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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1–10 and 14–18 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.
Claim 1 recites:
1. A method for manufacturing a deliquescent desiccant material comprising:
(a) preparing a solution comprising water, alcohol, a weak base and a deliquescent salt;
(b) stirring the solution obtained in (a) until complete dissolution of the deliquescent salt;
(c) adding a silica precursor to the solution obtained in (b), and stirring for sufficient time for mixing to be complete; and
(d) keeping the solution obtained in (c) in an oven, until the liquid of the solution obtained in (c) has completely evaporated, thereby forming the deliquescent desiccant material comprising a silica matrix having cation and anion from the deliquescent sale retained in situ. Emphasis added.
Claim 1 is indefinite because “the deliquescent sale” lacks antecedent basis.
To overcome this rejection, claim 1 could be rewritten as:
1. A method for manufacturing a deliquescent desiccant material comprising:
(a) preparing a solution comprising water, alcohol, a weak base and a deliquescent salt;
(b) stirring the solution obtained in (a) until complete dissolution of the deliquescent salt;
(c) adding a silica precursor to the solution obtained in (b), and stirring for sufficient time for mixing to be complete; and
(d) keeping the solution obtained in (c) in an oven, until the liquid of the solution obtained in (c) has completely evaporated, thereby forming the deliquescent desiccant material comprising a silica matrix having cation and anion from the deliquescent salt sale retained in situ.
Claims 2–10 and 14–18 are indefinite because they depend from claim 1.
Also, claim 5 recites:
5. The method according to claim 1, wherein the weak base comprises compounds based on one or more of a primary amine, a secondary amine, and a tertiary amine. Emphasis added.
Claim 5 is indefinite because it is unclear what is mean by “based on one or more of a primary amine, a secondary amine, and a tertiary amine.” Further clarification is required.
Claim 7 recites:
7. The method according to claim 1, wherein the silica precursor from alkoxysilanes, comprises an alkoxysilane.
Claim 7 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “from alkoxysilanes.” To overcome this rejection, claim 7 could be amended to read:
7. The method according to claim 1, wherein the silica precursor
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 1–10 and 14–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tohidi et al., “Preparation and Characterization of SiO2-CaCl2 Nanocomposite by the Sol-Gel Method” (October 2009) in view of Costa et al., US 2004/0025537 A1 in view of Park et al., US 2010/0204347 A1 and in further view of Glover, US 2021/0178339 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Tohidi teaches a method for manufacturing a SiO2-CaCl2 hybrid porous material, which reads on the claimed “method for manufacturing a deliquescent desiccant material.” See Tohidi abstract. The method comprises:
Preparing a solution of EtOH (an alcohol), NH4OH (a weak base), and an aqueous solution of CaCl2 (water and a deliquescent salt). See Tohidi p. 300 (Experimental Details).
This reads on “(a) preparing a solution comprising water, alcohol, a weak base and a deliquescent salt.”
Mixing TEOS hydrolyzed with H2O with the solution of EtOH (an alcohol), NH4OH (a weak base), and aqueous solution of CaCl2. See Tohidi p. 300 (Experimental Details).
This reads on “(c) adding a silica precursor to the solution obtained in (b).”
Allowing the solution to undergo gelation and then drying until residual water and ethanol are removed, thereby forming the SiO2-CaCl2 hybrid porous material. See Tohidi p. 300 (Experimental Details).
The SiO2-CaCl2 nanocomposite reads on the “deliquescent desiccant material comprising a silica matrix having cation and anion from the deliquescent sale retained in situ”
Tohidi differs from claim 1 because it is silent as stirring the solution of EtOH (an alcohol), NH4OH (a weak base), and an aqueous solution of CaCl2 until complete dissolution of the CaCl2, as required by step (b). The claim is also silent as to stirring the solution obtained by mixing the TEOS hydrolyzed with H2O with the solution of EtOH (an alcohol), NH4OH (a weak base), and aqueous solution of CaCl2, as required by step (c).
But Costa teaches a sol-gel process where preparation of solutions (compositions A, B, C) may be carried out under ultrasound stirring, which favors dispersion and homogenization of suspensions or solutions in aqueous medium. See Costa [0039].
It would have been obvious to apply ultrasonic stirring to the solution of EtOH (an alcohol), NH4OH (a weak base), and an aqueous solution of CaCl2 until complete dissolution of the CaCl2 while also applying ultrasonic stirring to the solution obtained by mixing the TEOS hydrolyzed with H2O with the solution of EtOH (an alcohol), NH4OH (a weak base), and aqueous solution of CaCl2 to improve dispersion and homogenization of these solutions.
Tohidi also differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the limitation of:
(d) keeping the solution obtained in (c) in an oven, until the liquid of the solution obtained in (c) has completely evaporated
But after the TEOS is mixed with the EtOH, NH4OH, and aqueous solution of CaCl2 (the “solution obtained in (c)”), the solution undergoes gelation and the alcogel is aged and then dried to remove residual water and ethanol. See Tohidi p. 300 (Experimental Details). The aging and drying processes 6 days and 35 days, respectively, which is a relatively long period of time. Id.
With this in mind, Costa teaches a sol-gel process where the rate of gelation can be increased by introducing the container into an oven. See Costa [0044]. Also, Park teaches a method of forming an aerogel where, once the gel is formed, it is aged in an oven for 10 minutes to 10 hours. See Park [0157]. Further, lover teaches drying an aerogel pellet in an oven, which decreases drying time compared to drying under ambient conditions. See Glover [0058].
It would have been obvious for the solution of the TEOS is mixed with the EtOH, NH4OH, and aqueous solution of CaCl2 of Tohidi to be placed in an oven for gelation, aging and drying to speed up the process of making the SiO2-CaCl2 hybrid porous material. This reads on “(d) keeping the solution obtained in (c) in an oven, until the liquid of the solution obtained in (c) has completely evaporated.”
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Tohidi as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Tohidi as modified differs from claims 2 and 3 because it is silent as to the molar ratio between the water:alcohol:weak base:deliquescent salt:silica precursor being within the claimed ratios.
But, the reference teaches that the total molar ratio of compounds is 4 H2O:9 EtOH:8x10-3NH4OH:1TEOS, with the aqueous solution comprising 35 wt% CaCl2. See Tohidi p. 300 (Experimental Details). It would have been obvious to use routine experimentation to optimize the amount of water and ethanol in the solution, to reduce drying time. It also would have been obvious to optimize the amount of weak base in the solution to optimize the reactivity of the solution. It further would have been obvious to optimize the amount of CaCl2 and TEOS in the solution depending on the desired amount of material in the finished SiO2-CaCl2 hybrid porous material.
Regarding claim 4, Tohidi teaches that the alcohol is ethanol. See Tohidi p. 300 (Experimental Details).
Regarding claim 5, Tohidi teaches that the weak base comprises NH4OH (see Tohidi p. 300 (Experimental Details)), which is interpreted as reading on a compound “based on one or more of a primary amine, a secondary amine, and a tertiary amine,” as claimed, because the disclosure says that the weak base is selected from decomposed compounds based on primary, secondary and tertiary amines, with more preferably the weak base being ammonium hydroxide. See Spec. [0037].
Regarding claim 6, Tohidi teaches that the deliquescent salt comprises CaCl2, which comprises calcium, as claimed. See Tohidi p. 300 (Experimental Details).
Regarding claim 7, Tohidi teaches that the silica precursor is TEOS, which comprises an alkoxysilane. See Tohidi p. 300 (Experimental Details).
Regarding claim 8, Tohidi teaches that the solution of EtOH, NH4OH and aqueous solution of CaCl2 is kept at a temperature of 25°C (within the claimed range of 10 to 40°C). Therefore, when the solution is ultrasonically stirred, it would have been obvious for the solution to also be kept at 25°C because the reference suggests that this is an appropriate temperature for the solution.
Regarding claim 9, Tohidi teaches that the solution of TEOS hydrolyzed with water and mixed with EtOH, NH4OH and aqueous solution of CaCl2 was kept at 25°C (within the claimed range of 20 to 60°C). See Tohidi p. 300 (Experimental Details). While Tohidi as modified is silent as to the time period that the solution is stirred, it would have been obvious to use routine optimization to determine the appropriate amount of time for the solution to be ultrasonically stirred for improved dispersion and homogenization.
Regarding claim 10, Tohidi teaches that the solution is dried at room temperature for 35 days. See Tohidi p. 300 (Experimental Details). It is noted that these conditions are not identical to 50 to 100°C for a period from 1 to 30 days. But as noted, it would have been obvious for the solution to be dried at elevated temperature to reduce the amount of time for drying. It would have been obvious to use routine experimentation to determine the optimal temperature and drying time to ensure that the solution is dried appropriately without damaging the material.
Regarding claim 14, Tohidi as modified teaches that the material is capable of drying gases, as claimed, because it has substantially the same structure, as claimed. See MPEP 2112.01, subsection I (when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent).
Regarding claim 15, Tohidi teaches that the weak base is NH4OH, which reads on ammonium hydroxide. See Tohidi p. 300 (Experimental Details).
Regarding claim 16, Tohidi teaches that the deliquescent salt comprises CaCl2, which reads on calcium chloride. See Tohidi p. 300 (Experimental Details).
Regarding claim 17, Tohidi teaches that the silica precursor comprises TEOS. See Tohidi p. 300 (Experimental Details).
Regarding claim 18, Tohidi teaches that the solution formed in (c) is at alkaline pH, as claimed, because it comprises NH4OH (a base) with there being no description of it including an acid. See Tohidi p. 300 (Experimental Details).
Claims 11–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tohidi et al., “Preparation and Characterization of SiO2-CaCl2 Nanocomposite by the Sol-Gel Method” (October 2009) in view of Rojas et al., US 2016/0362594 A1.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Tohidi teaches a SiO2-CaCl2 hybrid porous material (the claimed “deliquescent desiccant material”) comprising silica, cation and anion of CaCl2 (a deliquescent salt). See Tohidi abstract.
Tohidi differs from claim 11 because it is silent as to the surface area of the material.
But Tohidi teaches that the SiO2-CaCl2 is a nanocomposite material. See Tohidi abstract.
With this in mind, Rojas teaches a silica nanocomposite material having a BET surface area of 90 m2/g. See Rojas [0028].
It would have been obvious for the SiO2-CaCl2 hybrid porous material of Tohidi to have a BET surface area of 90 m2/g because this is a suitable surface area for silicate type nanocomposite materials.
Regarding claim 13, Tohidi as modified teaches that the material is capable of drying gases, as claimed, because it has substantially the same structure, as claimed. See MPEP 2112.01, subsection I (when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 11–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckenhauer, US 6,235,219 B1 in view of Perrine, US 5,716,432 and in further view of Kanazirev et al., US 2003/0134742 A1.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Beckenhauer teaches a composition useful as a desiccant which comprises a deliquescent material. See Beckenhauer col. 3, ll. 18–24, col. 4, ll. 57–63. The composition reads on the claimed “deliquescent desiccant material.” The composition comprises sodium silicate (“silica”) and calcium chloride (“cation and anion of a deliquescent salt”). Id. at col. 4, ll. 1–8.
Beckenhauer differs from claims 11 and 12 because it is silent as to the surface area of the composition. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach the composition has a surface area of above 10 m2/g (claim 11) or between 10–400 m2/g (claim 12), as claimed.
But Beckenhauer teaches that the composition is useful as a desiccant as a replacement for conventional desiccant materials, such as a molecular sieve. See Beckenhauer col. 1, ll. 26–35. Beckenhauer also teaches that the composition can be formed into a pellet. Id. at col. 6, ll. 17–19. With this in mind, Perrine teaches that the surface area of a particulate desiccant is result effective because surface area affects the ability of the particle to interact with the surrounding air or fluid. See Perrine col. 1, ll. 14–23. Also, Kanazirev teaches an alumina desiccant (a molecular sieve) with a BET surface area of about 350 m2/g. See Kanazirev [0019]. It would have been obvious to use routine experimentation to determine the optimal surface area of the composition of Beckenhauer to achieve the desired ability of the composition to interact with the surrounding air or fluid. See MPEP 2144.05, subsection II (where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed ranges of a surface area of above 10 m2/g (claim 11) or between 10–400 m2/g (claim 12) because the composition of Beckenhauer is intended as a substitute for conventional desiccants (including molecular sieves) while Kanazirev teaches an alumina desiccant (a molecular sieve) with a BET surface area of about 350 m2/g.
Regarding claim 13, Beckenhauer teaches that the desiccant composition can be used for drying gases. See Beckenhauer col. 2, l. 64–col. 3, l. 2.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections
The Examiner withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections in light of the amendments.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections
For claims 11–13, the Applicant has not argued the 103 rejections over Beckenhauer. Therefore, these rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1–10 and 14–18 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 grounds of rejection is made, as explained above.
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 T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
