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 election is noted. Claims 39-43 are withdrawn.
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 30-38 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.
In claims 30, 31, 34-36, it is unclear exactly what a ‘primary’ silane is. Given that a carbon bonded to 2 methyl groups is a secondary carbon, wouldn’t claim 31 depict a secondary silane? It is also unclear what ‘monofunctional’ means. Why would CH3 and OH groups both be functional groups?
Since all the functional groups must be closed off (no dangling/uncompensated bonds) to be a complete molecule, it is unclear what the difference is between an end cap (claim 34) and the functional silane group. If there is a group as depicted in claim 34 formula 2, how does one tell whether it is a cap or functional group (given that claim 30 does not set a minimum limit for the R group)? What is the difference? Is the ‘end’ cap required to be at a particular location of the silica particle?
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.
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.
Claims 30, 32, 35, 37, 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oroskar et al. 20190010110.
Oroskar teaches, especially in paras 22, 82, 92 and fig. 6, separating THC from CBD and recovering them using a silica having size of 60-200 microns, area 450-550, pore size of 50-75 A having silanol groups. While the concentration of groups is not disclosed, it is obvious to optimize to attain the desired sorption properties.
The overlapping ranges of size, area and pores render the claims obvious.
For claim 37, the column is 18 inches wide and 40 inches long, see para 304.
For claim 38, no difference in the impedance is seen since the material can be the same as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31, 33, 34 and 36 are allowable as the structures recited are not taught or suggested.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STUART L HENDRICKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1351. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9 to 5. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Anthony Zimmer, can be reached on 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/STUART L HENDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights