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 .
Response to Amendment
This Non-final Rejection is in response to the Amendment dated April 16, 2026 filed in response to the Non-final Rejection dated October 16, 2025.
Cancelation of claims 11 and 17 is acknowledged.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections in the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of the amendments made to the claims. However, the claims continue to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 based upon new grounds necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, starting in the bottom half of page 6, Licitar (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0264479 A1) does not teach or suggest the use of ceramic material for the first rotor and the second rotor. Examiner agrees. Licitar is silent regarding the material used to construct the rotors. However, as explained in the Final Rejection dated March 11, 2025, the prior art teaches such a construction. Accordingly, the claims remain unpatentable as explained below.
Applicant argues, on page 7, Licitar also does not teach production of hydrogen during colliding of materials. Examiner agrees. Licitar is silent regarding production of hydrogen during colliding of materials. However, as explained in the Final Rejection dated March 11, 2025, the prior art teaches production of hydrogen during colliding of materials. Accordingly, the claims remain unpatentable as explained below.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0264479 A1 by Licitar et al., hereinafter “Licitar”, in view of German Patent Publication No. DE 10 2017 010 910 A1 by Aneziris et al., hereinafter “Aneziris”.
Regarding claim 1, Licitar discloses an apparatus for producing nanoparticles of a material (nanomill apparatus 100 in Fig. 1; ¶[0049]), comprising:
a core for accelerating the material (core 104 in Fig. 1; ¶[0102]), wherein the core comprises:
a first disc (first disc rotor 124a in Fig. 1; ¶[0049]) and a second disc facing the first disc (second disc rotor 124b in Fig. 1; ¶[0049]), and one or more drives for rotating the first disc, the second disc, or a combination thereof (¶[0052] discloses rotors 124a and 124b are rotated by a drive at speeds up to 10,000 RPM), wherein the first disc and the second disc each comprise:
a plurality of concentric rings, wherein each of the plurality of the concentric rings comprises a blade base and a plurality of hypersonic blades arranged on the blade base (Fig. 1 shows a plurality of concentric rings of hypersonic blade vanes 122a and 122b arranged on blade vane bases. See “Vane Bases” annotation to Fig. 1 of Licitar reproduced below.);
a plurality of concentric channels alternately interleaved with the plurality of concentric rings (Fig. 1 shows the plurality of concentric channels. See “Concentric Channels” annotation to Fig. 1 below.);
wherein each of the plurality of hypersonic blades individually comprises a sharp leading edge, a sharp trailing edge, a suction surface, and a pressure surface configured to produce an expansion wave (Fig. 5 shows each of vanes 522a and 522b with sharp leading edge vertices and sharp trailing edge vertices which create a low pressure suction surface region and a high pressure surface region as described in ¶[0075]. See “Leading Edge Vertices” and “Trailing Edge Vertices” annotated in Fig. 5 of Licitar reproduced below.);
wherein each of the plurality of hypersonic blades of the plurality of concentric rings of the first disc are arranged in the channels of the second disc (Fig. 1 shows blade vanes 122a of first disc rotor 124a arranged in the Concentric Channels of second disc rotor 124b); and
wherein each of the plurality of hypersonic blades of the plurality of concentric rings of the second disc are arranged in the channels of the first disc (Fig. 1 shows blade vanes 122b of second disc rotor 124b arranged in the Concentric Channels of first disc rotor 124a).
PNG
media_image1.png
1268
877
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1014
1717
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Licitar does not expressly disclose a chord length of each of the plurality of hypersonic blades decreases from a most radially inner ring towards a most radially outer ring as claim 1 has been amended to claim. However, paragraphs [0058] through [0061] teach the aerodynamic vanes distributed in circular rows around the core may be separated by a distance and/or a degree apart which may remain constant or change from one row to another from the inner row to the outer row and the number of aerodynamic vanes in each row can vary among rows.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to decrease the length of Licitar’s aerodynamic vanes from the most radially inner ring of aerodynamic vanes toward the most radially outer ring of aerodynamic vanes by progressively increasing the number of aerodynamic vanes in each row from the most radially inner ring toward the most radially outer ring while maintaining the distance and/or degree apart between the aerodynamic vanes constant as Licitar teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying Licitar’s teaching in paragraphs [0058] through [0061] to Licitar’s disclosed nanomill would achieve the predictable result of a nanomill where the chord length of each of the plurality of aerodynamic vanes decreases from the most radially inner row towards the most radially outer row.
Licitar is silent regarding the first disc (first disc rotor 124a in Fig. 1) and the second disc (second disc rotor 124b in Fig. 1) comprise a ceramic material, as was amended into claim 1.
In the same field of rotary beater mills, Aneziris teaches a pin mill (¶[0001]) which uses a disk made of ceramic material (disk 1 in Fig. 1; ¶[0038]) to withstand wear during operation as disclosed in ¶[0007] through [0009].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ceramic material in making rotors 124a and 124b of Licitar to withstand operational wear in the same way Aneziris teaches using ceramic material in making disk 1 to withstand operational wear. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Aneziris to the nanomill of Licitar would have achieved the predictable result of Licitar’s disclosed nanomill with rotors made of ceramic material as Aneziris teaches.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art reference combination of Licitar in view of Aneziris renders the apparatus of claim 1 as explained above unpatentable. Licitar further discloses, wherein the one or more drives are configured to rotate the first disc in a first direction and the second disc in a second direction, opposite to the first direction (¶[0049] and [0050] disclose first disc rotor 124a and second disc rotor 124b are rotated in opposite directions).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art reference combination of Licitar in view of Aneziris renders the apparatus of claim 1 as explained above unpatentable. Licitar further discloses comprising:
an inlet for introducing the material in the apparatus (inlet material input hopper 101 in Fig. 1; ¶[0050]); and
a material guide for guiding the material to the core (see “Material Guide” annotation to Fig. 1 above.).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art reference combination of Licitar in view of Aneziris renders the apparatus of claim 1 as explained above unpatentable. Licitar further discloses, wherein the first disc, the second disc, or a combination thereof comprise an opening through which material is drawn into the core when the first disc, the second disc, or a combination thereof are rotated (Fig. 4 shows a nanomill where material is drawn into central region 440 of the nanomill core; ¶[0063]).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art reference combination of Licitar in view of Aneziris renders the apparatus of claim 1 as explained above unpatentable. Licitar further discloses comprising a system for setting an atmosphere within a path of the apparatus through which the material is to travel (¶[0051] discloses nanomill 100 can be placed inside a sealed atmosphere controlled chamber).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art reference combination of Licitar in view of Aneziris renders the apparatus of claim 1 as explained above unpatentable. Licitar further discloses comprising a system for generating a vacuum for removing the nanoparticles of the material from the core (¶[0047] and [0051] disclose nanomill 100 can be placed in a high-pressure sealed chamber such that the material exit duct from the nanomill, as disclosed in ¶[0086], is a relative vacuum to the pressurized sealed chamber).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art reference combination of Licitar in view of Aneziris renders the apparatus of claim 1 as explained above unpatentable. Licitar further discloses comprising a separator system for separating the nanoparticles of the material from a surrounding medium (Fig. 13 shows a nanoparticle production apparatus with nanomill 1304 and particle sampling system 1306 which includes a particle separator; ¶[0089]).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art reference combination of Licitar in view of Aneziris renders the apparatus of claim 1 as explained above unpatentable. Licitar further discloses comprising a collection system configured to collect the nanoparticles of the material (Fig. 13 shows a nanoparticle production apparatus with nanomill 1304 and particle solidifying chamber 1312 which collects the nanoparticles; ¶[0089]).
Regarding claim 10, the prior art reference combination of Licitar in view of Aneziris renders the apparatus of claim 1 as explained above unpatentable. Licitar further discloses, wherein a pitch of each of the plurality of hypersonic blades increases from a radially most inner ring towards a radially most outer ring (¶[0084] discloses vane positioning as shown in Fig. 10 where the distance between the vanes, i.e., pitch, increases from the outer row of vanes to the inner row of vanes).
Regarding claim 12, the prior art reference combination of Licitar in view of Aneziris renders the apparatus of claim 1 as explained above unpatentable. Licitar further discloses, wherein the core further comprises:
a housing enclosing the first disc and the second disc (Fig. 1 shows a housing enclosing rotors 124a and 124b. See “Housing” annotation to Fig. 1 of Licitar above.);
wherein the housing further comprises one or more elements for acting on an atmosphere between the first disc and the second disc (¶[0051] discloses nanomill 100 can be placed inside a sealed atmosphere controlled chamber).
Regarding claim 13, the prior art reference combination of Licitar in view of Aneziris renders the apparatus of claim 12 as explained above unpatentable. Licitar further discloses the apparatus is configured to adjust a sintering process within the core (¶[0050] discloses nanomill 100 in Fig. 1 can be used to produce nanoparticles within a size range of 1nm to 500nm. The hardening and bonding process described in ¶[0122] may be used as a sintering process where the sintering process is adjusted based upon the particle size of the material exiting nanomill 100.).
Claims 14-16 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Licitar in view of Aneziris and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0011757 A1 by Palm, hereinafter “Palm”.
Regarding claim 14, Licitar discloses a method for producing nanoparticles of a material, comprising:
rotating a first disc (first disc rotor 124a in Fig. 1; ¶[0049]), a second disc (second disc rotor 124b in Fig. 1; ¶[0049]), or a combination thereof of an apparatus (nanomill apparatus 100 in Fig. 1; ¶[0049]) comprising:
a core for accelerating the material (core 104 in Fig. 1; ¶[0102]), wherein the core comprises:
a first disc and a second disc facing the first disc (Fig. 1 shows second disc rotor 124b facing first disc rotor 124a), and one or more drives for rotating the first disc, the second disc, or a combination thereof (¶[0052] discloses rotors 124a and 124b are rotated by a drive at speeds up to 10,000 RPM), wherein the first disc and the second disc each comprise:
a plurality of concentric rings, wherein each of the plurality of the concentric rings comprises a blade base and a plurality of hypersonic blades arranged on the blade base (Fig. 1 shows a plurality of concentric rings of hypersonic blade vanes 122a and 122b arranged on blade vane bases. See “Vane Bases” annotation to Fig. 1 of Licitar reproduced above.);
a plurality of concentric channels alternately interleaved with the plurality of concentric rings (Fig. 1 shows the plurality of concentric channels. See “Concentric Channels” annotation to Fig. 1 above.);
wherein each of the plurality of hypersonic blades individually comprises a sharp leading edge, a sharp trailing edge, a suction surface, and a pressure surface configured to produce an expansion wave (Fig. 5 shows vanes 522a and 522b with sharp leading edge vertices and sharp trailing edge vertices which create a low pressure suction surface region and a high pressure surface region as described in ¶[0075]. See “Leading Edge Vertices” and “Trailing Edge Vertices” annotated in Fig. 5 of Licitar reproduced below.);
thereby drawing the material into the core (¶[0063] discloses material begins in central region 440 in Fig. 4 and is drawn outwardly as depicted by the arrow);
introducing one or more fluids into the core (¶[0047] discloses a gaseous fluid is introduced into the internal portion of the nanomill from a gas tank (¶[0008]) to control the pressure within the mill);
accelerating the material; and
colliding the material between the plurality of hypersonic blades of the first disc and the plurality of hypersonic blades of the second disc, thereby producing nanoparticles of the material (¶[0045] discloses the nanomill process accelerates the material towards the outer perimeter of the mill and smashes the material to produce nanoparticles).
Licitar does not expressly disclose a chord length of each of the plurality of hypersonic blades decreases from a most radially inner ring towards a most radially outer ring as claim 14 has been amended to claim. However, paragraphs [0058] through [0061] teach the aerodynamic vanes distributed in circular rows around the core may be separated by a distance and/or a degree apart which may remain constant or change from one row to another from the inner row to the outer row and the number of aerodynamic vanes in each row can vary among rows.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to decrease the length of Licitar’s aerodynamic vanes from the most radially inner ring of aerodynamic vanes toward the most radially outer ring of aerodynamic vanes by progressively increasing the number of aerodynamic vanes in each row from the most radially inner ring toward the most radially outer ring while maintaining the distance and/or degree apart between the aerodynamic vanes constant as Licitar teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying Licitar’s teaching in paragraphs [0058] through [0061] to Licitar’s disclosed nanomill would achieve the predictable result of a nanomill where the chord length of each of the plurality of aerodynamic vanes decreases from the most radially inner row towards the most radially outer row.
Licitar is silent regarding the first disc (first disc rotor 124a in Fig. 1) and the second disc (second disc rotor 124b in Fig. 1) comprise a ceramic material, as was amended into claim 14.
In the same field of rotary beater mills, Aneziris teaches a pin mill (¶[0001]) which uses a disk made of ceramic material (disk 1 in Fig. 1; ¶[0038]) to withstand wear during operation as disclosed in ¶[0007] through [0009].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ceramic material in making rotors 124a and 124b of Licitar to withstand operational wear in the same way Aneziris teaches using ceramic material in making disk 1 to withstand operational wear. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Aneziris to the nanomill of Licitar would have achieved the predictable result of Licitar’s disclosed nanomill with rotors made of ceramic material as Aneziris teaches.
Licitar is also silent regarding producing hydrogen during the colliding of the material, as was amended into claim 14.
In the same field of rotary beater mills, Palm teaches a method and device for disintegration of organic material (Fig. 1; ¶[0053]) which uses a pretreatment apparatus (10a in Figs. 1 and 2; ¶[0071]-[0077]) with counter-rotating, coaxial rotors (62, 64 in Fig. 2). Claim 1 on page 7 and claim 7 on page 8 teach the method uses the pretreatment apparatus shown in Figs. 1 and 2 to produce hydrogen-containing gas that can be used as a fuel.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Licitar’s nanomill apparatus 100 as a pretreatment apparatus in a method for disintegrating organic material which produces hydrogen-containing gas in the same way Palm teaches using pretreatment apparatus 10a in the method for disintegrating organic material producing hydrogen-containing gas. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Palm using the apparatus disclosed by Licitar would have yielded the predictable result of Palm’s method of producing hydrogen-containing gas which uses a nanomill apparatus as disclosed by Licitar.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art reference combination of Licitar in view of Aneziris and further in view of Palm renders the method of claim 14 as explained above unpatentable. Licitar further discloses comprising modifying an atmosphere within the core (¶[0051] discloses nanomill 100 can be placed inside a sealed atmosphere controlled chamber).
Regarding claim 16, the prior art reference combination of Licitar in view of Aneziris and further in view of Palm renders the method of claim 14 as explained above unpatentable. Licitar further discloses comprising colliding the material a plurality of times (Fig. 14 discloses a method of operating nanomills 1404a,b,c, and d in series; ¶[0090]).
Regarding claim 20, the prior art reference combination of Licitar in view of Aneziris and further in view of Palm renders the method of claim 14 as explained above unpatentable. Licitar, further discloses comprising sintering the nanoparticles of the material (Fig. 13 shows a nanoparticles production method including collecting the particles in particle solidifying chamber 1312 where they harden and bond; ¶[0089] and [0122]).
Regarding claim 21, the prior art reference combination of Licitar in view of Aneziris and further in view of Palm renders the apparatus of claim 1 as explained above unpatentable. Licitar further discloses, wherein the sharp leading edge and the sharp trailing edge are not rounded. The sharp leading edge and sharp trailing edge of Licitar’s aerodynamic vanes are not “rounded” as defined by applicant’s definition of “rounded” in paragraph [0048] of applicant’s written description. See also numbered paragraph 7 on page 3 of the previous Final Rejection providing explanation.
Regarding claim 22, the prior art reference combination of Licitar in view of Aneziris and further in view of Palm renders the apparatus of claim 1 as explained above unpatentable. Licitar further discloses, wherein the pressure surface has a sharp transition point. The side surfaces of Licitar’s aerodynamic vanes serve as pressure surface during operation. The side surfaces of Licitar’s aerodynamic vanes transition into a sharp leading edge and a sharp trailing edge at either end of the aerodynamic vanes.
Regarding claim 23, the prior art reference combination of Licitar in view of Aneziris and further in view of Palm renders the apparatus of claim 1 as explained above unpatentable. Licitar further discloses, wherein the suction surface and the pressure surface each have sharp transition points. The side surfaces of Licitar’s aerodynamic vanes serve as pressure surfaces and suction surfaces during operation. The side surfaces of Licitar’s aerodynamic vanes transition into a sharp leading edge and a sharp trailing edge at either end of the aerodynamic vanes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL DEREK PRESSLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-6658. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 3:30pm Eastern.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/P DEREK PRESSLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/BOBBY YEONJIN KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights