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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on September 5, 2024 and December 10, 2024 have been considered by the examiner.
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 16 is 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 16, it is unclear whether applicant intends to mean alkaline earth metal ions or alkali metal ions. At paragraph 0044 of the specification alkaline earth metals are discussed, therefore for examination purposes the examiner has interpreted the claim as alkaline earth metal ions.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2018/0258249 (Fricke et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Fricke discloses a process for preparing a porous material, the process at least comprising:
Providing a mixture comprising a water soluble polysaccharide and water (see paragraphs 0031-0034), which may further include lignin biopolymer (bio-based polyphenolic polymer) (see paragraph 0217; the described 1 M sodium hydroxide solution also would contain water),
Bringing the mixture into contact with an aqueous solution of at least one cross-linker (polyvalent metal ion) to prepare a gel (see paragraphs 0032-0034 and 0044-0046),
Exposing the gel obtained to a water-miscible solvent to obtain a gel (see paragraph 0032-0036), and
Drying of the gel obtained (see paragraphs 0032-0036).
Regarding claim 2, Fricke also discloses that the mixture further comprises at least one water-soluble polysaccharide with carboxylic acid groups (i.e. alginate) (see paragraphs 0029-0036, 0040, and 0217).
Regarding claim 4, Fricke also discloses that the mixture comprises alginate solution in an amount of 3 wt% and lignin solution in an amount of 3 wt%, which is diluted to an overall concentration of 1.5 wt%. see paragraph 0217). Preserving the 4:1 alginate:lignin described in Table 2 footnote yields a mixture such that the combined the alginate is present in an amount of 1.2 wt% and the lignin (bio-based phenolic polymer) is present in an amount of 0.3 wt% (1.5% x 0.8 = 1.2%, 1.5% x 0.2 = 0.3%), which is within the claimed range of 0.1 wt% to 50 wt% of a weight of the mixture.
Regarding claim 7, Fricke also discloses that the polyvalent metal ion is a divalent or trivalent metal ion (see paragraph 0046-0047).
Regarding claim 8, Fricke also discloses that the process comprises further at least one modification of the dried gel (porous material is subjected to shaping) (see paragraph 0100).
Regarding claim 9, Fricke also discloses that the modification may be shaping (see paragraph 0100).
Regarding claim 10, Fricke also discloses that the water-miscible solvent may be a C1-C6 alcohol, a C1-C6 Ketone or a mixture thereof (see paragraph 0091).
Regarding claim 11, Fricke also discloses that the mixture may further include a water insoluble solid (see paragraph 0056) and/or pigments, flame retardants, fillers, and surface-active substances (see paragraph 0053) .
Regarding claim 12, Fricke also discloses a porous material obtainable by the process of claim 1 (see paragraph 0112).
Regarding claim 13, Fricke also discloses that the porous material has a specific surface area in a range of 200 to 800 m2/g (see paragraph 0106), which is within the claimed range of 120 to 800 m2/g, and a pore volume in a range from 2.1 to 9.5 cm3/g for pore sizes ,150 nm (see paragraph 0106). Fricke does not specify the standard that was used to determine the specific surface area; however, the lack of an identified test method does not negate disclosure if the property would necessarily be present. Further, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding claim 14, while Fricke does not state that a content of volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the porous material is less than 50% of a content of volatile organic compounds in the bio-based polyphenolic polymer used in the process, the references teach all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. Moreover, the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amounts. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding claim 15, Fricke also discloses that the porous material is a component of an article for pharmaceutical applications, biomedical applications, thermal insulation materials, or cosmetic applications (see paragraphs 0118-0119), as claimed.
Regarding claim 16, Fricke also discloses that the polyvalent metal ion is a divalent or trivalent metal ion of alkaline earth metal ions, aluminum ions or iron (III) ions (see paragraphs 0046 to 0047).
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.
Claims 3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0258249 (Fricke et al.) in view of US 2025/0282905 (De Schyver et al.).
Fricke discloses a process as discussed above.
Regarding claim 3, Fricke does not give details on the type of lignin used; however, in the analogous field of porous materials De Schyver teaches that it is known to use Kraft lignin, lignin sulfonates, soda lignin, hydrolytic lignin and others as readily available lignin sources (see paragraphs 0105-0112). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a readily available lignin for the Fricke lignin.
Regarding claim 5, Fricke also discloses that the mixture may comprise a lignin compound and an alginate compound (see paragraph 0217). Fricke also discloses one embodiment where the ratio of lignin to alginate is 1:4 (see Table 2 footnote). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the ratio of lignin to alginate. In the analogous field of porous materials, De Schyver teaches that lignin is a renewable source a waste product from paper pulping process (see paragraph 0105). Such a teaching would have motivated one having ordinary skill in the art to use a larger quantity of lignin to alginate, in order to make use of a renewable waste product and would be within the claimed range of 55:45 to 98:2.
Regarding claim 6, as discussed above regarding claim 5, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the ratio of lignin to alginate. Further, Fricke teaches that lignin requires NaOH for solubility (see paragraph 0217). It follows that using a higher ratio of lignin to alginate would require additional NaOH, which would thereby produce a pH in a higher, more basic range of 8 to 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENDY L BOSS whose telephone number is (571)272-7466. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-6:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/WENDY L BOSS/Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights