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 . The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. The RCE is accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-10 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 ‘non-porous’ limitation is not supported in the specification. Moreover, the thermal treatment creates porosity; see Dietz (of record) as well as the comments in the last action. Furthermore, claim 3 is inconsistent with a non-porous material because it recites a surface area indicative of porosity. Finally, the photomicrographs of the specification depict cracks being created as a result of the treatment, consistent with the formation of pores. Applicant should perform a test such as Iodine number or BET measurement to ascertain the pore structure/distribution (or lack thereof).
The prior art rejection has been withdrawn since the claimed features are not met or suggested, however if applicant cancels the offending limitation above, they should expect that it will be reinstated.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) above have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The examiner contact information and other administrative details may be found in a prior Office Action.
/STUART L HENDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights