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 .
The election is noted. Claims 28, 31-38 are withdrawn, given that Zr was elected. Claim 19 is not drawn to a nuclear reactor, nor even a nuclear reaction.
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 19-27, 29, 30 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.
In claim 19, the embedded product-by-process steps (‘obtaining … by’) in a process claim is improper and unclear if the hydrolysis step is actually required. If so, this step should be listed first.
In claim 19, it is unclear how mere drying of the binder/oxide will create a product ‘consisting of’ the oxide. Further, to the extent this is possible, it is contrary to the term binder. Thus, the claim is self-contradictory and unclear. Is a surface treatment/functionalization of the metal oxide intended? Note the Dillon reference below.
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.
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 19-21, 23-27, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan et al. 4937062 taken with Auer et al. 20150044468.
Jordan teaches, especially in col. 1, vaporizing a metal salt and hydrolysis with spray drying. The examples recite Zr, rendering its choice obvious.
Jordan does not teach the binder, however Auer teaches in paras 14-19 making a granulation by adding polymer to ZrO2. Using the ZrO2 of Jordan in the composition of Auer is obvious to make an effective sorbent.
Claim 20 see the Jordan abstract.
For claim 21, water is implied by the use of a ‘solution’.
For claim 23, calcining is taught in Jordan col. 4 lines 38-45.
For claims 24, 25 and 29, the size can be from 0.1-30 microns. In so far as this is overlapping the claimed range, it renders it obvious. See also figs. 3-5.
For claims 26 and 30, the compressibility is obvious to make the walls thicker and thus stronger; see col. 6 lines 40-65. Further, no difference is seen given the similarity of the process to that claimed.
For claim 27, ZrO2 is made.
Claims 19-21, 23-27, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan et al. 4937062 taken with Dillon et al. 6713526.
Jordan, above, does not teach the binder, however Dillon teaches a fugitive binder in col. 4-5. Using the ZrO2 of Jordan therein is obvious to provide a coated material having the desired properties.
Claims 19-27, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan et al. 4937062 taken with Okashimo et al. 20160289415.
Jordan, above, does not teach the binder, however Okashimo teaches compositions of metal oxides for reinforcing agents. Using the zirconia of Jordan therein is obvious since it is an exemplified material.
For claim 22, table 1 teaches PVA and zirconia.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STUART L HENDRICKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1351. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9 to 5. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Anthony Zimmer, can be reached on 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/STUART L HENDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
