DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of invention and/or species, and corresponding claims (1, 3-8, 13-25) is acknowledged. Non-elected claims are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant's arguments are not persuasive because they amount to a general allegation and fails distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors upon which the applicant relies for his or her conclusion that the requirement is in error. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
Obtain a gel
Dip gel in a solution with a material (dissolved) that can be sublimed
Dry gel (partially or fully)
Sublimate the 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 1-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki (JPH09301775A)
In reference to claim 1, Seki discloses a method for manufacturing a porous material (see abstract and claims), the method comprising:
forming a drying-agent-solution-containing gel, comprising a solvent, a drying agent dissolved in the solvent, and a porous three-dimensional solid network contained in the solvent, wherein the drying-agent-solution-containing gel is formed by one of the following methods:
(a) introducing a gel comprising a liquid containing the porous three-dimensional solid network as an initial charge and then replacing at least some of the liquid in pores of the porous three-dimensional solid network with the drying agent dissolved in the solvent to form the drying-agent-solution-containing gel, or (“drying wet gel after immersion in a soln. contg. a sublimable org. substance” [Abstract])
(b) introducing gel precursors, the solvent, and the drying agent as an initial charge and initiating a crosslinking of the gel precursors into the porous three-dimensional solid network to form the drying-agent-solution-containing gel; then
heating the drying-agent-solution-containing gel to evaporate at least some of the solvent and to form a drying-agent-containing solid network; and then (“drying wet gel after immersion in a soln. contg. a sublimable org. substance” [Abstract]. Drying a wet gel renders heating obvious. Official Notice is taken that it is known to heat a wet object when drying a wet object in order to accelerate the drying process.)
heating the drying-agent-containing solid network to sublime the drying agent and to form a porous material (“the gas of S is abruptly generated in the process of raising the temperature and sublimating S”)
In reference to claim 2, Seki forms porous glass; e.g., see Embodiment 4.
In reference to claim 3, see claim 1.
In reference to claim 4-5, see Embodiment 4.
In reference to claim 6-8, see Embodiment 4; Seki performs the same positively recited steps – as claimed – and thus would result in the same outcomes as claimed.
In reference to claim 13, see Embodiment 4.
In reference to claim 14, Seki in Embodiment 4 heats the gel for a long time. However, it would be obvious to perform the heating in less time in order to improve production speed. Seki warns that rapid heating can cause cracking – this is well known in the field. This it not a teaching away of rapid heating – it is a warning of art recognized limitations. If applicant has solved this issue, then they should point out how it is solved.
In reference to claim 15-16, see “camphor”
In reference to claim 17 the examples (“embodiments”) demonstrate the use of the claimed solvents.
In reference to claim 18-19, selection of temperature for evaporating/subliming a solvent is a matter of obvious optimization. The rate of volatilizing a material is known to depend on temperature.
In reference to claim 20, see embodiment 4. Seki dries the material in a sealed chamber with a pinhole.
In reference to claim 21, recycling a solvent is obvious.
In reference to claim 22, size of the material is a matter of design choice, a person would motivated to make a large material for a large application.
In reference to claim 23-25, Seki performs the same positively recited steps – as claimed – and thus would result in the same outcomes as claimed.
Conclusion
Any prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167577X17313472?via%3Dihub graphical abstract below:
PNG
media_image1.png
245
295
media_image1.png
Greyscale
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10971-018-4769-9
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014486172500846X
See Loffler (NPL 20221)
US20210206926A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KRASNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1154. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8am-5pm.
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, Xiao Zhao can be reached on 571-270-5343. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Examiner has utilized USPTO approved search resources, such as EIC or external tools, beyond routine search tools and/or leveraged experts in the field. Examiner has cited and explained the relevance of prior art not used in rejections but pertinent to the claims or disclosure. Examiner has provided detailed search documentation through detailed Search Notes, such as annotated search results that identify which data sets were reviewed. When citing the prior art examiner has used annotations clearly in prior art rejections such as, using item-to-item matching to the prior art, pairing exact claim language to particular language used in the prior art, and/or clearly explaining examiner’s interpretation as to how a citation maps to claim language especially when there is not a one-to-one matching of terms.
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.
/NICHOLAS KRASNOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-04240-5
Prosecution Insights