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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15, and the species of (a-i), (b-i) and (c-i), in the reply filed on May 7, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12, 16-18, 20-26, 28-29, 31 and 33-38 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species and/or invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 7, 2026.
Claim 12 is directed to a non-elected species. Claims 16-18, 20-26, 28-29, 31 and 33-38 are directed to a non-elected invention.
Therefore, after the election, claims 19, 27, 30 and 32 are canceled, claims 12, 16-18, 20-26, 28-29, 31 and 33-38 are withdrawn, and claims 1-11 and 13-15 are pending for examination, as filed May 7, 2026.
Please Note—in future amendments, claim 12 should be provided with the proper status identifier of “withdrawn”.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: (1) drawings seem to be improperly embedded in the specification. Note Reaction Schemes 2-10. (2) Not all figures seem to be discussed in the “Detailed Description”, note figures 1, 2, 3, etc.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-11 and 13-15 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, line 2, “the surface” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 1, lines 3 “stoichiometric ratio of monomers to support” is confusing and indefinite as to what is intended. Is applicant referring to the amount of support material such as by weight or volume as compared to the amount by weight or volume to the monomer? When the support is simply metal oxide, silica, etc. it does not appear there would be reaction. Is it referring to the amount of bound groups on the surface of the support (as in claim 5), where the stoichiometric amounts refers to the amount of bound groups per reaction with monomers? Something else? For the purpose of examination, any of the above is understood to meet the claimed requirements but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 6 refers to conditions of the “free radical initiator” but does not clarify that this initiator is being selected for use, and it is unclear what is required if a different bound group was selected. For the purpose of examination, it is understood that the initiator was selected for use, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 15, line 1, “said carbon aerogel” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear and indefinite if applicant is referring to the forming the xerogel in claim 1 or the aerogel is supposed to be a product formed using the xerogel. For the purpose of examination, either is understood to meet the claim requirements, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
The dependent claims do not cure the defects of the claims from which they depend and are therefore also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenan, “Amorphous Carbon Aerogels from Xerogel Powders” (hereinafter Greenan, used as provided by the IDS of July 31, 2024) in view of Alias et al (US 2011/0165468) and WO 2011/025276 (hereafter ‘276).
Claims 1, 3: Greenan teaches a method of forming a xerogel comprising polymerizing a plurality of monomers on the surface of a support (silica powder, meeting the requirements of claim 3), so as to form a polymer layer on the surface, where the monomers can be the same, for example (note page 3, Introduction Section, and pages 4, 7-8, Experimental Section, where a plurality of the monomers understood to be used from the amounts given).
Greenan does not teach the specific stoichiometric amount of monomer to support used. Greenan does indicated that the particles will be further treated and carbonized/pyrolyzed for form carbon from the polymer (note page 3, Introduction Section, page 5, page 9, Experimental Section, and Scheme 2 and 5).
However, Alias teaches making polymer coated particles (here Si) (note 0036-0037), where the applied polymer can be a material such as PAN (polyacryonitrile) (note 0045), and the coated particle is pyrolyzed to form a carbon coated particle (note 0038), where it is described that there can be large amounts of polymer material as compared to the amount of particles (note 0154).
‘276 further describes forming a carbon coated support (here metal oxide), where the polymer monomer precursor can be provided and coated onto the particles, cured and then heat treated to carbonize to form a carbon coating (note the abstract, pages 2, 4 of the translation). It is noted the amount of precursor relative to the amount of support/particles can be adjusted to control the thickness of the resulting carbon layer (note page 4, translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Greenan to control and adjust the amount of monomer used relative to the amount of support used as suggested by Alias and ‘276 in order to provide controlled desirable amount of carbon in the resulting product, since in Greenan the polymer is to be converted to carbon, and Alias teaches that a large amount of carbon precursor material can be used relative to the support, and ‘276 indicates that it is known to adjust the amount of monomer used relative to the amount of support used in a process where precursor is applied to a support and then carbonized, to adjust the amount of carbon resulting, and by optimizing the amount of the specific article to be made, a stoichiometric amount ratio used in the process of Greenan would be provided in the claimed range.
Claim 2: Greenan provides that the polymerized polymers can be polyacrylonitrile (PAN) or polyurea (note pages 3 and 7-8, Experimental Section).
Claims 5-6: Greenan provides the support can have various bound groups, including OH, NH2 and azo based free radical initiator (note page 3, Introduction Section, and also page 4, Experimental Section as to the azo based free radical initiator, ABCVA).
Claim 7: Greenan provides the xerogel can be polyurea coated silica or PAN coated silica (note page 3 and 7-8, Experimental Section).
Claim 15: Greenan further provides that the carbon aerogel/xerogel can be provided without supercritical drying (note page 3, Introduction Section).
Claims 4 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenan in view of Alias and ‘276 as applied to claims 1-3, 5-7 and 15 above, and further in view of Leventis et al (US 2019/0308912).
Claim 4: As to using metal oxide support, such as from Zr oxide, etc., rather than silica, ‘276 further describes how the support that can be coated with polymer can also be metal oxide, such as iron oxide, nickel oxide, titanium oxide, chromium oxide, hafnium oxide, zirconium oxide, etc. (note page 2, translation).
Leventis indices how when providing xerogel compositions with polymer material attached to a support, the support can be metal oxides such as Zr, Hf, Cr, Ti oxides, etc. (note 0043-0044, 0057, 0062).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Greenan in view of Alias and ‘276 to use of metal oxide particles, such as Zr, Hf, Cr, Ti oxides rather than silica to also provide a desirable xerogel as suggested by Leventis, since ‘276 indicates how supports of metal oxides, including Zr, Hf, Cr, Ti oxides can also be coated with polymer and carbonized to form carbon coated material, and Leventis teaches that as well as silica, such metal oxides supports can also be used for making xerogels.
Claim 8: When using Leventis as discussed for claim 4 above, Leventis also suggests how to provide the polymerizing on the support, where the polymerizing can be carried out in suspension and forms a wet gel, where the wet gel is dried to yield the xerogel (note 0013).
Claim 9: Greenan indicates the xerogel is a powder and to compress to form a self sustaining xerogel body (understood to be self sustaining from the pressure and compaction described, note page 5 and 8, Experimental Section). This is also indicated by Leventis (note 0063, 0053).
Claim 10: Greenan also indicates subjecting the xerogel body to oxidative aromatization to form an aromatized xerogel (note page 5, Experimental Section).
Claims 11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenan in view of Alias, 276 and Leventis as applied to claims 4 and 8-10 above, and further in view of Rathenow et al (US 2005/0079356).
Claim 11: as to forming a graphitic carbon aerogel, Greenan indicates that the compacts can be used to form carbon aerogels (note abstract, page 3).
Rathenow indicates that when providing polymer coated substrates that are pyrolyzed/carbonized (note 0003, 0039), amorphous carbon can be provided (0015), and as well, temperature can be controlled to provide graphitic carbon if desired for the particular intended application (note 0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Greenan in view of Alias, ‘276 and Leventis to further provide pyrolyzing conditions to provide graphitic carbon as suggested by Rathenow to provide a desirable product, since Greenan indicates providing polymer coating and carbonizing/pyrolyzing (note pages 5, 9, Experimental Section), and Rathenow indicates that when providing a polymer coated article and carbonizing/pyrolyzing the temperature can be controlled to provide graphitic carbon if desired for the particular intended application.
Claims 13, 14: Greenan provides further etching the carbon aerogel with CO2 or HF (note pages 5, 8, Experimental Section).
Claims 1-5, 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spange, et al, “Fabrication of Carbon/Silica Hybrid Materials Using Cationic Polymerization and the Sol-Gel Process” (hereinafter Spange) in view of Alias et al (US 2011/0165468) and WO 2011/025276 (hereafter ‘276).
Claims 1, 3: Spange teaches a method of forming a xerogel comprising polymerizing a plurality of monomers on the surface of a support (silica powder, meeting the requirements of claim 3), so as to form a polymer layer on the surface, where the monomers can be the same, for example (pages 112-114, and page 117 noting that xerogels can be provided, where a plurality of monomers understood to be used noting the Scheme 1 showing of linkage to monomers).
Spange does not teach the specific stoichiometric amount of monomer to support used. Spange does indicate that the particles will be further treated and carbonized/pyrolyzed for forming carbon from the polymer (note Scheme 2 and pages 117-118).
However, Alias teaches making polymer coated particles (here Si) (note 0036-0037), where the applied polymer can be a material such as PAN (polyacryonitrile) (note 0045), and the coated particle is pyrolyzed to form a carbon coated particle (note 0038), where it is described that there can be large amounts of polymer material as compared to the amount of particles (note 0154).
‘276 further describes forming a carbon coated support (here metal oxide), where the polymer monomer precursor can be provided and coated onto the particles, cured and then heat treated to carbonize to form a carbon coating (note the abstract, pages 2, 4 of the translation). It is noted the amount of precursor relative to the amount of support/particles can be adjusted to control the thickness of the resulting carbon layer (note page 4, translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spange to control and adjust the amount of monomer used relative to the amount of support used as suggested by Alias and ‘276 in order to provide controlled desirable amount of carbon in the resulting product, since in Spange the polymer is to be converted to carbon, and Alias teaches that a large amount of carbon precursor material can be used relative to the support, and ‘276 indicates that it is known to adjust the amount of monomer used relative to the amount of support used in a process where precursor is applied to a support and then carbonized, to adjust the amount of carbon resulting, and by optimizing the amount of the specific article to be made, a stoichiometric amount ratio used in the process of Spange would be provided in the claimed range and as well, a plurality of monomers.
Claim 2: Spange describes using PFA (polyfurfuryl alcohol) polymer (page 112), however, Alais further describes how polymers such as PAN (polyacrylonitrile) and polyvinyl chloride can also be used for coating particles and then carbonizing (note 0045), further suggesting to also use monomers that polymerize to PAN or PVC with an expectation of predictably acceptable results.
Claim 4: further as to using a metal oxide support, ‘276 would further indicate that along with silica particles as in Spange, it would also be acceptable to use metal oxide particles to be coated with polymer and carbonized, describing oxides such as iron oxide, nickel oxide, titanium oxide, chromium oxide, hafnium oxide, zirconium oxide, etc. (note page 2, translation).
Claim 5: Spange would suggest that the support can comprise bound groups such as OH (note Scheme 1).
Claim 7: When using PAN as suggested for claim 2, that would give a xerogel of PAN coated silica, meeting the claim requirements.
Claim 15: Spange further would suggest that the carbon aerogel/xerogel can be provided without supercritical drying (note pages 112-114, Scheme 1 as no supercritical drying indicated required).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spange in view of Alias and ‘276 as applied to claims 1-5, 7 and 15 above, and further in view of Sellergren et al (US 6759488).
Claim 6: As to using bound groups of azo based free radical initiator, as discussed for claim 5 above, Spange indicates using OH groups, for example.
Sellergren describes providing a coating of a polymer material onto a support, where the support can be silica, for example (note column 4, lines 45-55, column 5, lines 15-20). The polymerization is confined to the surface of the support by providing free radical initiator bound to the surface of the support (note column 4, lines 55-65). The free radical initiator can be an azo based free radical initiator (note column 5, lines 40-50, column 6, lines 10-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spange in view of Alias and ‘276 to provide an azo based free radical initiator bound to the surface of the support as suggested by Sellergren to help provide that the polymerization is provided on the surface of the support, since Spange wants to polymerize monomers on the surface of a support and Sellergren indicates how providing an azo based free radical initiator helps provide this.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spange in view of Alias and ‘276 as applied to claims 1-5, 7 and 15 above, and further in view of Leventis et al (US 2019/0308912).
Claim 8: As to the polymerizing as claimed and drying as claimed to form the xerogel, Spange provides combining the silica particle, and monomer (FA), etc. that forms a gel (sol gel) (note Scheme 2, page 114).
Leventis indices how when providing xerogel compositions with polymer material attached to a support, the support can be metal oxides such as Zr, Hf, Cr, Ti oxides, etc. and also silica (note 0043-0044, 0052, 0057, 0062). Leventis also suggests how to provide the polymerizing on the support, where the polymerizing can be carried out in suspension and forms a wet gel, where the wet gel is dried to yield the xerogel (note 0013).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spange in view of Alias and ‘276 to provide polymerizing and drying as in claim 8 as suggested by Leventis to help provide that the polymerization is provided on the surface of the support, since Spange wants to polymerize monomers on the surface of a support and indicates using monomers and providing a gel, and Leventis indicates how similar polymerizing can be provided in a suspension and forming a wet gel, where the wet gel is dried to yield the xerogel.
Claim 9: As to the xerogel as a powder, and compressing to form a self sustaining body, Spange indicates forming particles (note Scheme 1), and when using Leventis as discussed for claim 8 above, it further indicates providing the xerogel as a powder and compressing to form a self sustaining body (understood to be self sustaining from the pressure and compaction described) (note 0063, 0053), indicating a desirable use for the xerogel material.
Claims 10, 11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spange in view of Alias, 276 and Leventis as applied to claims 8 and 9 above, and further in view of Rathenow et al (US 2005/0079356).
Claim 10: as to providing oxidative aromatization to form an aromatized xerogel, Spange indicates providing carbonization at high temperature (note Scheme 2), and notes forming graphite like carbon phase (graphitic carbon) (note page 118).
Rathenow indicates that when providing polymer coated substrates that are pyrolyzed/carbonized (note 0003, 0039), and as well, temperature can be controlled to provide graphitic carbon if desired for the particular intended application (note 0042). It is further indicated that the article can be further given an aftertreatment of oxidization with oxygen, for example (note 0056-0057). The polymer can be PAN (note 0027). Since PAN is used and oxidized with oxygen, oxidative aromatization would be understood to occur.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spange in view of Alias, ‘276 and Leventis to further provide the oxidized aromatization to form an aromatized xerogel as suggested by Rathenow to provide a desirable product, since Spange indicates providing polymer coating and carbonizing, Leventis indicates compressing the formed xerogel powder, and Rathenow indicates that when providing a polymer coated article and carbonizing/pyrolyzing to form carbon, and use PAN polymer, it can further be desired to provide oxidative aftertreatment with oxygen, which would be understood to provide a oxidative aromatization.
Claim 11: as to forming a graphitic carbon aerogel, Spange indicates providing carbonization at high temperature (note Scheme 2), and notes forming graphite like carbon phase (graphitic carbon) (note page 118). Leventis indicates the treated compacted xerogel forms aerogels (note 0043), giving a suggested used.
Rathenow indicates that when providing polymer coated substrates that are pyrolyzed/carbonized (note 0003, 0039), amorphous carbon can be provided (0015), and as well, temperature can be controlled to provide graphitic carbon if desired for the particular intended application (note 0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spange in view of Alias, ‘276 and Leventis to further provide pyrolyzing conditions to provide graphitic carbon aerogel as suggested by Rathenow to provide a desirable product, since Spange indicates providing polymer coating and carbonizing and forming xerogels and forming graphitic carbon, Lventis indicates the compacting the xerogel, and that such compacted xerogel can form aerogel, which would be a carbon aerogel giving the carbon material formed in Spange, and Rathenow indicates that when providing a polymer coated article and carbonizing/pyrolyzing the temperature can be controlled to provide graphitic carbon if desired for the particular intended application.
Claims 13, 14: Further as to etching the formed carbon aerogel, Spange indicates etching with HF, for example, to remove undesired silica material, which since a carbon aerogel can be formed is indicated for Leventis, would predictably and acceptably occur to the carbon aerogel.
WO 2020/173911 (as provided with the IDS of July 31, 2024) also notes providing a aerogel using polymer and particles (note the abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 pm.
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, GORDON BALDWIN can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights