of the raw materials, as sodium carbonate (corresponding to a reducing agent) or borax (corresponding to a reducing agent). Accordingly, Ranasinghe provides for the method including a reducing agent, as claimed.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranasinghe et al. (“Evidence of the coexistence of multivalence cerium oxide nano-particles in a sodium borate glass”) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Day et al. (US 2017/0247281A1 – hereinafter Day).
Regarding claim 25, as discussed in the rejection of claim 21 above, Ranasinghe discloses a sodium borate glass doped with cerium oxide ranging from 0.01 to 0.05 mol%. Ranasinghe (pg. 76) discloses sodium tetraborate as a raw material and cerium oxide or cerium fluoride as the raw material for the cerium oxide. Ranasinghe fails to disclose the raw material comprises CePO4 or Ce(NO3)3 or a combination thereof. However, Day (abstract) discloses a method of producing inorganic nanoparticles using a glass, and ([0031]) teaches the glass and desired compounds may be mixed as powdered raw materials including sodium tetraborate and the nanoparticle base material may be a dopant chosen from an oxide, halide, (F, Cl, I) or other type of compound (sulfate, oxalate, nitrate, etc.) that contains a desired cation, such as Ce and melting the doped glass. Additionally, Day ([0044]) teaches dopants for producing metallic nanomaterials including oxides and phosphates including Ce. Both Ranasinghe and Day teach producing cerium oxide nanoparticles using glass. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Day, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art the raw material of CeO2 or CeF3 as the Ce dopant in the method of Ranasinghe could be substituted by a cerium nitrate (Ce(NO3)3) or cerium phosphate (CePO4), or a combination thereof, as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-1623. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: EST 6:00am-3:00pm.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/LISA L HERRING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741