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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-16, 19, 21-22, 26-28, and 30-31 are currently pending.
Claims 22, 26-28, and 30-31 are withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments filed 07/17/2026 have been entered.
Claim 2 has been amended.
The objection to claim 2 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The Section 112(b) rejection of claim 2 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
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) 1-2, 5-6, 9, 11, 13-14, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stuckey et al. (GB 2577054).
Regarding claim 1,
Stuckey teaches a packing member for use in a packed bed comprising a ceramic material and further comprises surface structures on the outer surface of the packing member (Stuckey: abstract; par. 16). The packing member may be a monolith and not have bores or through holes (and thus would not comprise) that would create a fluid communication intra-particle channel extending through the packing member from a first aperture on a first side of the packing member to a second aperture on a substantially opposing second side of the packing member (Stuckey: Fig. 2b; par. 22 and 102).
PNG
media_image1.png
421
383
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2,
Stuckey teaches the packing member required by claim 1. Stuckey further teaches the packing member has a macrostructure that is substantially in the form of a sphere (Stucky: par. 102).
Regarding claims 5 and 6,
Stuckey teaches the packing member required by claim 1. Stuckey further teaches the plurality of repeated surface structures have substantially the same appearance (hexagon-shaped ridged structures) as shown in Fig 2(a) may extend over substantially the same surface (substantially 100%) which is within the claimed ranges of greater than or equal to 20% or greater than or equal to 60% of the outer surface (Stuckey: Fig. 2a; par. 102).
Regarding claims 9, 11, and 13,
Stuckey teaches the packing member required by claim 1. Stuckey further teaches the packing member has a geometric surface area per volume (GSA) of > 4.2 cm2/cm3 which is within the claimed range of greater than 0.7, greater than 1.7 and greater than 3.3 cm2/cm3 (Stuckey: par. 11 and 12).
Regarding claim 14,
Stuckey teaches the packing member required by claim 1. Stuckey further teaches the packing member has a side crush strength of >100kgf which is within the claimed range 70 kgf (Stuckey: par. 11 and 13).
Regarding claim 19,
Stuckey teaches the packing member required by claim 1. Stuckey further teaches wherein the packing member is a cast packing member and/or it may be obtained by gel casting composition comprising a ceramic material, an organic binder, and optionally a pore forming component (Stucky: par. 68; claim 2).
Regarding claim 21,
Stuckey teaches the packing member required by claim 19. Stuckey further teaches the organic binder component comprises from 40 to 95wt% of a polymerisable monomer and 60 to 5wt% of a crosslinking member (Stuckey: claim 16). The ceramic material may be the same as those listed in the claim such as aluminum oxide, aluminum silicate, silica, etc. (Stuckey: claim 18).
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.
Claim(s) 10, 12, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuckey.
Regarding claims 10 and 12,
Stuckey teaches the packing member required by claim 1. Stuckey further teaches the packing member has a side crush strength of >100kgf which overlaps with the claimed greater than or equal to 250kgf and greater than or equal to 170kgf (Stuckey: par. 11 and 13). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claims 15 and 16,
Stuckey teaches the packing member required by claim 1. Stuckey further teaches the packing member has a porosity of at least 6% (Stucky: par. 07). However, Stuckey is silent towards the porosity in terms of cm3/g units and is thus silent towards a porosity of greater than or equal to 0.06 or 0.5 cm3/g.
However, Stuckey teaches the packing member is made of the same materials and compositional proportions (see rejection of claims 19 and 21 above), made by the same process (see claims 19 and 21 above, the same geometric surface area (GSA) (see the rejection of claims 9, 11, and 13 above), the same crush strength (see rejection of claims 10, 12, and 14 above), and may have the same particle size distribution D10 (Stuckey: par. 51 and Applicant’s specification: par. 60).
Therefore, it would be expected that there would exist an embodiment which would satisfy the claimed packing member porosity ranges required by claims 15 and 16. When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the prior art products necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01. That is, due to the additional inventor the inventors on the current Applicant’s alone are not enough to state common ownership without a properly filed CFR 1.130 declaration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art reference GB 2577054 A is not valid prior art under the Section 102(b)(1) and 102(b)(2)(c) exclusions. Applicant’s cite the exclusions, particularly, of common ownership during the grace period of 1 year.
The arguments of the 102(b)(2)(c) exclusions are not found persuasive as 102(a)(2) rejections were not utilized. Thus, the exclusion does not apply as the prior art rejection was done under 102(a)(1).
The arguments regarding the 102(b)(1) exclusion, particularly 102(b)(1)(A) exclusion is also not found persuasive as the inventive entity is not the same as the current application. GB 2577054 A has an additional inventor and thus without filing a CFR 1.130 declaration establishing the prior art is not is not owned by another inventive entity, the claim of common ownership is not properly established. See MPEP 717.01.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Travis M Figg whose telephone number is (571)272-9849. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/TRAVIS M FIGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights