DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This application is filed on 07/14/2023. The preliminary amendment filed on 07/14/2023 is entered and acknowledged by the Examiner.
3. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are under examination on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements submitted on 07/14/2023, and 01/30/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner has considered the information disclosure statements.
Drawings
5. The drawing is received on 07/14/2023. This drawing is acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The term "type" in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "type" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what a first and a second "type" of nanoparticles is intended to convey. The addition of the word “type” to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite, see Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 1 18 (Bd. App. 1955). See also MPEP 2173.05 (B) (e). Claims 2-8 being depended on claim 1 are rejected as well.
8. Claims 2-5 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The term "type" in claims 2-5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "type" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what a first and a second "type" of nanoparticles is intended to convey. The addition of the word “type” to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite, see Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 1 18 (Bd. App. 1955). See also MPEP 2173.05 (B) (e).
9. Claims 9-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The term "type" in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "type" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what a first and a second "type" of nanoparticles is intended to convey. The addition of the word “type” to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite, see Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 1 18 (Bd. App. 1955). See also MPEP 2173.05 (B) (e). Claims 10-13 being depended on claim 9 are rejected as well.
10. Claim 10 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The term "type" in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "type" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what a first and a second "type" of nanoparticles is intended to convey. The addition of the word “type” to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite, see Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 1 18 (Bd. App. 1955). See also MPEP 2173.05 (B) (e).
11. Claims 14-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The term "type" in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "type" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what a first and a second "type" of nanoparticles is intended to convey. The addition of the word “type” to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite, see Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 1 18 (Bd. App. 1955). See also MPEP 2173.05 (B) (e). Claims 15-20 being depended on claim 14 are rejected as well.
12. Claims 15-17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The term "type" in claims 15-17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "type" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what a first and a second "type" of nanoparticles is intended to convey. The addition of the word “type” to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite, see Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 1 18 (Bd. App. 1955). See also MPEP 2173.05 (B) (e).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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.
14. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Yaw et al. (Heat Transfer Enhancement by Hybrid Nano Additives-Graphene Nanoplatelets/Cellulose Nanocrystal for the Automobile Cooling System (Radiator), Nanomaterials 2023, 13, 808, 1-28, hereinafter “Yaw”) in view of Akhlaghi et al. (CN102943275 A, hereinafter “Akhlaghi”).
Regarding claims 1,8: Yaw teaches a nanocoolant fluid (Page 1, Abstract, lines 5-7) comprising: water, a coolant such as ethylene glycol, and hybrid nanoparticles, the hybrid nanoparticles comprising a first nanoparticles and a second nanoparticles, the first nanoparticles being thermally conductive and hydrophobic such as graphene nanoplatelets (GnP), and the second nanoparticles being hydrophilic such as cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) (Page 1, Abstract, lines 5-7). Yaw does not expressly teach a surfactant, wherein the surfactant is sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate and the volumetric percent of the surfactant is between 0.05% and 0.35%.
However, Akhlaghi teaches a colloidal aphron/graphene hybrid fluid (Page 1, [0002]) composition, comprising: a graphene derivative, the graphene derivative comprising at least one of graphene oxide, graphene nano plates and a biopolymer solution as the first mixture solution (Page 9, Claim 13) in a volume ratio in a range of 1:0.45 to 1:0.9 (graphene oxide aqueous solution: biopolymer solution) (Page 9, Claim 6), and forming the second mixture further comprises forming the anionic-surfactant solution by mixing the ionic surfactant and water with a concentration of the anionic-surfactant solution in a range of 0.5 mg/mL to 7 mg/mL (Page 9, Claim 7), wherein the surfactant comprises 0.004-0.42 wt. % of the total weight of the colloidal aphron/graphene hybrid fluid composition (Page 9, Claim 17), and wherein the surfactant comprising sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate (Page 9, Claim 13) with benefit of providing to stabilize colloidal aphron fluids utilizing reduced graphene oxide (Page 1, [0002]).
In an analogous art of the hybrid nanofluid, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the hybrid nanofluid by Yaw, so as to include sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate surfactant and the volumetric percent of the surfactant is between 0.05% and 0.35% as taught by Akhlaghi, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing to stabilize colloidal nanocoolant fluids utilizing reduced graphene oxide (Page 1, [0002]).
It is held that it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose (i.e., the hybrid ananofluid), in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 2: The disclosure of Yaw in view of Akhlaghi is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. Yaw teaches the nanocoolant fluid, wherein the first nanoparticles comprises graphene nanoplatelets (Page 1, Abstract, lines 5-7).
Regarding claim 3: The disclosure of Yaw in view of Akhlaghi is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. Akhlaghi teaches a colloidal hybrid fluid comprises graphene oxide nanoparticles (Page 9, Claim 13).
Regarding claim 4: The disclosure of Yaw in view of Akhlaghi is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. Yaw teaches the nanocoolant fluid, wherein the second nanoparticles comprises cellulose nanocrystals (Page 1, Abstract, lines 5-7).
Regarding claim 5: The disclosure of Yaw in view of Akhlaghi is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. Yaw teaches the nanocoolant fluid,
wherein a volumetric ratio of the first of nanoparticles to the second type of nanoparticles is 1:1 (Page 13, 1st para, Results, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 6: The disclosure of Yaw in view of Akhlaghi is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. Yaw teaches the nanocoolant fluid,
wherein a volumetric percent of the hybrid nanoparticles is 0.2% (Page 13, 1st para, Results, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 7: The disclosure of Yaw in view of Akhlaghi is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. Yaw teaches the nanocoolant fluid,
wherein the coolant is ethylene glycol and a volumetric ratio of coolant to water is 40:60 or less (Page 1, Abstract, lines 5-7; Page 13, 1st para, Results, lines 1-2).
Regarding claims 9,13: Yaw teaches a nanocoolant fluid (Page 1, Abstract, lines 5-7) comprising: water, a coolant such as ethylene glycol, and hybrid nanoparticles, the hybrid nanoparticles comprising a first nanoparticles and a second nanoparticles, the first nanoparticles being thermally conductive and hydrophobic such as graphene nanoplatelets (GnP), and the second nanoparticles being hydrophilic such as cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) (Page 1, Abstract, lines 5-7). Yaw does not expressly teach a surfactant, wherein the surfactant is sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate and the volumetric percent of the surfactant is between 0.05% and 0.35%.
However, Akhlaghi teaches a colloidal aphron/graphene hybrid fluid (Page 1, [0002]) composition, comprising: a graphene derivative, the graphene derivative comprising at least one of graphene oxide, graphene nano plates and a biopolymer solution as the first mixture solution (Page 9, Claim 13) in a volume ratio in a range of 1:0.45 to 1:0.9 (graphene oxide aqueous solution: biopolymer solution) (Page 9, Claim 6), and forming the second mixture further comprises forming the anionic-surfactant solution by mixing the ionic surfactant and water with a concentration of the anionic-surfactant solution in a range of 0.5 mg/mL to 7 mg/mL (Page 9, Claim 7), wherein the surfactant comprises 0.004-0.42 wt. % of the total weight of the colloidal aphron/graphene hybrid fluid composition (Page 9, Claim 17), and wherein the surfactant comprising sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate (Page 9, Claim 13) with benefit of providing to stabilize colloidal aphron fluids utilizing reduced graphene oxide (Page 1, [0002]).
In an analogous art of the hybrid nanofluid, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the hybrid nanofluid by Yaw, so as to include sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate surfactant and the volumetric percent of the surfactant is between 0.05% and 0.35% as taught by Akhlaghi, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing to stabilize colloidal nanocoolant fluids utilizing reduced graphene oxide (Page 1, [0002]).
It is held that it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose (i.e., the hybrid ananofluid), in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 10: The disclosure of Yaw in view of Akhlaghi is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. Yaw teaches the nanocoolant fluid,
wherein a volumetric ratio of the first of nanoparticles to the second type of nanoparticles is 1:1 (Page 13, 1st para, Results, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 11: The disclosure of Yaw in view of Akhlaghi is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. Yaw teaches the nanocoolant fluid,
wherein a volumetric percent of the hybrid nanoparticles is 0.2% (Page 13, 1st para, Results, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 12: The disclosure of Yaw in view of Akhlaghi is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. Yaw teaches the nanocoolant fluid,
wherein the coolant is ethylene glycol and a volumetric ratio of coolant to water is 40:60 or less (Page 1, Abstract, lines 5-7; Page 13, 1st para, Results, lines 1-2).
Regarding claims 14,19: Yaw teaches a nanocoolant fluid (Page 1, Abstract, lines 5-7) comprising: water, a coolant such as ethylene glycol, and hybrid nanoparticles, the hybrid nanoparticles comprising a first nanoparticles and a second nanoparticles, the first nanoparticles being thermally conductive and hydrophobic such as graphene nanoplatelets (GnP), and the second nanoparticles being hydrophilic such as cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) (Page 1, Abstract, lines 5-7). Yaw does not expressly teach a surfactant, wherein the surfactant is sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate and the volumetric percent of the surfactant is between 0.05% and 0.35%.
However, Akhlaghi teaches a colloidal aphron/graphene hybrid fluid (Page 1, [0002]) composition, comprising: a graphene derivative, the graphene derivative comprising at least one of graphene oxide, graphene nano plates and a biopolymer solution as the first mixture solution (Page 9, Claim 13) in a volume ratio in a range of 1:0.45 to 1:0.9 (graphene oxide aqueous solution: biopolymer solution) (Page 9, Claim 6), and forming the second mixture further comprises forming the anionic-surfactant solution by mixing the ionic surfactant and water with a concentration of the anionic-surfactant solution in a range of 0.5 mg/mL to 7 mg/mL (Page 9, Claim 7), wherein the surfactant comprises 0.004-0.42 wt. % of the total weight of the colloidal aphron/graphene hybrid fluid composition (Page 9, Claim 17), and wherein the surfactant comprising sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate (Page 9, Claim 13) with benefit of providing to stabilize colloidal aphron fluids utilizing reduced graphene oxide (Page 1, [0002]).
In an analogous art of the hybrid nanofluid, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the hybrid nanofluid by Yaw, so as to include sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate surfactant and the volumetric percent of the surfactant is between 0.05% and 0.35% as taught by Akhlaghi, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing to stabilize colloidal nanocoolant fluids utilizing reduced graphene oxide (Page 1, [0002]).
It is held that it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose (i.e., the hybrid ananofluid), in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 15: The disclosure of Yaw in view of Akhlaghi is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. Akhlaghi teaches a colloidal hybrid fluid comprises graphene oxide nanoparticles (Page 9, Claim 13).
Regarding claim 16: The disclosure of Yaw in view of Akhlaghi is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. Yaw teaches the nanocoolant fluid, wherein the second nanoparticles comprises cellulose nanocrystals (Page 1, Abstract, lines 5-7).
Regarding claim 17: The disclosure of Yaw in view of Akhlaghi is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. Yaw teaches the nanocoolant fluid,
wherein a volumetric ratio of the first of nanoparticles to the second type of nanoparticles is 1:1 (Page 13, 1st para, Results, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 18: The disclosure of Yaw in view of Akhlaghi is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. Yaw teaches the nanocoolant fluid,
wherein a volumetric percent of the hybrid nanoparticles is 0.2% (Page 13, 1st para, Results, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 20: The disclosure of Yaw in view of Akhlaghi is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. Yaw teaches the nanocoolant fluid,
wherein the coolant is ethylene glycol and a volumetric ratio of coolant to water is 40:60 or less (Page 1, Abstract, lines 5-7; Page 13, 1st para, Results, lines 1-2).
Examiner Information
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bijan Ahvazi, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571) 270-3449. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9.00 A.M. -7 P.M..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. 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.
/Bijan Ahvazi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
01/23/2026
bijan.ahvazi@uspto.gov