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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I in the reply filed on 04/13/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the two groups of claims are directed to similar subject matter, with the Groups II claims being a process and the claims of Group I being an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the process of Group II. This is not found persuasive because as explained on page 3, “Groups I-II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of synthesis of energetic core-shell particles, comprising: an oxide precursor; a metal; and inductive heating to synthesize energetic core-shell - particles, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of '097 (JP 2012-117097). A machine translation of '097 is attached as an English equivalent and is used in the citations below. '097 teaches a metal core/oxide shell particle formed by an oxide precursor (second metal, claims) and metal (first metal, claims) and inductive heating (pg. 3, 2nd full para.).”.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 40-49 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/13/26.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 30-32 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ceylan et al (“Inductive Heating for Organic Synthesis by Using Functionalized Magnetic Nanoparticles Inside Microreactors”, 2020-05-19, see pages 8950-8952) in view of Denes et al (US 2008/0169182A1).
As to claim 30, Ceylan et al teaches in using magnetic nanoparticles a system for the synthesis of energetic core-shell particles(see Figs 1-2), the system comprising: a chamber for conducting particle synthesis reactions (a reactor); an oxide source coupled to the chamber (starting material), for supplying the chamber with an oxide precursor (Fe3O4, see Fig 2, and page 8951); a metal source (iron powder) coupled to the chamber, for supplying the chamber with a metal; and an inductive heating source (inductor heating), coupled to the chamber (reactor), for inductively heating chamber contents to synthesize energetic core-shell particles. Ceylan et al lacks teaching a nozzle coupled to the chamber for outputting particles. However, in using magnetic nanoparticles a nozzle coupled to the chamber, for outputting synthesized energetic core-shell particles from the chamber is known in the art, for instance as taught by Denes et al (see Fig 1 and para [0026] for a nozzle (outlet channel 110 and reaction vessel 100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a nozzle coupled to the chamber in Ceylan et al in order for separation of magnetic nanoparticles may be effected by passing the magnetic nanoparticles through an outlet channel surrounded by magnets as taught by Denes et al (see para [0033]).
Regarding claims 31 and 32, in Ceylan et al teaches (see Fig 1) the system further comprising an auxiliary material source, coupled to the chamber (reactor), for supplying the chamber with auxiliary materials (washing solutions), wherein the auxiliary materials for supply to the chamber comprise a fluid.
As to claim 35, Ceylan et al lacks teaching suspended particles outputted by the nozzle. Denes et al teaches (see Fig 1, para [0002] and [0026]) the system further comprising an electromagnetic suspension subsystem, the electromagnetic suspension subsystem configured to suspend energetic core-shell particles outputted by the nozzle (an outlet channel 110, shown in FIG. 1 at the lower end of the reaction vessel, allows the dense fluid medium, including any nanoparticles suspended therein). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an electromagnetic suspension subsystem in Ceylan et al for the nanoparticles be discharged from the reaction chamber as taught by Denes et al (see para [0026]).
Claims 33 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ceylan et al (“Inductive Heating for Organic Synthesis by Using Functionalized Magnetic Nanoparticles Inside Microreactors”, 2020-05-19, see pages 8950-8952) in view of Denes et al (US 2008/0169182A1) as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Li et al (US 2009/0044661 A1) and Altamar et al (US 2012/0058179).
Ceylan et al teaches the use of magnetic nanoparticles in biotechnology and biomedical industries, nanoparticle provided with silica coating (see Fig 1a), but lacks teaching a capture storage system configured to package core-shell particles into a storage container or a gel packaging subsystem. However, Li et al teaches the system further comprising a capture storage system (collection chamber 330) coupled to the nozzle (outlet line 310), and configured to receive energetic core-shell particles from the nozzle (310). Altamar et al also teaches (see Figs 1 and 3 and para [0031]) an encapsulation machine producing soft gel capsules provided with a storage system, wherein the storage system configured to package energetic core-shell particles into a storage container (encapsulation machine provided with a dispenser 3 feeding nanoparticles, a heating wedge 11, conveyor transporting the capsules into a dryer and packaging system for drugs [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a capture storage system or a gel packaging subsystem as claimed in Ceylan et al as modified to make the capsules into final form as taught by Altamar et al (see para [0021]).
Claim(s) 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ceylan et al (“Inductive Heating for Organic Synthesis by Using Functionalized Magnetic Nanoparticles Inside Microreactors”, 2020-05-19, see pages 8950-8952) in view of Denes et al (US 2008/0169182A1) as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of EP2568278A1.
Although Ceylan et al teaches a magnetic resonance spectroscopy (see column 1, paragraph 1 on page 8950), an electromagnetic transmitter and an electromagnetic receiver are not taught in Ceylan et al. However, a spectrometer of measuring apparatus for exposing contents of a chamber to electromagnetic radiation is taught in EP’278 (see Fig 2 an electromagnetic emitter 21 and an electromagnetic receiver 22 connected inlet side 5 and outlet side 6 of the test chamber 3, wherein nozzle 8 outputting materials). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an electromagnetic transmitter and an electromagnetic receiver as claimed in Ceylan et al as modified for quality purpose in determining a composition of a material (see English Translation under Description).
Claim 39 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ceylan et al (“Inductive Heating for Organic Synthesis by Using Functionalized Magnetic Nanoparticles Inside Microreactors”, 2020-05-19, see pages 8950-8952) in view of Denes et al (US 2008/0169182A1) as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Li et al (US 2009/0044661 A1).
Ceylan et al discloses (see Fig 1c, flow control valve and a pump, but lacks teaching a control system configured to adjust operation parameters. Li et al teaches (see Fig 7 and para [0077], [0081]) the system further comprising a control system (controllers 115, 125, and 135) configured to adjust operation parameters of the system (programmable automated controller (PAC). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a control system as claimed in Ceylan et al to ensure the supply of fluid materials are within the desired levels as taught by Li et al (see para [0077]).
Claim 34 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Altamar et al teaches (see Figs 1 and 3 and para [0031]) an encapsulation machine producing soft gel capsules provided with a storage system using a wedge heating element. However, the wedge element heating is a contact base thermal processing. Prior art of record does not disclose or suggest a system for the synthesis of energetic core-shell particles, the system comprising, among others (see claim 30), a chamber, an oxide source, a metal source, a nozzle, and an inductive heating source coupled to the chamber, a capture storage system coupled to the nozzle, wherein the capture storage system is configured to receive energetic shell particles from the nozzle and comprises an inductive heating element (a non-contact electromagnetic processed), for heating stored energetic core-shell particles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEWEBDAR T TADESSE whose telephone number is (571)272-1238. The examiner can normally be reached 7.00-3:30 PM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
YEWEBDAR T. TADESSE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
/YEWEBDAR T TADESSE/
Prosecution Insights