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, claims 13-19 in the reply filed on 09/06/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that citation to the Agarwal reference fails to support the restriction requirement. Agarwal is withdrawn in the current rejection. Newly cited Sharif reference anticipated instant claims 13-19 as indicated in art rejection below.
Applicant also argues there is no added search burden in examination of unelected claim 22 that is currently pending. It should be noted original Group I, claims 13-19 were elected by original presentation on 09/06/2026. Accordingly, claim 22 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Status of Claims
Claims 13-19, 22 and 24-29 are pending. Claims 13-19 and 24-29 are presented for this examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 04/22/2024 and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 19, 24, 27 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.
Claims 19, 24 and 27 recites the limitation "the mechanical blend" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13-17, 24, 26 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sharifi (NPL document “A study on mechanochemical behavior of B2O3-Al system to produce alumina-based nanocomposite” published in 2009).
As for claims 13-17, 24, 26 and 29, Sharifi discloses an aluminothermic reduction of boron oxide by high energy ball milling (i.e. claimed mechanical blending) for 40 hours a Al powder particles with B2O3 powder particles to form Al2O3- AlB12 nanocomposite powder. Figure 2(d) illustrates ball milled mixed Al and B2O3 powder particles are in nano size of 50-200 nm. (Page 111 Figure 2d and Col 1 paragraph 2 last three lines)
Hence, the nano sized Al powder particles read on claimed first metal nanoparticle being an oxide free metal nanoparticle.
The nano sized B2O3 powder particle reads on claimed second metal nanoparticle having metal oxide formed on a surface thereof.
Hence, instant claims 16, 17 and 29 required wherein clause is met in view of first metal nanoparticle being Al and second metal nanoparticle is B2O3.
The aluminothermic reduction (Page 110 Col 2 Formula (1)) as illustrated below suggests the nano sized Al powder particles reduce the metal oxide of nano sized B2O3 powder particle and produce an oxide free boron particle as required by instant claim 15 via redox reduction.
13Al + 6B2O3= 6Al2O3+AlB12
Hence, instant claim 13 is met.
Instant claim 14 required plurality of first and second metal nanoparticles is expected.
Since ball milling of Al powders and B2O3 is mixed with stoichiometric composition according to reaction formula above, (Page 110 Col 2 Experimental Section paragraph 1) instant claim 24 required additive composition comprising mechanical blending is met.
Since the high energy ball milling media were hardened chromium steel vial, in which rotational speed of vial were 500 rpm (Page 100 Col 2 last three lines), tumbling in rotating cylinders as required by instant claim 26 is met.
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.
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) 19, 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharifi in view of Shahravan (NPL document “Passivation of Aluminum Nanoparticles by Plasma-Enhanced Chemical Vapor Deposition for Energetic Nanomaterials” published on 2014).
As for claims 19, 25 and 27, Sharifi does not disclose passivating the mechanical blend and deposition a fluorinated film on the first and second metal nanoparticle via plasma deposition.
Shahravan discloses Passivation of Aluminum Nanoparticles by Plasma-Enhanced Chemical Vapor Deposition for Energetic Nanomaterials. A thin film is fabricated with organic precursor such as perfluorodecalin as passivating coating on aluminum nanoparticles by plasma deposition.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, at the time the invention is made to passivate a fluorinated film via plasma deposition as suggested by Shahravan, on the mechanical blend of Sharifi as Shahravan discloses the passivation advantageously provides protection against oxidation. (Abstract)
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharifi in view of WO’553 (WO9406553A1).
As for claim 18, Sharifi does not disclose the mechanical blending involves magnetic agitation.
Wo’553 discloses that it is known to agitate the contents of an autoclave using a magnetic agitator (magnetic bar) driven in rotation by magnetic coupling with a set of magnets driven by a motor placed under the autoclave for preventing the products contained within the autoclave from corroding the drive mechanism. [0003]
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, to apply magnetic agitators as suggested by WO’553, in the process of Sharifi for the benefit of preventing corrosion.
Claim(s) 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharifi in view of Lin (NPL document of “A low temperature molten salt process for aluminothermic reduction of silicon oxides to crystalline Si for Li-ion batteries” published in 2015).
As for claim 28, Sharifi does not disclose an emulsifying aid or a catalyst in the forming the mixture of Al and B2O3 powder mixture.
Lin discloses aluminothermic reduction of silicon oxides with metallic Al powder to form crystalline Si. Molten AlCl3 is added to melt as a liquid phase which acted as a reaction medium, ensuring that the metallic Al powder and silicon oxide are in contact with each other tightly. (Page 3189 Col 2 paragraph 2)
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, at the time the invention is made to add AlCl3 as suggested by Lin , in the process of Sharifi for the benefit of ensuring metallic Al powder and B2O3 are in contact with each other tightly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNY R WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5515. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM-5:00 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, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571)272-1401. 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.
/JENNY R WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights