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 without traverse of Group I. in the reply filed on 5/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 5 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected grouping of invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/22/2026.
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.
Claims 1-4 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.
The term “direct” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “direct” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims are confusing as to intent because it can not be determined what types, kinds or degrees of radicalization are intended to be included or excluded by the recitation of the term “direct” in connection with the recited “radicalization” that is set forth by the claims.
Claims 2 & 3 are further confusing as to intent because, to the degree that the term “direct” differentiates the “radicalization “ of claim 1, it can not be definitively ascertained how the expression “and the polymerizable monomer is directly radicalized” is intended to be further defining of the limits of claim 1 when claim 1 already requires direct radicalization, to any degree that “direct” defines it, through its recitations. If these recitations are intended to recite a further and/or additional limitation to the “direct” radicalization that is effected by claim 1, to any degree that may be defined by the term “direct” in claim 1, then operations that are intended to be further limiting of the operations of claim 1 need to be definitively identified by the recitations of claim 2.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2022086087.
JP 2022086087 discloses methods for forming porous bodies through combination of polymerizable monomers as claimed with solvent as defined by the claims, in amounts as claimed [note: claim 4], with radicalization of the monomer being enacted by high energy light beams sufficient to meet requirements of the claims [note: claim 2], along with no need for, hence exclusion of, polymerization initiator, with phase separation resulting to the degree required by the claims, followed by removal of solvent {see Abstract and pages 1-6 of provided translation, as well as the entire document}. Regarding claim 3, though dosing conditions as defined by this claim are not expressed in the manner as set forth by this claim, owing to the closeness of the beams disclosed, operations effected and products arising therefrom, it is held that the irradiation dosing operations set forth through the beam dosing operations of JP 2022086087 inherently meet those defined by this claim.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wickert et al. is cited for its disclosure of relevant processes for porous particle preparations in the related arts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Cooney whose telephone number is 571-272-1070. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9 to 6. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Heidi Riviere Kelley, can be reached on 571-270-1831. 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.
/JOHN M COONEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights