DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-15 are pending.
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 Objections
Claims 4, 7, 8, 9, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4 refers to “the mold or molds”, claims 7, 8, 9, and 12 state “the or each mold”. The claims should use the phrase the “at least one mold” to be consistent with the language of claim 1. 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 1-15 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.
Regarding Claim 1:
The claim begins each step with “the”. This renders the claim indefinite because there is no antecedent basis for the steps and it is not clear if any of “the formulation” steps are the same or if every instance of “the formulation of” is referring to a separate step in the method.
The claim state “at least one opening that open into the sol after filling with sol”. It is not clear what “opens into the sol” is limited to.
Regarding Claim 2:
The claim states “the sol includes phase separation” it is not clear how a material can include phase separation. It is not clear if this is intended to require a step of phase separation in the formulation of the sol or if the sol is required to have separate phases.
Regarding Claim 3:
The claim states “wherein the sol may be formed by stirring..” The phrase “may be” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the steps following are optional or not.
Regarding Claim 7:
The claim refers to “the extraction ”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims. It is not clear if this is the same extraction step as in claim 1.
The claim uses the phrase “may include”. It is not clear if any of the limitations that follow are required by the claim or not.
Regarding Claim 8:
The claim refers to “the extraction ”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claims. It is not clear if this is the same extraction step as in claim 1.
The remaining claims are indefinite as they depend from an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13-15 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu et al (WO 2008/112702).
Regarding Claim 13:
Xu teaches the self-supporting porous monolith (porous inorganic substrate is a porous monolith) (see pg. 6 lines 19-21) having a largest transverse dimension d strictly smaller than 1 mm (support has an internal diameter of less than 1mm) (see pg. 6 lines 10-11).
Regarding Claim 14:
Xu teaches the assembly of a mold (support) and a porous monolith (porous inorganic substrate) filling at least one cross section of the mold, the porous monolith having a largest transverse dimension strictly greater than 200 µm (support has an internal diameter greater than 1mm) (see pg. 6 lines 8-10), the porous monolith having been manufactured in the mold without a step of shrinking of the mold on the porous monolith. The manufacturing of the porous monolith is a product by process limitation and only adds patentable weigh to the extent that the prior art product must have the same structure as the instant invention. As the structure of Xu is the same as claimed this limitation is met.
Regarding Claim 15:
Xu teaches the method for liquid phase chromatography, separation and/or extraction and/or adsorption of compounds of interest in complex liquid mixtures, filtration of a liquid, or catalysis of a liquid by passing the liquid through a porous monolith (see pg. 9 lined 1-7) obtained by the method as claimed in claim 1 or a porous monolith having a largest transverse dimension d strictly smaller than 1 mm (see pg. 6 lines 10-11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Lubda et al (US 2009/0101580) teaches a method for manufacturing a porous monolith comprising forming a sol comprising a sol-gel precursor in an aqueous solution (see para. 0107), at least partially filling a mold (sealable vessel), formation of a sol-gel matric (solution solidifies) (see para. 0107), and formation of a porous monolith (see para. 0108).
Lubda does not teach at least partially filling at least a container and at least one mold contained in the container with the sol, the mold comprising at least one opening that opens into the sol after filling the container and mold with the sol. It would not have been obvious to add an additional container to hold the mold and at least partially fill the container such that at least one opening in the mold opens into the sol after filling with the sol because this limitation is not known in this or related prior arts and there is no motivation known in this or related prior arts to add an additional container around the mold.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5133. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5 F: 8-12.
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, Ramdhanie Bobby 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.
/CLAIRE A NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 7/17/2026
Prosecution Insights