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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim of priority under 35 U.S.C. §120 as a continuation of
PCT/JP2021/043607 filed November 29, 2021, which claims priority to Japanese application JP2021-005244 filed January 15, 2021, is hereby acknowledged.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election, without traverse, of Group II (claims 4-7) in the reply filed on January 5, 2026, to the restriction requirement dated December 1, 2025, is hereby acknowledged.
Accordingly, claims 4-7 have been examined in the instant Office action, whereas claims 1-3 have been withdrawn from consideration as drawn to a nonelected invention but remain pending with the present application.
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.
Claim 4, and claims 5-7 that depend therefrom, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Independent claim 4 recites “wherein the fine-particle powder comprises particles having a particle size of primary particles from 5 nm to 300 nm”. It is not understood from Applicant’s specification or from the present specification as to what the term “primary particles” encompasses? That is, what exactly constitutes a primary particle?
For purposes of this action, the term “primary particles” will be interpreted as any particles having a size from 5 to 300 nanometers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2007/0082978 A1 to Suzuki et al., published April 12, 2007) and Ohmi (US 2009/0246524 A1 to Ohmi et al., published October 1, 2009).
Suzuki discloses a calcium hydroxide compound having a large specific surface area, and a resin composition/molded article comprising thereof having enhanced thermal stability, and a stabilizer for synthetic resins that comprise the calcium hydroxide, wherein the molded article containing the resin composition/stabilizer for synthetic resins that comprise the calcium hydroxide further contains fine crystals (abstract; [0001]; [0008] to [0010]; [0016]). In the examples, the calcium hydroxide is in the form of a powder, passed through a 200-mesh sieve, and can have a particle diameter of 2.95 microns, wherein the surface area of the particles can be 18 m2/g or more (Examples 1-11; [0089] to [0093]; Table I). Samples of the resin composition formed from the calcium hydroxide solution is colorless and transparent ([0115] to [0117]; [0137]; Example 38, Table 6; Example 95).
Suzuki does not expressly disclose its calcium hydroxide powder containing particles having a particle size of 5 to 300 nanometers.
However, Ohmi teaches preparing an aggregate granular porous calcium oxide/hydroxide particulate having a specific surface area of 50 m2/g or more and a total pore volume of pores having a diameter of 2-100 nanometers in the range of 0.40 to 0.70 mL/g (the pores are contained in whole porous particles), wherein the calcium oxide/hydroxide particulates are useful in semiconductor applications (abstract; [0001]; [0002]; [0011] to [0016]).
Particularly, Ohmi teaches that the calcium oxide/hydroxide particulates have a BET specific surface area of 50 m2/g or more, a total pore volume of pores having a diameter of 2 to 100 nanometers that is in the range of 0.40 to 0.70 mL/g, the pores are contained in whole porous particles, wherein the maximum pore diameter is 30 nanometer or more, and wherein the amount of particles having a diameter of 1 mm or less is less than 5 percent by weight, and calcium hydroxide is present in an amount of 1o percent by weight or less ([0038] to [0045]).
Therefore, it would have been within the purview of one skilled in the art at the time of filing to include/substitute Ohmi’s granular calcium oxide/calcium hydroxide particulate composite in Suzuki’s method of preparing a molded article for use in semiconductor applications. It would have been obvious to do so to obtain a resultant molded article having the enhanced gas flow properties preferred in semiconductor materials as described in Ohmi ([0002]).
Thus, the instant claims are unpatentable over Suzuki and Ohmi.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-8916. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am -6:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JOSEPH DEL SOLE can be reached on 571-272-1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN J FIGUEROA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
February 21, 2026