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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1–14 are objected to because the preamble is in all capitalized letters. It is requested that the preamble be rewritten to use conventional capitalization.
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, 13 and 14 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. METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING A DELIQUESCENT DESICCANT MATERIAL, characterized in that it comprises the steps of:
(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 the mixing to be complete; and
(d) keeping the solution obtained in (c) in an oven, until the liquid has completely evaporated. Emphasis added.
Claim 1 is indefinite because “the mixing” and “the liquid” lack antecedent basis. To overcome this rejection, claim 1 could be rewritten as:
1. METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING A DELIQUESCENT DESICCANT MATERIAL, characterized in that it comprises the steps of:
(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 [[the]] 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.
Claims 2–10 and 14 are indefinite because they depend from claim 1.
Also, claims 3 and 5–7 recite:
3. METHOD, according to claim 2, characterized in that the molar ratio
between water:alcohol:weak base:deliquescent salt:silica precursor is preferably 16 water:24alcohol:2 weak base:0.25 deliquescent salt: 1 silica precursor. Emphasis added.
5. METHOD, according to claim 1, characterized in that the weak base is
selected from compounds based on primary, secondary and tertiary amines, and a mixture thereof, preferably ammonium hydroxide. Emphasis added.
6. METHOD, according to claim 1, characterized in that the deliquescent salt is selected from calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, lithium, cobalt chlorides, bromides, nitrates, sulfates, chromates, acetates or fluorides, preferably from calcium chloride, aluminum sulfate, magnesium chloride, cobalt chloride and mixtures thereof. Emphasis added.
7. METHOD, according to claim 1, characterized in that the silica precursor is selected from alkoxysilanes, preferably tetramethylorthosilicate (TMOS) and tetraethylorthosilicate (TEOS), sodium silicate, and mixtures thereof. Emphasis added.
Claims 3 and 5–7 are each indefinite because “preferably” is exemplary language that leads to confusion over the intended scope of the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(d). To overcome these rejections, claims 3 and 5–7 could be amended to read:
3. METHOD, according to claim 2, characterized in that the molar ratio between water:alcohol:weak base:deliquescent salt:silica precursor is 16 water:24alcohol:2 weak base:0.25 deliquescent salt: 1 silica precursor.
5. METHOD, according to claim 1, characterized in that the weak base is selected from compounds based on primary, secondary and tertiary amines, and a mixture thereof
6. METHOD, according to claim 1, characterized in that the deliquescent salt is selected from calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, lithium, cobalt chlorides, bromides, nitrates, sulfates, chromates, acetates or fluorides
7. METHOD, according to claim 1, characterized in that the silica precursor is selected from alkoxysilanes
Claims 13 and 14 each recite:
13. USE OF A DELIQUESCENT DESICCANT MATERIAL, as defined in claim 11, characterized in that it is for drying gases. Emphasis added.
14. USE OF A DELIQUESCENT DESICCANT MATERIAL, obtained by the method as defined in claim 1, characterized in that it is for drying gasses. Emphasis added.
Claims 13 and 14 are indefinite because they are each “use” claims that attempt to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process. See MPEP 2173.05(q).
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 1–4, 6–10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckenhauer, US 6,235,219 B1 in view of Benkwitz et al., US 2015/0337343 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Beckenhauer teaches a method of making a composition useful as a desiccant where the composition comprises a deliquescent material. See Beckenhauer col. 3, ll. 2–8, col. 2, ll. 48–55. The method reads on the claimed “method for manufacturing a deliquescent desiccant material.”
The method comprises preparing a solution of PVOH dissolved in water or a low molecular weight alcohol, such as ethanol. See Beckenhauer col. 5, ll. 4–9. While Beckenhauer is silent as to the ethanol solvent containing water, Benkwitz teaches that distillation of ethanol from fermentation broth yields a mixture of ethanol and water of about 95% ethanol and 5% water, with additional steps required to reduce the water content below 5%. See Benkwitz [0187]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the ethanol of Beckenhauer to comprise at least some water (e.g., 5% water) because the reference suggests that the solvent can be water or ethanol, with ethanol produced by distillation containing 5% water. The solution of Beckenhauer also comprises a hygroscopic material including potassium acetate, which is a weak base, and calcium chloride, which is a deliquescent salt. See Beckenhauer col. 4, ll. 1–8, col. 5, ll. 46–51. This reads on the step of “(a) preparing a solution comprising water, alcohol, a weak base and a deliquescent salt.”
The method comprises agitating the solution, and the hygroscopic material, including calcium chloride, may be dissolved in the solvent. See Beckenhauer col. 5, ll. 37–51. This reads on the step of “(b) stirring the solution obtained in (a) until complete dissolution of the deliquescent salt.”
The hygroscopic material dissolved in the solution can also comprise sodium silicate (a silica precursor). See Beckenhauer col. 4, ll. 1–8, col. 5, ll. 37–51. It is noted that Beckenhauer differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the sodium silicate being added to the solution after the potassium acetate (the “weak base”) and calcium chloride (the “deliquescent salt”) are dissolved. But Beckenhauer suggests that the order that the hygroscopic materials are added to the solution does not affect the end product, because the hygroscopic material is added to the solution and then the solution is dried to generate a film that may be used as a desiccant. See Beckenhauer col. 5, ll. 52–65. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the sodium silicate to be added to the solution after the potassium acetate and calcium chloride because this would merely represent changing the sequence of adding ingredients without unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04, subsection IV, C. Also, the solution is agitated after the hygroscopic material is added to the solution. See Beckenhauer col. 5, ll. 46–51. This reads on the step of “(c) adding a silica precursor to the solution obtained in (b), and stirring for sufficient time for the mixing to be complete.”
The method further comprises drying the solution in an oven until essentially all of the water has been removed, thereby generating the film. See Beckenhauer col. 6, ll. 6–16. This reads on the step of “(d) keeping the solution obtained in (c) in an oven, until the liquid has completely evaporated.”
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Beckenhauer as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Beckenhauer as modified differs from claims 2 and 3 because it is silent as to the molar ratio of water:alcohol:weak base:deliquescent salt:silica precursor being in the range of 10–40 water:20–50 alcohol:1–4 weak base:0.01–deliquescent salt:1silica precursor (claim 2) or 16 water:24 alcohol:2 weak base:0.25–deliquescent salt:1silica precursor (claim 3).
But it would have been obvious for the solvent to comprise a mixture of water and ethanol to reduce cost, with Beckenhauer teaching that the solvent can comprise water or ethanol. See Beckenhauer col. 5, ll. 3–24. Also, the reference teaches that the exact volumes of hygroscopic material are not critical and that the desiccant film can have a weight range of 0.001 to 70% of the composition. Id. at col. 5, l. 52–col. 6, l. 5. The molar ratio of solvent (water and ethanol) to hygroscopic material is result effective because it impacts the ability of the solution to dissolve the hygroscopic material, and the amount of time to dry the solution to form the film. Also, the molar ratio of each of the hygroscopic materials in the solution (the “weak base,” “deliquescent salt” and “silica precursor”) is result effective because it impacts the ability of the film to absorb water with the molar ratio of each type of hygroscopic material affecting cost. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use routine experimentation to determine the optimal molar ratio of water:alcohol:weak base:deliquescent salt:silica precursor to optimize cost, drying time and hygroscopic performance. 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).
Regarding claim 4, Beckenhauer teaches that the alcohol can be ethanol, as claimed. See Beckenhauer col. 5, ll. 3–7.
Regarding claim 6, Beckenhauer teaches that the “deliquescent salt” is calcium chloride, as claimed. See Beckenhauer col. 4, ll. 1–8.
Regarding claim 7, Beckenhauer teaches that the “silica precursor” is sodium silicate, as claimed. See Beckenhauer col. 4, ll. 1–8.
Regarding claim 8, Beckenhauer teaches that the solution that is agitated can be room temperature (around 20°C), which reads on “in step (b), the solution is stirred at a temperature of 10–40°C.” See Beckenhauer col. 5, ll. 9–12.
Regarding claim 9, Beckenhauer teaches that the solution that is agitated can be heated to a temperature of at least 50°C for about 30 minutes, and then cooled back to room temperature (around 20°C). See Beckenhauer col. 5, ll. 16–21. This reads on “in step (c), the solution is stirred at a temperature of 20–60°C.” While Beckenhauer is silent as to the period ranging from 1–72 hours, as claimed, it would have been obvious to use routine experimentation to determine the optimal amount of time for the solution to cool to room temperature to optimize the rate at which the solution cools. See MPEP 2144.05, subsection II.
Regarding claim 10, Beckenhauer teaches that the solution is dried in the oven at a temperature of 38 to 93°C for a period ranging from 10 minutes to over 24 hours. See Beckenhauer col. 6, ll. 6–15. This overlaps with “in step (d), the solution is maintained at a temperature of 50–100°C, for a period of 1–30 days,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05, subsection I.
Regarding claim 14, Beckenhauer teaches that the desiccant composition can be used for drying gases. See Beckenhauer col. 2, l. 64–col. 3, l. 2.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckenhauer, US 6,235,219 B1 in view of Benkwitz et al., US 2015/0337343 A1 and in further view of Sebastian et al., US 2016/0207688 A1.
Regarding claim 5, Beckenhauer as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Beckenhauer differs from claim 5 because it is silent as to the “weak base” (the potassium acetate of the hygroscopic material) being selected from compounds based on primary, secondary or tertiary amines.
But Beckenhauer teaches that the hygroscopic material can include various hygroscopic materials, including calcium chloride and potassium acetate. See Beckenhauer col. 4, ll. 1–8. Also, Sebastian teaches a hygroscopic powder material comprising a salt selected from the group including potassium bromide and ammonium carbonate. See Sebastian [0019]. It would have been obvious for the hygroscopic material of Beckenhauer to include ammonium carbonate because this would merely represent the selection of a known material based on the suitability of its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. Ammonium carbonate is a weak acid based on a primary amine.
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.
Conclusion
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