DETAILED ACTION
This is the second Office Action regarding application number 18/811,439, filed on 08/21/2024, which is a claims priority to PRO 63/535,339, filed on 08/30/2023.
This action is in response to the Applicant’s Response received 04/30/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7, 11, 14, 16, 17, 19-21, 31, 32, 48-50, 54, 59, and 60 are currently pending.
Claims 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 18, 22, 30, 33, 47, 51, 53, 55, and 58 are canceled.
Claims 59 and 60 are new.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 14, 16, 20, 50, and 54 are amended.
Claims 1-7, 11, 14, 16, 17, 19-21, 31, 32, 48-50, 54, 59, and 60 are examined below.
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
Upon further examination, the Office has set forth a new ground of rejection.
No claim is allowed.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments received 04/30/2026 have been carefully considered but they are moot in light of the Office’s new ground of rejection.
The examiner requests that the applicant arrange a telephone interview and believes that this would likely accelerate the parties’ ability to better understand each other’s respective positions and understanding of the claimed invention and prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Indefiniteness
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.
Claims 1-7, 11, 14, 16, 17, 19-21, 31, 32, 48-50, 54, 59, and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Each of independent claims 1, 59, and 60 are now amended by the applicant to recite “wherein the composite is hygroscopic and is configured to retain the equilibrated water content in the absence of weeping.” The examiner identifies the following deficiencies with this new limitation.
First, the limitation lacks antecedent basis, since in all independent claims there are recited a first and a second equilibrated water content. The new limitation does not distinguish or provide the reader with any indication which is being referred to.
Second, the meaning of the portion of the limitation reciting “configured to retain the equilibrated water content in the absence of weeping” is unclear and ambiguous. That is to say, the examiner cannot determine with a reasonable level of certainty exactly what it is the applicant is attempting to require. What exactly does the phrase “in the absence of weeping” mean? The examiner generally understands the phenomenon of weeping to mean that at very high water contents, a material may dissolve into solution and therefore release some of the previously adsorbed water. At low water contents, the examiner believes that there would generally not be “weeping” in materials such as those known hygroscopic salt materials disclosed in the prior art, e.g., those cited previously by the examiner in WEI. Perhaps the applicant means to recite something such as the composite not dissolving at specific water content values? The examiner recommends an amendment that includes specific chemical compositions and/or water content values, as these may be easier to understand compared to the more functional-type recitations.
Dependent claims are similarly rejected.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
The Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). The Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELO TRIVISONNO whose telephone number is (571) 272-5201 or by email at <angelo.trivisonno@uspto.gov>. The examiner can normally be reached on MONDAY-FRIDAY, 9:00a-5:00pm EST. The examiner's supervisor, NIKI BAKHTIARI, can be reached at (571) 272-3433.
/ANGELO TRIVISONNO/
Primary Examiner
Prosecution Insights