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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 13 April 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-4, 11, 14, and 16-17 are amended; claim 13 is cancelled; claim 21 is added. Accordingly, claims 1-12 and 14-21 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 13 January 2026.
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Pg. 7, [0052], recites “The average diameter WI may be about 2 mm or more. For, example, the average diameter WI may be about 2 nm to about 7 nm”. The units of “nm” appears to be a typographical error, as the preceding sentence and claims of the present application have a pore diameter unit of mm.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 16, and 21 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.
Claim 1, lines 5-6, and Claim 16, lines 6-7, recite “wherein the hydrophilic structure maintains hydrophilicity in air, under water, and under oil”. The specification recites “having ‘hydrophilicity’ indicates having polarity, tending to adsorb water, and tending to be collected on the water” [0053]. There is no disclosure of the hydrophilic structure maintaining hydrophilicity in air, under water, and under oil.
Claim 21, lines 1-3, recite “the hydrophilic structure has an open-cell structure including a network of interconnected portions that define the plurality of macro pores”. The specification recites the hydrophilic structure may have an open-cell structure or an open porous structure [0052], and the hydrophilic structure contains a plurality of macro pores [0051]. There is no disclosure of the hydrophilic structure including a network of interconnected portions.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (KR 20200085483).
Regarding Claim 1, Choi discloses a partially hydrophobic/partially hydrophilic absorbent for absorbing oil (absorbent for absorbing oil meets the limitation of an oil-sorbent; [0008]). Choi further discloses the absorbent comprises a dopamine-based polymer formed on the surface of a foam substrate on which magnetic nanoparticles are supported on the surface to form a hydrophilic portion (hydrophilic portion meets the limitation of a hydrophilic structure), and a hydrophobic material bonded to the surface of the hydrophilic portion to form a hydrophobic portion [0010]. Choi further discloses the foam substrate has macropores (the foam substrate includes macropores, which is plural, such that the foam substrate includes a plurality of macro pores) with sizes (pore size is substantially similar to average pore diameter and therefore meets the limitation of an average diameter) larger than 50 nm [0034], which overlaps the claimed range of 2 mm or more such that the range taught by Choi obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). The foam substrate is part of the hydrophilic portion of Choi such that the hydrophilic structure of Choi includes the plurality of macro pores. Choi further discloses the hydrophilic portion absorbs water in and oil-water mixture [0086], such that the hydrophilic structure maintains hydrophilicity under water and under oil.
Choi is silent to the hydrophilic structure maintaining hydrophilicity in air.
Choi, however, discloses the hydrophilic portion absorbs water in and oil-water mixture [0086], such that the hydrophilic portion would maintain hydrophilicity in air as well, as Choi does not provide any indication that the hydrophilic portion would not exhibit hydrophilicity in air. Therefore, the hydrophilic portion of Choi necessarily maintains hydrophilicity in air, absent a showing to the contrary.
Regarding Claim 2, Choi discloses the magnetic nanoparticle/dopamine-based polymer foam substrate has hydrophilicity by having the dopamine polymer formed or coated on its surface [0066], such that the surface of the hydrophilic structure has hydrophilicity.
Regarding Claim 3, Choi discloses magnetic nanoparticles are supported on the surface of the foam substrate to form a hydrophilic portion [0010], and the magnetic nanoparticle/dopamine-based polymer foam substrate has hydrophilicity by having the dopamine polymer formed or coated on its surface [0066], such that the nanoparticles meet the limitation of a hydrophilic nano-substructure.
Claim 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (KR 20200085483) in view of Tsuji (“Polymer surface modifications by coating”).
Regarding Claim 4, Choi teaches the elements as described above with regards to claim 1.
Choi discloses the magnetic nanoparticle/dopamine-based polymer foam substrate has hydrophilicity by having the dopamine polymer formed or coated on its surface [0066].
Choi is silent to the water contact angle when the composite foam is pre-wetted by water.
Tsuji discloses the water contact angle is actually one of the main criteria for the quantitative analyses of hydrophilicity (<90°) (the water contact angle for hydrophilic structures is less than 90° such that the water contact angle for the hydrophilic composite foam of Choi is less than 90°) and hydrophobicity (>90°), which can be efficiently changed by the selection of coating methods and coating materials (pg. 151, Col. 2, par. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi to incorporate the teachings of Tsuji wherein the hydrophilic structure has a water contact angle of less than about 90°, because the water contact angle can be efficiently changed by the selection of coating methods and coating materials, as recognized by Tsuji (pg. 151, Col. 2, par. 2). Regarding the water contact angle in claim 4, it appears that less than 90° for a hydrophilic structure taught by Choi and Tsuji overlaps the claimed range of greater than about 0° and less than about 40° such that the range taught by Choi and Tsuji obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claims 5-6, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (KR 20200085483) in view of Cui (“Thermoplastic polyurethane/titania/polydopamine (TPU/TiO2/PDA) 3-D porous composite foam with outstanding oil/water separation performance and photocatalytic dye degradation”).
Regarding Claim 5, Choi teaches the elements as described above with regards to claim 1.
Choi discloses the foam substrate has macropores (the foam substrate includes macropores, which is plural, such that the foam substrate includes a plurality of macro pores) [0034]. Choi further discloses the foam material may be polyurethane resin [0030].
Choi is silent to the hydrophilicity/hydrophobicity of the foam.
Cui discloses polyurethane foam exhibits hydrophobicity (hydrophobic TPU foam meets the limitation of a hydrophobic structure; pg. 2810, Col. 2, par. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi to incorporate the teachings of Cui wherein the foam containing the macro pores is hydrophobic, because Choi discloses using a polyurethane foam containing macro pores, and polyurethane foam is known to exhibit hydrophobicity, as recognized by Cui (pg. 2810, Col. 2, par. 1).
Choi further discloses magnetic nanoparticles are supported on the surface of the foam substrate to form a hydrophilic portion [0010], and the magnetic nanoparticle/dopamine-based polymer foam substrate has hydrophilicity by having the dopamine polymer formed or coated on its surface [0066], such that the magnetic nanoparticles meet the limitation of a hydrophilic nano-substructures on the hydrophobic structure.
Regarding Claim 6, Choi discloses Fig. 2 a) shows an interconnected network structure of the skeleton of the melamine resin foam, and it can be confirmed that the surface is smooth, and Fig. 2 b) shows the appearance after forming magnetic nanoparticles on the surface of the melamine resin foam, and it can be confirmed that magnetic nanoparticles have been formed on the surface of the foam [0109]. Fig. 2 b) of Choi illustrates the magnetic nanoparticles have a shape protruding from the surface of the hydrophobic structure and the magnetic nanoparticles (hydrophilic nano-substructures) meet the broad limitation of spaced apart from each other.
Regarding Claim 9, Choi discloses the foam substrate has macropores [0034]. Choi further discloses the foam material may be polyurethane resin [0030].
Choi is silent to the hydrophilicity/hydrophobicity of the foam.
Cui discloses polyurethane foam exhibits hydrophobicity (hydrophobic TPU foam meets the limitation of a hydrophobic structure; pg. 2810, Col. 2, par. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi to incorporate the teachings of Cui wherein the foam containing the macro pores is hydrophobic, because Choi discloses using a polyurethane foam containing macro pores, and polyurethane foam is known to exhibit hydrophobicity, as recognized by Cui (pg. 2810, Col. 2, par. 1).
Choi further discloses the magnetic nanoparticle/dopamine-based polymer foam substrate has hydrophilicity by having the dopamine polymer formed or coated on its surface [0066], such that the foam (hydrophobic structure) has a hydrophilic coating layer.
Regarding Claim 10, Choi discloses the thickness of the polymer coating layer may be 10 to 1000 nm [0065] and the partially hydrophilic/partially hydrophobic absorbent is 4 x 4 x 4 cm [0113], such that the hydrophilic coating layer necessarily has a smaller thickness than the hydrophobic structure.
Regarding Claim 11, Choi discloses the foam material may be polyurethane resin (polyurethane resin foam meets the limitation of polyurethane foam; [0030]). Choi further discloses the magnetic nanoparticle/dopamine-based polymer foam substrate has hydrophilicity by having the dopamine polymer formed or coated on its surface [0066], such that the hydrophilic coating layer comprises a dopamine substance.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (KR 20200085483) in view of Cui (“Thermoplastic polyurethane/titania/polydopamine (TPU/TiO2/PDA) 3-D porous composite foam with outstanding oil/water separation performance and photocatalytic dye degradation”) and Kong (“Fabrication of hydrophobic and oleophilic polyurethane foam sponge modified with hydrophobic Al2O3 for oil/water separation”).
Regarding Claim 7, Choi and Cui teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 5.
Choi discloses the magnetic nanoparticles may comprise one or more selected from the group consisting of nanoparticles of iron (Fe), nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn), and gadolinium (Gd), or oxides of each of these and alloys thereof, but are not particularly limited thereto [0013], such that the hydrophilic nano-substructures each include an oxide of a second metal different from the first metal.
Choi is silent to the hydrophobic structure including a first metal.
Kong discloses a polyurethane foam (PUF) containing Al2O3 for oil absorption (Al2O3 meets the limitation of a first metal; Abstract). Kong further discloses Al2O3 are scattered in the PUF matrix (pg. 373, Col. 1, par. 1). Kong further discloses the hollow Al2O3 spheres have a large specific surface and pore structure, which are beneficial to enhance its absorption capacity (pg. 372, Col. 2, par. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi to incorporate the teachings of Kong to have the hydrophobic polyurethane structure include a first metal, such as aluminum, because hollow Al2O3 spheres have a large specific surface and pore structure, which are beneficial to enhance its absorption capacity, as recognized by Kong (pg. 372, Col. 2, par. 1).
Regarding Claim 8, Choi discloses the magnetic nanoparticles may comprise one or more selected from the group consisting of nanoparticles of iron (Fe), nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn), and gadolinium (Gd), or oxides of each of these and alloys thereof, but are not particularly limited thereto [0013], such that the hydrophilic nano-substructures each include an oxide of a second metal different from the first metal.
Choi is silent to the second metal oxide including titanium dioxide.
Cui discloses a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) foam comprising TiO2 nanoparticles and a polydopamine (PDA) coating (pg. 2803, Col. 1, par. 2). Cui further discloses a hydrophilic group may come from TiO2 or PDA (pg. 2810, Col. 2, par. 1), such that the TiO2 nanoparticles of Cui meet the limitation of a hydrophilic nano-substructure including titanium dioxide. Cui further discloses the TiO2/PDA phase could increase the strength of the composite foams (pg. 2810, Col. 1, par. 1) and the introduction of PDA and TiO2 provides excellent hydrophilic performance and adsorption capacity (pg. 2815, Col. 1, par. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi to incorporate the teachings of Cui wherein the second metal oxide is titanium oxide, because the magnetic nanoparticles of Choi are not particularly limited [0013], and the TiO2/PDA phase could increase the strength of the composite foams, as recognized by Cui (pg. 2810, Col. 1, par. 1) and introducing TiO2 to polyurethane foam provides a sorbent with excellent hydrophilic performance and adsorption capacity, as recognized by Cui (pg. 2815, Col. 1, par. 1).
Choi is silent to the hydrophobic structure including a first metal.
Kong discloses a polyurethane foam (PUF) containing Al2O3 for oil absorption (Al2O3 contains aluminum and therefore, meets the limitation of aluminum; Abstract). Kong further discloses Al2O3 are scattered in the PUF matrix (pg. 373, Col. 1, par. 1). Kong further discloses the hollow Al2O3 spheres have a large specific surface and pore structure, which are beneficial to enhance its absorption capacity (pg. 372, Col. 2, par. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi to incorporate the teachings of Kong to have the hydrophobic polyurethane structure include a first metal, such as aluminum, because hollow Al2O3 spheres have a large specific surface and pore structure, which are beneficial to enhance its absorption capacity, as recognized by Kong (pg. 372, Col. 2, par. 1).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (KR 20200085483) in view of Cui (“Thermoplastic polyurethane/titania/polydopamine (TPU/TiO2/PDA) 3-D porous composite foam with outstanding oil/water separation performance and photocatalytic dye degradation”) and Lee (US 2021/0179797).
Alternatively, regarding Claim 10, Choi and Cui teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 9.
Choi discloses the thickness of the polymer coating layer may be 10 to 1000 nm [0065].
Choi is silent to the thickness of the hydrophobic structure.
Lee discloses a polyurethane sponge (aka polymer matrix; [0034]) having a thickness of 3 cm [0093] and a stearic acid layer having a thickness of 8-12 nm (8-12 nm coating layer on a 3 cm sponge meets the limitation of a coating layer having a smaller thickness that the hydrophobic structure; [0094]). Lee further discloses the polymer matrix including a zinc oxide particle layer formed thereon may be immersed in a hydrophilic solution comprising a fatty acid to form a coating layer [0066], wherein the fatty acid may be stearic acid [0069]. Lee further discloses the coating layer thickness may be controlled by a duration of the immersion of the polymer matrix in a fatty acid-containing solution and/or a concentration of the solution [0071].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi to incorporate the teachings of Lee to produce the hydrophilic coating layer with a smaller thickness than the hydrophobic structure, because coating layer thickness may be controlled by a duration of the immersion of the polymer matrix in a fatty acid-containing solution and/or a concentration of the solution, as recognized by Lee [0071].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (KR 20200085483) in view of Cui (“Thermoplastic polyurethane/titania/polydopamine (TPU/TiO2/PDA) 3-D porous composite foam with outstanding oil/water separation performance and photocatalytic dye degradation”) and You (“Facile fabrication of superhydrophilic and underwater superoleophobic chitosan–polyvinyl alcohol-TiO2 coated copper mesh for efficient oil/water separation”).
Regarding Claim 12, Choi and Cui teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 9.
Choi is silent to the hydrophilic coating layer comprising at least one of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), polyallylamine hydrochloride, or mixtures thereof.
You discloses a PVA (polyvinyl alcohol) coating on a copper mesh for oil/water separation (Abstract). You further discloses PVA is frequently utilized for oil/water separation, due to its excellent hydrophilicity, good film-forming property, environment friendly nature, and relatively low cost (pg. 1014, Col. 1, par. 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi to incorporate the teachings of You to provide a hydrophilic coating layer comprising polyvinyl alcohol, because PVA is frequently utilized for oil/water separation, due to its excellent hydrophilicity, good film-forming property, environment friendly nature, and relatively low cost, as recognized by You (pg. 1014, Col. 1, par. 2).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (KR 20200085483) in view of Choi ‘553 (KR 20180053553).
Regarding Claim 14, Choi teaches the elements as described above with regards to claim 1.
Choi is silent to the hydrophilic structure comprising a floating body.
Choi ‘553 discloses an oil fence comprising an oil-absorbent to absorb oil and a buoyancy body (buoyancy body meets the limitation of a floating body) made of air so that it can float well on the sea [0003].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi to incorporate the teachings of Choi ‘553 wherein the hydrophilic structure of an oil-sorbent further comprises a floating body disposed therein in order to have the oil-sorbent float well, as recognized by Choi ‘553 [0003].
Regarding Claim 15, Choi ‘553 discloses an oil fence comprising an oil-absorbent to absorb oil and a buoyancy body (buoyancy body meets the limitation of a floating body) made of air so that it can float well on the sea [0003].
Claims 16-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (KR 20200085483) in view of Manesis (US 2021/0301098).
Regarding Claim 16, Choi discloses a partially hydrophobic/partially hydrophilic absorbent for absorbing oil (absorbent for absorbing oil meets the limitation of an oil-sorbent; [0008]). Choi further discloses the absorbent comprises a dopamine-based polymer formed on the surface of a foam substrate on which magnetic nanoparticles are supported on the surface to form a hydrophilic portion (hydrophilic portion meets the limitation of a hydrophilic structure), and a hydrophobic material bonded to the surface of the hydrophilic portion to form a hydrophobic portion [0010]. Choi further discloses the foam substrate has macropores (the foam substrate includes macropores, which is plural, such that the foam substrate includes a plurality of macro pores) with sizes (pore size is substantially similar to average pore diameter and therefore meets the limitation of an average diameter) larger than 50 nm [0034], which overlaps the claimed range of 2 mm or more such that the range taught by Choi obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). The foam substrate is part of the hydrophilic portion of Choi such that the hydrophilic structure of Choi includes the plurality of macro pores. Choi further discloses the hydrophilic portion absorbs water in and oil-water mixture [0086], such that the hydrophilic structure maintains hydrophilicity under water and under oil.
Choi is silent to the hydrophilic structure maintaining hydrophilicity in air.
Choi, however, discloses the hydrophilic portion absorbs water in and oil-water mixture [0086], such that the hydrophilic portion would maintain hydrophilicity in air as well, as Choi does not provide any indication that the hydrophilic portion would not exhibit hydrophilicity in air. Therefore, the hydrophilic portion of Choi necessarily maintains hydrophilicity in air, absent a showing to the contrary.
Choi is silent to the hydrophilic structure having an open-porous structure and a porosity of at least 70%.
Choi, however, discloses the foam material may be polyurethane resin [0030].
Manesis discloses porous open celled (porous open celled meets the limitation of open-porous) polyurethane foams [0014], with individual pore sizes ranging from 50 to 3500 µm (50 to 3500 µm is equivalent to 0.05 to 3.5 mm pores, and therefore, the polyurethane foam contains macro pores), and having a porosity of at least 50% [0012], which overlaps the claimed range of at least 70% such that the range taught by Manesis obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi to incorporate the teachings of Manesis wherein the hydrophilic structure has an open-porous structure and a porosity of at least 70%, because Choi teaches using polyurethane foams [0030], and polyurethane foams having a porosity of at least 70% is well-known in the art of macro porous polyurethane foams.
Regarding Claim 17, Choi discloses the foam substrate has macropores with sizes larger than 50 nm [0034], which overlaps the claimed range of 2 mm to 7 mm such that the range taught by Choi obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 18, Choi discloses the magnetic nanoparticle/dopamine-based polymer foam substrate has hydrophilicity by having the dopamine polymer formed or coated on its surface [0066], such that the hydrophilic structure of Choi comprises dopamine.
Regarding Claim 21, Choi discloses the foam substrate has macropores (the foam substrate includes macropores, which is plural, such that the foam substrate includes a plurality of macro pores) with sizes (pore size is substantially similar to average pore diameter and therefore meets the limitation of an average diameter) larger than 50 nm [0034], which overlaps the claimed range of 2 mm to 7 mm such that the range taught by Choi obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Choi further discloses and illustrates and interconnected network structure of the skeleton of the foam ([0109, Fig. 2), such that the hydrophilic structure has a network of interconnected portions that define the plurality of macro pores and the plurality of macro pores are connected in chain with each other. Choi further discloses the foam material may be polyurethane resin [0030].
Choi is silent to the hydrophilic structure having an open-cell structure.
Manesis discloses porous open celled polyurethane foams [0014], with individual pore sizes ranging from 50 to 3500 µm (50 to 3500 µm is equivalent to 0.05 to 3.5 mm pores, and therefore, the polyurethane foam contains macro pores).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi to incorporate the teachings of Manesis wherein the hydrophilic structure has an open-cell structure, because Choi teaches using polyurethane foams [0030], and polyurethane foams having an open-cell structure is well-known in the art of macro porous polyurethane foams.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (KR 20200085483) in view of Manesis (US 2021/0301098) and Cui (“Thermoplastic polyurethane/titania/polydopamine (TPU/TiO2/PDA) 3-D porous composite foam with outstanding oil/water separation performance and photocatalytic dye degradation”).
Regarding Claim 19, Choi and Manesis teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 16.
Choi discloses the foam substrate has macropores [0034]. Choi further discloses the foam material may be polyurethane resin [0030].
Choi is silent to the hydrophilicity/hydrophobicity of the foam.
Cui discloses polyurethane foam exhibits hydrophobicity (hydrophobic TPU foam meets the limitation of a hydrophobic structure; pg. 2810, Col. 2, par. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi to incorporate the teachings of Cui wherein the foam containing the macro pores is hydrophobic, because Choi discloses using a polyurethane foam containing macro pores, and polyurethane foam is known to exhibit hydrophobicity, as recognized by Cui (pg. 2810, Col. 2, par. 1).
Choi further discloses the magnetic nanoparticle/dopamine-based polymer foam substrate has hydrophilicity by having the dopamine polymer formed or coated on its surface [0066], such that the foam (hydrophobic structure) has a hydrophilic coating layer.
Regarding Claim 20, Choi discloses the partially hydrophobic/partially hydrophilic absorbent is formed by supporting the magnetic nanoparticles on the surface of a foam substrate, drying, and then placing in an aqueous solution with a dopamine-based monomer to form the dopamine-based polymer on the surface of the foam substrate on which the magnetic nanoparticles are supported [0009], wherein the magnetic nanoparticle/dopamine-based polymer foam substrate has hydrophilicity by having the dopamine polymer formed or coated on its surface [0066], such that the magnetic nanoparticles meet the limitation of hydrophilic nano-substructures, and therefore, the hydrophilic structure comprises hydrophilic nano-substructures between the hydrophobic structure and the hydrophilic coating layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see "Remarks", pg. 6-7, filed 13 April 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Choi (KR 20200085483).
Applicant's arguments filed 13 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claimed range of "the macro pores have an average diameter of 2 mm to 7 mm," as recited in claim 17, is important and critical for oil desorption because it "minimize[s] the shear stress required during oil desorption even when the viscosity of the oil is high."
However, to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 716.02 (d).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SLONE ELZABETH SIMKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-3214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, KEITH WALKER can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/S.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights