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 1-15
species:
-continuous phase: epoxy
-first porous material hollow: glass
-second porous material: hollow spheres or bubbles
in the reply filed on 1/6/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restriction requirement cited a process that is not materially different than a general manner, presumably disclosed in the method of making in claim 16. This is not found persuasive because the material of claim 1 is not required to be made by the process of claim 16 and as such may be created in a different way. For example the material of claim 1 may be created by adding microballoons as a first material but also leaching out a different phase to create a second porous material, which does not involve “packing” as described in claim 16.
Applicant’s argument that “packing” is broader than the “shaking” cited as an example in the restriction requirement of 11/7/25 has been considered but is moot as the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 1/6/26.
The elected species in claims 1-15 are examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3585157 by Beck in view of US 3622437 by Hobaica et al.
Beck describes multiphased synthetic foams.
Regarding claim 1, Beck describes a buoyant material (col 2 ln 15-20, 27-36) with hierarchy (see Figure). Beck describes a first porous material which is microspheres in the elected glass (col 4 ln 3-7 “Phase 2 (microcell)”) and a second porous material which is the elected hollow spheres/bubbles (col 4 ln 38-42 “Phase 3”) wherein the second porous material’s diameter is different from the first porous material’s diameter (col 4 ln 3-7, 38-42). Beck depicts the smaller particles between the larger particles (Figure; col 3 ln 34-45). Beck describes the elected epoxy resin as a continuous phase (col 4 ln 65-71).
Regarding the final claim phrase, Beck describes the composite material with phase 2 and phase 3 as achieving a density lower than a composite with only phase 2 (col 4 ln 15-20), i.e. the packing fraction is greater in a composite of both porous materials compared to a composite of phase 2 only. However, Beck is silent as to the specific “higher packing fraction than either the first or the second porous material alone”. Notably Beck values a combination of very low density (col 1 ln 19-20).
Hobaica also describes a composite buoyancy material.
Hobaica describes achieving “the greatest possible density” (col 2 ln 30-31) which is 80% for two diameters of spheres (col 2 ln 25-28) vs 62% for a single diameter of sphere (col 2 ln 17-20). Hobaica achieves the high density by packing the spheres first followed by addition of fluid continuous phase which is subsequently hardened (col 2 ln 30-35). The fluid continuous phase is optionally added via vacuum (col 2 ln 69-76). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to adopt Hobaica’s methodology where Beck values low density in order to achieve the lowest possible density in Beck’s material.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Beck exemplifies the phase 2 (first porous) microcell as glass bubbles with a 38 micron diameter (col 4 ln 2-5). Beck describes a range of microcell diameter of 20-100 microns (col 3 ln 2-4).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Beck describes phase 3 (second porous) macrocell as having an average particle diameter of 10-100x that of the microcells (col 3 ln 14-18).
Regarding claim 6, Hobaica describes using a third set of diameters, with the third set one-seventh of the diameter of the second set (col 2 ln 25-30). Hobaica states that this further improves the packing density (col 2 ln 25-30), i.e. lowers the actual density. Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to adopt a third set of hollow spheres where Beck describes two in order to achieve lower actual density.
In this instance, the Hobaica’s “third set” reads on the instant “second porous material” where Beck’s phase 2 microcell still reads on the instant “first porous material”. Hobaica describes the “third set” as having “one-seventh of the diameter of the second set” wherein the “second set” is the next-smallest set, i.e. Beck’s phase 2 (first porous) microcell as glass bubbles with an exemplified 38 micron diameter (col 4 ln 2-5). For example, one-seventh of a 38-micron microcell diameter is a bubble with a 5.4 micron diameter. These small-diameter bubbles read on the instantly claimed diameter.
Regarding claim 7, Hobaica describes “a plurality of diameters, each…being one-seventh the next larger diameter” (claim 9). Thus it is obvious to add a fourth, even smaller diameter porous article, with a diameter of (5.4/7) 770 nm, with the same motivation as stated in rejection for claim 6 above.
Regarding claims 8-10, Beck describes a diameter of phase 3 (second porous) microcell 400microns -3mm (3000 microns) (col 3 ln 19-21). Beck exemplifies 800 microns (col 4 ln 10-12, 40-42).
Regarding claim 11, Beck describes the elected epoxy continuous phase (Example IV, col 4 ln 65-72). Hobaica describes the
Regarding claim 12, Beck describes epoxy continuous phase (Example IV, col 4 ln 65-72), with optionally closed spheres (col 4 ln 39-40 “Phase 3 hollow glass sphere”; col 4 ln 3-5 “Phase 2…glass bubbles”), i.e. the continuous phase does not penetrate the spheres/bubbles.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Beck describes optionally closed spheres (col 4 ln 39-40 “Phase 3 hollow glass sphere” which read on the second porous material.
Regarding claim 15, Hobaica describes using a third set of diameters, with the third set one-seventh of the diameter of the second set (col 2 ln 25-30). Hobaica states that this further improves the packing density (col 2 ln 25-30), i.e. lowers the actual density. Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to adopt a third set of hollow spheres where Beck describes two in order to achieve lower actual density.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA W ROSEBACH whose telephone number is (571)270-7154. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-3:30pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 5712721302. 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.
/CHRISTINA H.W. ROSEBACH/Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights