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 § 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.
Claims 33-37 and 41-44 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 33 recited “a square lattice porous structure.” For support of this element, applicant cites figures 8(a) and (b) and 9(a) and 9(b). Figure 8(a) and (b) show only pore shapes, which is not a lattice (a lattice is a pattern.) Figures 9(a) and (b) are unreadable in the disclosure.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 33-37 and 41-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The term “square lattice porous structure” has no support in the original disclosure. Applicant cited figures 8(a) and (b) as supporting this structure in the argument, with SEM photos, but these figures do not describe a lattice, but just pores; and the pores are not square shaped as argued. 8(a) appears to be a “D” shape. 8(b) shows an incomplete pore, with one corner, highlighted, having a square corner, but that wouldn’t make the entire pore square. There are several other pictures showing pores and none are square. Applicant also cites figures 9(a) and (b) as showing square lattice, (mislabeled 1(a) and (b)?) However, since these pictures are not in the original disclosure, unless stipulated with supporting evidence, they are new matter. Original figures 9(a) and (b) are not clear. Page 30 only describes “an ordered structure.’
Also, “a period of time sufficient to form nanocrystals” appears new matter. Support is only for “an hour.”
Claim 42: while the range of pore diameter claimed can be verified by the three data points in page 33 of the disclosure, there is no support for the +/- 5% variation claimed.
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.
Claims 33-36, 41 and 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Haraguchi et al, “Fabrication and optical characterization of a TiO2 thin film on a silica microsphere”, Surface Science 548 (2004) 59–66, in view of Sun et al, Mesostructured SBA-16 with excellent hydrothermal, thermal and mechanical
stabilities: Modified synthesis and its catalytic application, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 333 (2009) 317–323, and further evidence from Bader et al (US 5,196,267).
Haraguchi teaches coating mesoporous (pore size in fig 2b appears to fall in mesoporous range – see the scale factor on the fig.) silica microspheres (section 3) with titania sol in ethanol and hydroxypropyl (a structuring agent?) (fig 1), and then sintering it at temperature 400 C, or 600 C for anatase structure for 20 min. See left col. On page 61 and results and discussions, left column on page 62. The crystals of titania are nanocrystals – see the SEMs in fig. 2. Regarding the sintering temperature of 450 C for sufficient time, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to optimize these conditions to obtain the best results and saving time and cost. Optimizing time and temperature in chemical reactions is well-known and routinely practiced.
Titanium isopropoxide- Haraguchi uses titanium tetraethoxide, but the isopropoxide would have been only an obvious equivalent – see evidence of that in Bader, table D.
Anatase phase – see sintering temperature of 400 or 600 C for anatase.
Claim 43: pores not substantially blocked is inherent – same or similar process.
Haraguchi does not teach the synthesis of mesoporous silica microspheres and is silent whether it has “square lattice structure”. Nonetheless, Fig. 2b of Haraguchi shows the surface of the silica microspheres as porous and the pore sizes visible are in the very low nm, mesoporous, range (see the scale factor). Haraguchi also describes the surface structure as porous under the second paragraph under section 3, results and discussions, and also the TiO2 as being nanoparticles (akin to applicant’s argument that a pore is a small opening on the surface.)
Sun teaches synthesizing the mesoporous silica microspheres and specifically the advantages of using F127 surfactant. See the abstract. Sun teaches that the SBA-16 has excellent hydrothermal, thermal and mechanical properties. They form microspheres with 3-D cubic arrangements of pores (would be a square lattice in 2-D). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use the teaching of Sun in the teaching of Haraguchi to have SBA-16 or similar supports for their improved properties.
Dependent claims 39-41 are also obvious from the teaching of Haraguchi in view of Sun. Sun teaches pluronic F127 as template, has the lattice structure (figures; Id.)
Response to Arguments
Arguments are either addressed in the rejection of are moot – new grounds for rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNAN S MENON whose telephone number is (571)272-1143. The examiner can normally be reached on Flexible, but generally Monday-Friday: 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached on 5712720579. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777 heck the