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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 and 11-16, in the reply filed on November 13, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 17, 21-24, and 27-28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2 November 13, 2025.
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.
Claim 7 is 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 7 recites the limitation "the substrate particles" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of further examination, the limitation is being interpreted as “substrate particles.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Song et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0367948).
Regarding Claims 1-2 and 11: Song et al. teaches a gas absorbing material comprising a particles of a crosslinked amino containing polymer and nanoparticles of fumed silica having a particle size of 12 nm ([0088], [0116], Pg. 8, Col. 1, and [0132]-[0133]).
Regarding Claim 3: Song et al. teaches alternatively that the nanoparticles may be titanium oxide (particles with a water contact angle of 70° or more according to [0025] of Applicant’s original specification) ([0084]).
Regarding Claim 16: Song et al. teaches the crosslinked polymer is present in 90-99 wt% and the filler (fine particles) are present in 1-10 wt% ([0133]).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0367948) in view of Sugihara et al. (US Pat. No. 5,102,673).
Song et al. teaches the material of claim 1 as set forth above.
Song et al. does not teach the material comprising carbon black. However, Sugihara et al. teaches carbon black as an equivalent alterative to zeolite as absorbing materials (3:50-65). It is noted that Song et al. teaches that zeolites may be utilized in place of fumed silica ([0133]). Song et al. and Sugihara et al. are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely gas absorbing materials. At the time of the invention a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the zeolite of Song et al. with the carbon black of Sugihara et al. and would have been motivated to do so because Sugihara et al. teaches that they are equivalent alternative compounds for absorbing oxygen (3:50-65, MPEP 2144.06).
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0367948) in view of Hoshino et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0259245).
Song et al. teaches the material of claim 1 as set forth above.
Regarding Claims 12-13: Song et al. does not teach the polymer as claimed. However, Hoshino et al. teaches polymer particles containing a monomer component of N-(aminoalkyl)methacrylamide ([0083]-[0086]). Song et al. and Hoshino et al. are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely gas absorbent particles of amino containing polymers. At the time of the invention a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include the N-(aminoalkyl)methacrylamide of Hoshino et al. as a monomer for polymer particles in the material of Song et al. and would have been motivated to do so because Hoshino et al. teaches that such polymers allow for effective absorption and desorption of carbon dioxide in response to temperature change ([0078]).
Regarding Claims 14-15: Song et al. is silent as to the particle size of the amino group containing polymer. However, Hoshino et al. teaches amino group containing polymers with a particle size of 20 nm to 10 µm, overlapping and rendering obvious the claimed range and larger than the particle size of the fumed silica of Song et al. (12 nm) ([0097]). Song et al. and Hoshino et al. are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely gas absorbent particles of amino containing polymers. At the time of the invention a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize the particle size of Hoshino et al. in the material of Song et al. and would have been motivated to do so because Song et al. is silent as to the particle size, leaving one of ordinary skill in the art to look to the prior art for suitable sizes for gas absorbing particles.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 8 are 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.
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER F GODENSCHWAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-3302. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00, M-F EST.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/PETER F GODENSCHWAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767 March 5, 2026