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 .
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 2 and 9-11 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 2 recites “at least 30%, preferably at least 50%”. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation at least 30%, and the claim also recites preferably at least 50% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 2 recites “the micro-/mesoporous volume”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the micro-/mesoporous volume” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 9 recites “at least 25%, preferably at least 40%”. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation at least 25%, and the claim also recites preferably at least 40% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 9 recites “the micro- and mesoporous volume”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the micro- and mesoporous volume” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 10 recites “A dry process for preparing a porous composite according to claim 1, comprising the adsorption/condensation of said organic compound in gaseous phase within the pores of said porous matrix.”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the adsorption/condensation of said organic compound” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 11 recites “the prior sublimation step of said organic compound”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the prior sublimation step of said organic compound” in previous claim limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1,2,6-9,12,14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Jones et al(2022/0096991).
Jones et al teaches a porous composite for gas storage, comprising: a porous matrix(para 0019 stating “the mesoporous silica SB A-15 or mesoporous alumina supports”) comprising pores having a diameter of less than 10 nm(noting mesoporous provides for pores having a diameter of less than 10 nm), and an organic compound(alkyl-aryl amine reach molecules(Ph-XX-YY); noting para 0019 stating “the mesoporous silica SB A-15 or mesoporous alumina supports were functionalized with Ph-XX-yy using a wet impregnation method”) said porous composite being characterized in that said organic compound is contained within said pores of diameter less than 10 nm(para 0027 stating “Fig. 4a shows that Ph-3ED/SBA-15 and Ph-3PD/SBA-15 filled the pores up to 80-90% at 50% organic loading and adsorbed the largest amount of CO2”).
With regards to claim 2, Jones et al further teaches the pores of the porous matrix of diameter less than 10 nm represent at least 30% of the micro-/mesoporous volume of the porous matrix.
With regards to claim 6, Jones et al further teaches said organic compound is contained in crystalline, semi- crystalline and/or amorphous form within the pores(noting para 0019 stating “the Ph-XX-YY solution was added to the SBA-15/methanol suspension and the final mixture was stirred overnight at room temperature. After that, the solvent was removed using rotary evaporation and dried overnight under high vacuum”, wherein examiner notes rotary evaporation and drying provides for the organic compound contained in crystalline, semi- crystalline and/or amorphous form within the pores).
With regards to claim 7, Jones et al further teaches the porous matrix is chosen from among organic or mineral micro- and/or mesoporous substrates such as silica, carbon, alumina, aluminosilicates, activated carbons, molecular sieves, zeolites, Metal Organic Frameworks (MOFs), Hofman clathrates and polymers.
With regards to claim 8, Jones et al further teaches the porous matrix is chosen from among mesoporous MCM-41 and SBA-15 silicas, aluminosilicates, carbon xerogels, activated carbons and porous polymers.
With regards to claim 9, Jones et al further teaches the organic compound occupies at least 25 % the micro- and mesoporous volume of the porous matrix(para 0027 stating “filled the pores up to 80-90% at 50% organic loading”).
With regards to claim 12, Jones et al further teaches a gas storage method comprising contacting the porous composite according to claim 1 with the gas to be stored(noting adsorption of CO2), or a mixture comprising said gas; - applying one or more successive temperature cycles(para 0032 stating “another important aspect reflected by Fig.7 is the shape and retained performance of the temperature-swing cycles with respect to each other”).
With regards to claim 14, Jones et al further teaches a gas storage device comprising the porous composite according to claim l, and additionally comprising a gas(noting adsorption of CO2), said gas being stored within the pores comprising the organic material.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-5,13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al(2022/0096991).
Jones et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 but is silent as to the organic compound is chosen from among compounds able to form intermolecular hydrogen bonds.”. Examiner notes that Jones et al teaches a porous composite for gas storage, the porous composite characterized in that an organic compound is contained within pores of a mesoporous matrix, wherein the organic compound is chosen to adsorb carbon dioxide. Examiner respectfully submits organic compounds are well known that provide for forming intermolecular hydrogen bonds, therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, requiring storage of hydrogen gas, to substitute an organic compound able to form intermolecular hydrogen bonds for the Ph-XX-YY organic compound.
Jones et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 but is silent as to said organic compound is chosen from among the following compounds: polyphenols, polythiols, ureas, thioureas and calixarenes. Examiner notes that Jones et al teaches a porous composite for gas storage, the porous composite characterized in that an organic compound is contained within pores of a mesoporous matrix, wherein the organic compound is chosen to adsorb carbon dioxide. Examiner respectfully submits organic compounds are well known that provide for forming intermolecular hydrogen bonds, therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, requiring storage of hydrogen gas, to substitute any one of polyphenols, polythiols, ureas, thioureas and calixarenes for the Ph-XX-YY organic compound.
Jones et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 but is silent as to said organic compound is chosen from among hydroquinone, resorcinol, fluorohydroquinone, 2-5 dihydroxyl-pyridine, catechol, urea, thiourea, calix[4]arene. Examiner notes that Jones et al teaches a porous composite for gas storage, the porous composite characterized in that an organic compound is contained within pores of a mesoporous matrix, wherein the organic compound is chosen to adsorb carbon dioxide. Examiner respectfully submits organic compounds are well known that provide for forming intermolecular hydrogen bonds, therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, requiring storage of hydrogen gas, to substitute any one of hydroquinone, resorcinol, fluorohydroquinone, 2-5 dihydroxyl-pyridine, catechol, urea, thiourea, calix[4]arene for the Ph-XX-YY organic compound.
Jones et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 but is silent as to such that the gas is dihydrogen. Examiner notes that Jones et al teaches a porous composite for gas storage, the porous composite characterized in that an organic compound is contained within pores of a mesoporous matrix, wherein the organic compound is chosen to adsorb carbon dioxide. Examiner respectfully submits organic compounds are well known that provide for forming intermolecular hydrogen bonds, therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, requiring storage of dihydrogen gas, to substitute including dihydrogen to the porous composite of Jones et al, wherein an organic compound able to form intermolecular hydrogen bonds is substituted for the Ph-XX-YY organic compound.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT A HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-1159. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-4pm.
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.
/ROBERT A HOPKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
September 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights