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 § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 5, 11, 12, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US PG Pub 2015/0222083).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang et al. disclose: a CO2 beam source comprising: at least one discharge tube (705) in which a laser gas serves (carbon dioxide) as a laser medium (Fig. 7A, [0076], [0077]), a fan (blower 715) for supplying the laser gas into the at least one discharge tube via at least one supply element (701) and for removing the laser gas from the at least one discharge tube via at least one removal element (702) in a closed laser gas circuit (Fig. 7A, [0076], [0077]), and at least one catalyst (107) for catalysing oxidation of dissociation products that are formed upon excitation of the laser gas, wherein the at least one catalyst comprises precious metal nanoparticles (330) applied to a substrate (325) (Figs. 3A and 3B, [0037], [0040], [0042], [0044]), wherein the at least one catalyst (107) is arranged with clearance from the at least one discharge tube in the flow direction of the laser gas within the closed laser gas circuit in order to reduce deposition of degradation products formed in the at least one discharge tube upon excitation of the laser gas compared to an arrangement within the at least one discharge tube (Fig. 7A, [0076], [0077]), and a temperature of the at least one catalyst during operation of the CO2 beam source is at least 60° C [0039]).
PNG
media_image1.png
584
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3A of Zhang et al.
PNG
media_image2.png
560
766
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3B of Zhang et al.
PNG
media_image3.png
544
712
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7A of Zhang et al.
Regarding claim 5, Zhang et al. disclose: wherein the at least one catalyst is arranged within the at least one supply element (catalyst 107 arranged within device element comprising supply 715) (Zhang, Fig. 7A, [0076], [0077]).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang et al. disclose: wherein the precious metal nanoparticles comprise: platinum nanoparticles, palladium nanoparticles, gold nanoparticles, nanoparticles of an alloy of these materials, or a mixture of thereof ([0040]-[0042]).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang et al. disclose: wherein the substrate of the at least one catalyst is a metal substrate or a ceramic substrate ([0040]-[0042]).
Regarding claim 18, Zhang as modified disclose: wherein the temperature of the at least one catalyst during operation of the CO2 beam source is at least 100° C (Zhang, [0039]).
Regarding claim 19, Zhang as modified do not disclose: wherein the temperature of the at least one catalyst during operation of the CO2 beam source is at least 150° C (Zhang, [0039]).
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.
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US PG Pub 2015/0222083).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang et al. do not disclose: wherein a flow path of the laser gas between a downstream end of the at least one discharge tube and the at least one catalyst is at least 5 cm.
However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.05 II, Optimization of Ranges: Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In the prior art the general conditions are disclosed, a CO2 beam source comprising a catalyst and discharge tube disposed a distance from one another. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to obtain a workable range of values for the distance between the catalyst and discharge tube by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang et al. do not disclose: wherein the flow path of the laser gas between the downstream end of the at least one discharge tube and the at least one catalyst is at least 10 cm.
However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.05 II, Optimization of Ranges: Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In the prior art the general conditions are disclosed, a CO2 beam source comprising a catalyst and discharge tube disposed a distance from one another. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to obtain a workable range of values for the distance between the catalyst and discharge tube by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 4, Zhang et al. do not disclose: wherein the flow path of the laser gas between the downstream end of the at least one discharge tube and the at least one catalyst is at least 15 cm.
However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.05 II, Optimization of Ranges: Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In the prior art the general conditions are disclosed, a CO2 beam source comprising a catalyst and discharge tube disposed a distance from one another. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to obtain a workable range of values for the distance between the catalyst and discharge tube by routine experimentation.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US PG Pub 2015/0222083) in view of Bewer et al. (US PG Pub 2015/0030043).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang et al. do not disclose: wherein the fan is centrally arranged and wherein, in a first plane, the CO2 beam source comprises supply arms as first supply elements and removal arms as second removal elements in a radial and alternating manner and, in a second plane, the discharge tubes are interconnected via second supply elements and first removal elements in an alternating manner, and wherein at least one partial region of at least one supply arm of the supply arms and/or at least one removal arm of the removal arms is in a form of a heat exchanger for cooling of the laser gas.
Bewer et al. disclose: fan (11) is centrally arranged and wherein, in a first plane (upper plane in Fig. 2), the CO2 beam source comprises supply arms (12) as first supply elements and removal arms (13) as second removal elements in a radial and alternating manner and, in a second plane, the discharge tubes are interconnected via second supply elements (5) and first removal elements (14) in an alternating manner, and wherein at least one partial region of at least one supply arm of the supply arms and/or at least one removal arm of the removal arms is in a form of a heat exchanger (26, 27, 28 and 29) for cooling of the laser gas (Figs. 1 and 2, [0025]-[0028]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zhang by forming the gas beam source as disclosed by Bewer including adding the catalytic converter to the at least one supply arm or removal arm in order to more efficiently cool the gas beam source.
Regarding claim 7, Zhang as modified disclose: wherein at least one inner face of at least one supply arm in contact with the laser gas serves as the substrate of the at least one catalyst (see the rejection of claim 6).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang as modified disclose: wherein the at least one catalyst is arranged in at least one of the supply arms and/or in at least one of the removal arms upstream of the at least one partial region in the form of the heat exchanger (Fig. 3A of Zhang disclose catalyst 305 upstream of a heat exchanger 310) (Zhang, Fig. 3A, [0038], [0039]).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US PG Pub 2015/0222083) in view of Roe et al. (US PG Pub 2010/0129270).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang et al. do not disclose: wherein the CO2 beam source comprises at least one device for replacing the at least one catalyst.
Roe et al. disclose: access door 36 connection to the housing body 14 provides easy access to remove and repair or replace the catalysts 32, 34 (Fig. 1, [0022]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zhang by adding an access door to the beam source in the supply element or removal element in order to be able to replace the catalyst.
Regarding claim 10, Zhang as modified disclose: wherein at least one supply arm and/or at least one removal arm comprises at least one closable opening as the at least one device for replacing the at least one catalyst (see the rejection of claim 9).
Claim 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US PG Pub 2015/0222083) in view of Alward et al. (US PG Pub 2006/0188416).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang et al. do not disclose: wherein a coating is present on the substrate of the at least one catalyst and the precious metal nanoparticles are applied to the coating, wherein the coating comprises a metal oxide.
Alward et al. disclose: intermediate layer applied to the surface of the substrate, thereby increasing its effective surface area and providing a surface to which the catalyst adheres. Metal catalyst may thus be impregnated on this porous, high surface area layer of inorganic carrier ([0054]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zhang by forming a coating on the substrate of the catalyst in order to increase the effective surface area and providing a surface to which the catalyst adheres.
Regarding claim 14, Zhang as modified disclose: wherein the coating comprises cerium oxide, aluminum oxide, titanium oxide, copper oxide, or a mixture thereof (Alward, [0054]).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang as modified disclose: wherein the coating on the substrate of the catalyst is microscopically structured for surface area enlargement (Alward, [0054]).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang et al. do not disclose: wherein the substrate of the catalyst is structured for surface area enlargement.
Alward et al. disclose: intermediate layer applied to the surface of the substrate, thereby increasing its effective surface area and providing a surface to which the catalyst adheres. Metal catalyst may thus be impregnated on this porous, high surface area layer of inorganic carrier ([0054]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zhang by forming a coating on the substrate of the catalyst in order to increase the effective surface area and providing a surface to which the catalyst adheres.
Regarding claim 17, Zhang as modified disclose: wherein the substrate of the catalyst is honeycomb-structured for surface area enlargement (Zhang, Fig. 3B, [0040]-[0042]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cohn (US PG Pub 2012/0027042) discloses: a CO2 gas flow laser with multiple discharge modules places acoustic baffles between the discharge modules to suppress shock waves and ions passing between the discharge modules such as may disrupt the optical path of the laser. A catalyst may be placed in a center of a toroidal recirculation chamber of the laser and may have integrated filters to prevent catalyst particulates from coating the chamber optical windows (Abstract). Cohn (US PG Pub 2012/0195342) discloses: multiple independent electrode sets of a CO2 gas laser are arranged in series within a single optical resonator with each electrode set energized by an independent power source. The total length of the electrode sets together and their maximum power are optimized for output energy at the weakest laser wavelength, and one or several of the independent electrode sets is turned off and/or their power reduced to achieve laser output on strong lines without damage to the laser optics. The total resonator length is chosen to produce an output laser beam with single transverse mode (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XINNING(TOM) NIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1437. 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, Minsun Harvey can be reached at 571-272-1835. 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.
/XINNING(Tom) NIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights