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 § 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.
(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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okouno et al. (PGPub US 2020/0377973).
Okouno et al. disclose a metal porous body comprising a framework that forms a three-dimensional network structure including nodes and a plurality of connecting ribs, where the metal may be selected from a group which includes nickel, iron, cobalt, and chromium (Figures 3-5 and paragraphs 0050-0055 and 0077). The ribs are columnar supporting portions connected by the nodes with the framework provided with a plurality of holes open in a surface of the framework.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kanda et al. (PGPub US 2022/0416255).
Kanda et al. disclose a porous body including a framework having a three-dimensional network structure comprising nickel, cobalt, a first element, and a second element, the framework comprising nodes and a plurality of ribs. The framework has a plurality of openings and the plurality of ribs are columnar supporting portions. See paragraphs 0050-0052 and figures 5-7.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuno et al. (PGPub US 2020/0377973).
Okuno et al. disclose a porous metal body as discussed above, having a porosity of 40% or more and 97% or less (paragraph 0068). While Okuno et al. do not appear to disclose the exact range claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention would have found it obvious to form bodies having porosities within the disclosed range, including bodies having a porosity of 40% which falls within the claimed range.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanda et al. (PGPub US 2022/0416255).
Regarding applicants’ claim 5, Kanda et al. disclose a porous metal body as discussed above having a porosity of 40% or more and 97% or less (paragraph 0058). While Kanda et al. do not appear to disclose the exact range claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention would have found it obvious to form bodies having porosities within the disclosed range including bodies having a porosity of 40% which falls within applicatns’ claimed range.
Regarding applicants’ claim 6, Kanda et al. disclose that the second element may be selected from a group including potassium (paragraph 0092-0093). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention would have found it obvious to select from the disclosed list for the second element, including potassium.
Regarding applicants’ claims 7 and 8, Kanda et al. do not appear to explicitly disclose that the porous metal body is a nitrous oxide decomposition element or apparatus, however substantially identical materials are expected to have substantially identical properties. Applicants disclose the metal porous body to comprise elements such as nickel and cobalt, and that the metal porous body may contain potassium to improve the ability of the metal porous body to decompose nitrous oxide (present specification paragraph 0018 and 0024). Kanda et al. disclose a metal porous body comprising nickel and cobalt with the addition of potassium (paragraphs 0079 and 0093). Given that both applicants and Kanda et al. disclose porous metal bodies comprising substantially identical materials, the bodies would be expected to have substantially identical properties, and therefore the porous metal body of Kanda et al. would be expected to decompose nitrous oxide. The claimed requirements of a decomposition element (claim 7) and apparatus (claim 8) do not require a minimum number of components nor specific geometric configuration and therefore the porous body meets the minimum necessary structure to be an element (claim 7) and an apparatus (claim 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Okuno et al. and Kanda et al. disclose porous bodies as discussed above, but do not define a BET surface area (claim 2), average of maximum diameters of opening holes of the framework (claim 3), or the number of opening holes per unit area (claim 4). Further there is insufficient evidence that the parameters claimed are necessarily present based on the parameters that are disclosed by Okuno et al. and Kanda et al. There is also no motivation such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the porous metal bodies of Okuno et al. or Kanda et al. so as to result in a parameters falling within the claimed ranges of BET surface area (claim 2), average of maximum diameters of opening holes of the framework (claim 3), or the number of opening holes per unit area (claim 4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM C KRUPICKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7086. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5pm EST.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/Adam Krupicka/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784