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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Inventions II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05/12/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-4 in the reply filed on 05/12/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the PTO has not carried forward its burden of proof to establish that searching and examining the noted sets of claims would be an undue burden.
With regard to applicant' s allegation that joinder of these distinct inventions would not present a serious burden to the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office, such allegations rely on the unsupported assumption that the search and the examination of the inventions would be coextensive. However, the issues raised in the examination of the various apparatus and process claims are divergent. Further, while there may be some overlap in the searches of the inventions, there is not a reason to believe that the searches would be identical. Therefore, based on the additional work involved in searching and examining the distinct inventions together, restriction of the distinct inventions is proper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-4 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 “at least one interior chamber having an average diameter larger than an average diameter of the plural pores, wherein the at least one interior chamber is a result of a collapse of at least one pore of the plural pores and one channel of the internal channels.” The phrase “is a result of a collapse” renders the scope of the claim unclear because it recites the purported origin of the interior chamber rather than a definite structural characteristic of the claimed composite adsorbent. It is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art would determine, from examination of the claimed composite adsorbent itself, whether a particular interior chamber resulted from the collapse of at least one pore and one channel, as opposed to being formed by another mechanism or manufacturing process. Hence, the claim fails to provide to provide objective boundaries for determining whether a given composite adsorbent falls within or outside the scope of the claim.
Claims 2-4 are rejected because the depend on claim 1.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. CN 111939867 A, November 17, 2020 (hereinafter “Yang”) in view of Nakabayashi et al., Adsorption 2011 (hereinafter “Nakabayashi”).
Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses a silica-based composite desiccant comprising porous silica gel substrate (fig. 1) and an impregnating solution containing chloride salts, including lithium chloride, calcium chloride, and sodium chloride, wherein the chloride salts are loaded into the pores of the porous silica gel and function as moisture adsorbents (paragraphs 0007-0011, and 0033-0039). Yang further discloses that the porous silica gel comprises coarse-pore silica gel, medium-pore silica gel, and fine-pore silica gel, and that the resulting composite desiccant adsorbs water vapor from humid air (paragraph 0007, and 0022). However, Yang fails to disclose that the porous silica particles (or silica-cage) as having plural pores connected by internal channels, and that an interior chamber having an average diameter greater tan the average diameter of the pores.
Nakabayashi discloses a mesoporous silica-based adsorbent material comprising a silica material having a mesoporous structure with interconnected pore networks into which chloride salts are impregnated. Nakabayashi discloses that chloride solutions are drawn into the pores of the silica material under vacuum conditions such that the chloride salts are supported within the internal pore structure of the silica material (pp. 678-680, section 3.1). Nakabayashi further discloses mesoporous silica materials having pore diameters in the nanometer range and internal pore volumes which accommodate the impregnated chloride salts and adsorbed water (Table 1; pp. 677-680; figs. 2 and 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the silica-based composite desiccant of Yang to employ the mesoporous silica particle structure taught by Nakabayashi, including pores and interconnected internal pore pathways capable of receiving and retaining chloride salts, as Nakabayashi discloses that such pore structures improve water adsorption capacity and chloride salt retention within silica-based desiccant materials.
Regarding the claimed “interior chamber”, wherein the interior chamber is alleged to result from the collapse of a pore and a channel, such language is directed to the manner in which the structure is formed rather than imposing a further structural distinction on the final product. The resulting silica-cage structure having an internal cavity larger than an average diameter of the surrounding plural pores would have been an obvious result of optimization and variation of porous silica structures taught by Nakabayashi.
Regarding claim 2, Yang discloses impregnating solution containing 25-55 parts by weight calcium chloride, 10-25 parts by weight lithium chloride (LiCl), and 10-25 parts by weight sodium chloride dissolved in ethanol, wherein the choride salts are incorporated into the porous silica gel substrate to provide a composite having improved moisture adsorption performance (paragraphs 0010, 0034, 0043, 0052, and 0070).
Nakabayashi also discloses impregnation of mesoporous silica materials with lithium chloride and explains that LiCl supported within the pore structure of a mesoporous silica material improves water vapor adsorption performance (section 3.1, pp. 678-680). Therefore, the combination of Yang and Nakabayashi discloses that “the salt includes LiCl.” Accordingly, claim 2 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. CN 111939867 A, November 17, 2020 (hereinafter “Yang”) and Nakabayashi, in view of claim 1, in further view of Ozin et al., Journal of Materials Chemistry, 1998 (hereinafter “Ozin”).
Regarding claim 3, Yang fails to disclose that the silica-cage is spherical and has an average external diameter of about 6 µm. However, Ozin discloses mesoporous silica spheres with a mean diameter of approximately 6 µm and a narrow pore size distribution (pp. 743, right column, second paragraph). Ozin further discloses spherical mesoporous silica particles in SEM images (figs. 2A-C, pp. 745) and report that “the mean diameter of this sample of mesoporous silica spheres is 6.8 µm and agrees with that observed by SEM (pp.747, left column, discussion of Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize that spherical mesoporous silica-cage/silica particles taught by Ozin in the composite adsorbent of Yang and Nakabayashi because such spherical mesoporous silica-cage are useful adsorption materials possessing controlled pore structures and particle size distribution (pp. 743-744).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. CN 111939867 A, November 17, 2020 (hereinafter “Yang”), Nakabayashi and Ozin, in view of claim 3, in further view of McCague et al., Heat Pipe Science and Technology, An International Journal, 2015 (hereinafter “McCague”).
Regarding claim 4, Yang fails to disclose that the loading of the silica-cage with the salt is about 62 %, wherein the loading is defined as a ratio between (1) a volume of the salt and (2) a total volume of the plural pores, internal channels, and the at least one internal chamber. However, McCague disclose a mesoporous silica gel supports impregnated with hygroscopic salts wherein the salt fills 56-60% of the open pore volume of the mesoporous silica support (Page 301). McCague further discloses evaluating the fraction of pore volume occupied by salt and reports that desirable operation occurs when the calculated volume fraction occupied by salt solution is approximately 0.60-0.64 (60-64%) (page 302). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select a loading of about 62%, since 62% falls within the pore-filling range taught by McCague and represent optimization of a recognized result-effective variable affecting adsorption performance and salt retention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRIAM N EZELUOMBA whose telephone number is (571)272-0110. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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 5712707872. 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.
/M.N.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights