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 Status
The Amendment filed on 17 November 2025 has been entered; claims 1-11 and 20-28 remain pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 17 November 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Pages 1-3 of the Remarks, filed 17 November 2025, regarding whether the Final Rejection was appropriately made Final have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, as all claims of the 23 October 2023 claim set of the instant application were identical to the corresponding claims of 18 March 2022 claim set of parent application 17/761,680, which were first rejected in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 11 July 2023, and would have been properly finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application (see MPEP: Section 706.07(b)).
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 3-8 of the Remarks, filed 17 November 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-11 and 20 under 35 USC 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 over Zhao alone (claims 1 and 4, claims 2 and 3 rejected over Zhao in view of Estevez), or Bakker in view of Estevez and Zhao (claims 1 and dependent claims 2-9, 21, and 22), or Bakker in view of Estevez (claims 10, 11, 24, and 25), or Bakker in view of Estevez and Yang (claims 20 and 26-29).
Briefly with respect to Zhao, the Examiner submits that the limitations pertaining to subjecting the HPC to oxygen plasma to oxygenate and induce a negative charge to the surface are recognized as product-by-process limitations. Zhao teaches an atomic percentage of oxygen groups that total 17.3 atomic % and 13.1 atomic % oxygen, as well as various oxygen-containing groups including carbonyl and carboxylate/carboxylic groups (see Table 2, second and third entries), rendering the surface negative according to Paragraph [0036] of the Specification.
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2015, 7, 1132−1139), hereinafter “Zhao”.
With respect to claim 1, Zhao teaches an oxygen-rich (“oxygenated”) hierarchically porous carbon (an “O-HPC”) (Abstract), the O-HPC comprising: a hierarchically porous carbon (an “HPC”), the HPC comprising a surface (see Fig. 3), the surface comprising: (A) macropores (“first order pores”) at least some of which have an average diameter of between about 1 um and about 10 um (see Fig. 3d, e, f, h: largest pores shown as compared to the scale bar in the SEM images); and (B) walls separating the macropores (“first order pores”) (see Fig. 3: Section 2.3, first paragraph, last sentence), the walls comprising: (1) mesopores (“second order pores”), at least some of which have a peak diameter between about 7 nm and about 130 nm (see Fig. 3b,d,e, f,h: mesopores as identified in Fig. 3h; Section 2.3, first paragraph, last sentence, last 6 lines of the right column of Page 1135); and (2) micropores (“third order pores”) having an average diameter of less than 2nm (“less than about 4 nm”) (Section 2.3: second paragraph; Page 1135, last 12 lines of right column; Fig. 3); wherein the O-HPC comprises various oxygen-containing groups including carbonyl and carboxylate/carboxylic groups (see Table 2, second and third entries), rendering the surface negative.
Regarding the limitations pertaining to the subjecting at least a portion of the HPC surface to O2 plasma to oxygenate and induce a negative charge to the surface; it is submitted that these are product-by-process limitations. It has been held that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing a nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113. In the instant case, Zhao teaches an atomic percentage of oxygen groups that total 17.3 atomic % and 13.1 atomic % oxygen, meeting the relevant limitations of claim 1 and the limitations of claim 4.
Regarding the recited average diameter of macropores and the recited peak diameter of the second order/mesopores, the Examiner acknowledges that the sizes of these at least some of these macro- and mesopores of Zhao were estimated to fall within the recited ranges based on Fig. 3 of Zhao. As such, the Examiner submits that the range in size of macro- and mesopores of Zhao likely overlaps with the recited range of average macropore size and peak mesopore size.
Zhao and the claims differ in that Zhao does not teach the exact same proportions for average macropore size and peak mesopore size as recited in the instant claims; however, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range of macropore and mesopore sizes shown in Fig. 3 of Zhao overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in Zhao, particularly in view of the fact that; “The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2015, 7, 1132−1139) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Estevez et al. (ACS Nano, 2017, 11, 11047-11055), hereinafter “Zhao” and “Estevez”.
With respect to claims 2 and 3, Zhao does not specifically teach that the O-HPC has a BET specific surface area of at least about 2,000 m2/g or a total pore volume based on N2 sorption of at least 5 cm3/g.
Estevez teaches hierarchically porous carbon materials having a surface area of 2933 m2/g and 2675 m2/g, with corresponding pore volumes of 11.51 cm3/g and 10.84 cm3/g (see Table 1: entries HPC-G-12- 21-5h and HPC-S-4- 21-10h).
It would have bene obvious to modify the O-HPC material of Zhao with the higher surface areas of the hierarchically porous carbon materials HPC-G-12- 21-5h and HPC-S-4- 21-10h of Estevez because Zhao teaches that high surface areas are desirable, as they correspond to relatively high specific capacitance values (see Page 1132: Introduction: first paragraph; Page 1135: right column, last 15 lines), while Estevez teaches that the HPC material (containing oxygen at atomic percentages of up to 3.8 at %: see Page 11052, right column, last 7 lines) was explored for use both as a supercapacitor electrode, wherein supercapacitors require high surface area, while the high pore volume allows the HPC material to also act as an oil adsorbent (see Page 11051: right column, last full paragraph), adding the advantage of another application due to its high pore volume.
Claims 1-9 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakker et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2016/0089657) in view of Estevez et al. (ACS Nano, 2017, 11, 11047-11055) and Zhao et al. (ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2015, 7, 1132−1139), hereinafter “Bakker”, “Estevez”, and “Zhao”.
With respect to claims 1 and 5, Bakker teaches a hierarchically porous carbon comprising metal nanoparticles (Abstract; Paragraphs [0006, 0007, 0028]), wherein the hierarchically porous carbon comprises macropores (“first order pores”), mesopores (“second order pores”), and micropores (“third order pores”), wherein the macropores (“first order pores”) are separated from one another by walls, wherein the walls comprise the mesopores (“second order pores”) and micropores (“third order pores”) (see Bakker: Paragraphs [0006, 0028, 0035, 0039]). Bakker teaches that the mesopores have a diameter of about 2 nm to about 50 nm (wherein 50 nm is a discreet value within “a peak diameter between about 7 nm and about 130 nm”) (Paragraphs [0006, 0036]), and also that the micropores have a size ranging from 0.5 to 2 nm (Paragraph [0039]). Bakker teaches that the macropores (“first order pores”) have a size greater than about 0.1 micron, and provides examples where macropore size can range from 1 to 10 microns (see Paragraph [0031]). Bakker teaches that the nanoparticles are dispersed on surfaces of and throughout the hierarchically porous carbon material (see Paragraphs [0047-0049]).
Bakker and the claims differ in that Bakker does not teach the exact same proportions for average macropore size as recited in the instant claims; however, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range of macropore size taught by Bakker overlaps the instantly claimed proportions and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in Bakker, particularly in view of the fact that; “The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003).
Bakker does not specifically teach that the hierarchically porous carbon is oxygenated, but does teach that the hierarchically porous carbon is obtained from processes which use silica templates and heating temperatures of 800-1000 °C (Paragraph [0065]).
Estevez teaches hierarchically porous carbon prepared via a carbonization temperature of 1000 °C (see Page 11048: right column, see also “Methods” section on Page 11053), wherein Estevez teaches that the lower carbonization temperature leads to 3.8 atomic% oxygen (Page 11052: right column, last 7 lines). In view of this, the Examiner submits that the ordinary artisan would have found it obvious that the hierarchically porous carbon of Bakker would comprise comparable oxygenation levels. It has been held that "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." (MPEP 2112.01 [R-3] (I)).
Regarding the limitations pertaining to the subjecting at least a portion of the HPC surface to O2 plasma to oxygenate and induce a negative charge to the surface; it is submitted that these are product-by-process limitations. It has been held that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing a nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113.
In the instant case, Bakker in view of Estevez teaches an atomic percentage of oxygen of 3.8 at %, meeting the relevant limitations of claim 1. In view of the recited negative surface charge, the ordinary artisan would have recognized that the introduction of oxygen groups on hierarchically porous carbon via a similar preparation process introduces carbonyl and carboxylate/carboxylic groups as taught by Zhao (see Section 2.1 for synthesis and Table 2 of Zhao for chemical groups), which render the surface negatively charged.
With respect to claims 2 and 3, Bakker in view of Estevez teaches hierarchically porous carbon materials having a surface area of 2933 m2/g and 2675 m2/g, with corresponding pore volumes of 11.51 cm3/g and 10.84 cm3/g (see Estevez: Table 1: entries HPC-G-12- 21-5h and HPC-S-4- 21-10h, and see Paragraph [0045] of Bakker, in which a surface area of up to 2000 m2/g is disclosed).
With respect to claim 4, the Examiner submits that Estevez teaches 3.8 atomic % oxygen, while the Specification defines “about” as ± 10% of the value, meaning that “at least about five atomic percent” corresponds to “at least about 4.5 atomic percent”, wherein 3.8 atomic % oxygen as taught by Estevez is substantially close to that of the instant claims. One of ordinary skill would have expected compositions that are in such close proportions to those in prior art to be prima facie obvious and to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp., 227 USPQ 773 (CA FC 1985).
With respect to claims 6 and 23, Bakker in view of Estevez and Zhao teaches that the nanoparticles can comprises silver nanoparticles or copper nanoparticles (see Bakker: Paragraph [0050]), wherein silver and copper are selected from about 35 possible metals. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have found it “obvious to try” silver or copper nanoparticles, as the teaching represents a finite number of identified, predictable combinations. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Bakker in view of Estevez and Zhao teaches that the nanoparticles are incorporated into the hierarchically porous carbon material in amounts greater than 0.1% by weight up to about 30 % by weight (see Bakker: Paragraph [0056]), which overlaps “at least about 1% w/w” as recited in claim 7 and “about one and about 20 % w/w” as recited in claim 8.
Bakker in view of Estevez and Zhao and the claims differ in that Bakker does not teach the exact same proportions for the silver nanoparticle content as recited in the instant claims; however, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range in metal nanoparticle content disclosed by Bakker overlaps the instantly claimed proportions and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in Bakker, particularly in view of the fact that; “The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003).
With respect to claim 9, Bakker in view of Estevez and Zhao renders obvious the limitations of claim 6, as discussed above. As such, since all components of claim 6 are met by the combination of references, it is submitted that the hierarchically porous carbon material comprising silver nanoparticles of Bakker in view of Estevez is capable of acting as a water filtration device, which is interpreted merely as an intended use.
With respect to claims 21 and 22, Bakker in view of Estevez and Zhao teach that the nanoparticles are dispersed on surfaces of the hierarchically porous carbon, as well as throughout the hierarchically porous carbon (see Bakker: Paragraphs [0047-0049]), wherein the nanoparticles have an average particle size that is smaller than the diameter of the mesopores (Paragraph [0051]), and wherein the nanoparticles have a size ranging from about 1 nm to about 50 nm (Paragraphs [0024, 0052]), while the micropores have a size up to 2 nm (Paragraph [0039]). In view of the foregoing, the ordinary artisan would have found it obvious that the nanoparticles are distributed within the macropores (having a size of about 1-10 micron: see (Paragraph [0031]), mesopores, and micropores.
Regarding the limitations more than 50% of the metal nanoparticles are distributed within the mesopores/second order pores, the Examiner submits that 1) Bakker teaches wherein the nanoparticles have an average particle size that is smaller than the diameter of the mesopores (Paragraph [0051]), and 2) there does not appear to be any criticality associated with this nanoparticle distribution in the mesopores. 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. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 10, 11, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakker et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2016/0089657) in view of Estevez et al. (ACS Nano, 2017, 11, 11047-11055), hereinafter “Bakker” and “Estevez”.
With respect to claim 10, Bakker teaches a hierarchically porous carbon comprising metal nanoparticles (Abstract; Paragraphs [0006, 0007, 0028]), wherein the hierarchically porous carbon comprises macropores (“first order pores”), mesopores (“second order pores”), and micropores (“third order pores”), wherein the macropores (“first order pores”) are separated from one another by walls, wherein the walls comprise the mesopores (“second order pores”) and micropores (“third order pores”) (see Bakker: Paragraphs [0006, 0028, 0035, 0039]). Bakker teaches that the mesopores have a diameter of about 2 nm to about 50 nm (wherein 50 nm is a discreet value within “a peak diameter between about 7 nm and about 130 nm”) (Paragraphs [0006, 0036]), and also that the micropores have a size ranging from 0.5 to 2 nm (Paragraph [0039]). Bakker teaches that the macropores (“first order pores”) have a size greater than about 0.1 micron, and provides examples where macropore size can range from 1 to 10 microns (see Paragraph [0031]).
Bakker and the claims differ in that Bakker does not teach the exact same proportions for average macropore size as recited in the instant claims; however, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range of macropore size taught by Bakker overlaps the instantly claimed proportions and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in Bakker, particularly in view of the fact that; “The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003).
Bakker does not specifically teach that the hierarchically porous carbon is oxygenated, but does teach that the hierarchically porous carbon is obtained from processes which use silica templates and heating temperatures of 800-1000 °C (Paragraph [0065]).
Estevez teaches hierarchically porous carbon prepared via a carbonization temperature of 1000 °C, wherein Estevez teaches that the lower carbonization temperature leads to 3.8 atomic% oxygen (Page 11052: right column, last 7 lines). In view of this, the Examiner submits that the ordinary artisan would have found it obvious that the hierarchically porous carbon of Bakker would comprise comparable oxygenation levels.
Regarding the limitation “at least about five atomic percent”, the Examiner submits that Estevez teaches 3.8 atomic % oxygen, while the Specification defines “about” as ± 10% of the value, meaning that “at least about five atomic percent” corresponds to “at least about 4.5 atomic percent”, wherein 3.8 atomic % oxygen as taught by Estevez is substantially close to that of the instant claims. One of ordinary skill would have expected compositions that are in such close proportions to those in prior art to be prima facie obvious and to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp., 227 USPQ 773 (CA FC 1985).
With respect to the limitations “silver-impregnated”, Bakker in view of Estevez teaches that the nanoparticles can comprises silver nanoparticles (see Paragraph [0050]), wherein silver is selected from about 35 possible metals. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have found it “obvious to try” silver nanoparticles, as the teaching represents a finite number of identified, predictable combinations. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding the limitations “at least about 1% w/w” as pertaining to the silver content, Bakker teaches that the nanoparticles are incorporated into the hierarchically porous carbon material in amounts greater than 0.1% by weight up to about 30 % by weight (see Paragraph [0056]), which overlaps “at least about 1% w/w” as recited in claim 1.
Bakker in view of Estevez and the claims differ in that Bakker does not teach the exact same proportions for the silver (nanoparticle) content as recited in the instant claims; however, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range in metal nanoparticle content disclosed by Bakker overlaps the instantly claimed proportions and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in Bakker, particularly in view of the fact that; “The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003).
With respect to claim 11, Bakker in view of Estevez renders obvious the limitations of claim 10, as discussed above. As such, since all components of claim 10 are met by the combination of references, it is submitted that the hierarchically porous carbon material comprising silver nanoparticles of Bakker in view of Estevez is capable of acting as a water filtration device, which is interpreted merely as an intended use.
With respect to claims 24 and 25, Bakker in view of Estevez teach that the nanoparticles are dispersed on surfaces of the hierarchically porous carbon, as well as throughout the hierarchically porous carbon (see Bakker: Paragraphs [0047-0049]), wherein the nanoparticles have an average particle size that is smaller than the diameter of the mesopores (Paragraph [0051]), and wherein the nanoparticles have a size ranging from about 1 nm to about 50 nm (Paragraphs [0024, 0052]), while the micropores have a size up to 2 nm (Paragraph [0039]). In view of the foregoing, the ordinary artisan would have found it obvious that the nanoparticles are distributed within the macropores (having a size of about 1-10 micron: see (Paragraph [0031]), mesopores, and micropores.
Regarding the limitations more than 50% of the metal nanoparticles are distributed within the mesopores/second order pores, the Examiner submits that 1) Bakker teaches wherein the nanoparticles have an average particle size that is smaller than the diameter of the mesopores (Paragraph [0051]), and 2) there does not appear to be any criticality associated with this nanoparticle distribution in the mesopores. 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. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 20 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakker et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2016/0089657) in view of Estevez et al. (ACS Nano, 2017, 11, 11047-11055), and Yang et al. (Materials Chemistry and Physics, 2016, 174, 179-186), hereinafter “Bakker”, “Estevez”, and “Yang”.
With respect to claim 20, Bakker in view of Estevez renders obvious the limitations pertaining to the silver-impregnated, oxygenated HPC material (see the rejection of claim 10 above, which is incorporated by reference, but does not specifically teach removing contaminants from water using the silver-impregnated, oxygenated HPC material.
Yang teaches removing dyes from water (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the silver-impregnated, oxygenated HPC material of Bakker in view of Estevez in the method of removing dyes from water because Yang teaches that the dye removal is efficiently accomplished via hierarchical porous carbon material comprising cobalt ferrite particles (Abstract; Section 3.6), wherein the HPC comprises a large surface area greater than 2000 m2/g (see Table 1), and Bakker teaches that the hierarchical porous carbon material can comprise metal nanoparticles which can comprise cobalt and iron combinations, including their oxides, in combination with silver nanoparticles (see Paragraphs [0050, 0060, 0084]). It is further noted that Estevez teaches that oxygenated HPC materials are used in a variety of applications including as sorbents, including for removing contaminants from water (see Abstract; Page 11047, first paragraph.
With respect to claims 26 and 27, Bakker in view of Estevez and Yang teach that the nanoparticles are dispersed on surfaces of the hierarchically porous carbon, as well as throughout the hierarchically porous carbon (see Bakker: Paragraphs [0047-0049]), wherein the nanoparticles have an average particle size that is smaller than the diameter of the mesopores (Paragraph [0051]), and wherein the nanoparticles have a size ranging from about 1 nm to about 50 nm (see Bakker: Paragraphs [0024, 0052]), while the micropores have a size up to 2 nm (see Bakker: Paragraph [0039]). In view of the foregoing, the ordinary artisan would have found it obvious that the nanoparticles are distributed within the macropores (having a size of about 1-10 micron: see Bakker: Paragraph [0031]), mesopores, and micropores.
Regarding the limitations more than 50% of the metal nanoparticles are distributed within the mesopores/second order pores, the Examiner submits that 1) Bakker teaches wherein the nanoparticles have an average particle size that is smaller than the diameter of the mesopores (Paragraph [0051]), and 2) there does not appear to be any criticality associated with this nanoparticle distribution in the mesopores. 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. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 28, Bakker in view of Estevez and Yang teach that the water containing the dye flows through the hierarchically porous carbon of Yang within glass vessels (see Section 2.5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARE M PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5952. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Bob Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/CLARE M. PERRIN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
/CLARE M PERRIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 09 December 2025