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 Status
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 17-19, and 23-24 are pending in the current application. Claims 3, 17-19, and 23-24 have been withdrawn.
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 1-2 and 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (US 7,169,466) in view of Knipmeyer (US 8,167,141), as evidenced by MakeItFrom.com (“LDPE vs. PVDF”) and Matweb.com (“Overview of materials for polyvinylidenefluoride (PVDF), Molded/Extruded”).
With regard to Claim 1, Taylor et al (Taylor) discloses a porous composite block that contains at least two groups of binding agent particles (Abstract). Taylor discloses an immobilized media device (Abstract, porous composite block). Taylor discloses the device comprises at least one adsorbent, from about 0.5 to about 15 weight percent based on total weight of the device of a small particle size binder having a volume average particle size of 0.01 micrometers to less than 20 micrometers (C10/Table 1, Example 3, activated carbon (adsorbent), 5 weight percent small particle binder, low density polyethylene, 20 micron average particle size; Abstract, the second binding agent particles (small particle size binder) have an average particle size no larger than half the average particle size of the first binding agent particles (large particle size binder) and also between about 10 nm and 30 microns).
Taylor discloses from about 8 to about 50 weight percent based on total weight of the device of a large particle size binder having a volume average particle size of greater than 25 micrometers to 500 micrometers (C10/Table 1, Example 3, 15 weight percent large particle binder, very high molecular weight polyethylene, 120 micron average particle size).
Taylor discloses that materials for the first binding agent particles (large particle size binder) may include polymers with a melt flow index (MFI) lower than about 1 gm/10 min at 190°C with a 15 kg load (C6/L41-43), such as ultra high molecular weight (UHMW) polymers, including UHMW polyethylene or very high molecular weight polyethylene (C6/L41-44; C10/Table 1, Example 3). Taylor also discloses that materials for the second binding agent particles (small particle size binder) can consist of a polymer with an MFI higher than 1 gm/10 min, such as polyethylene homopolymers and ethylene copolymers and low density polyethylene (C6/L44-52; C10/Table 1, Example 3).
However, Taylor is silent to wherein the small particle size binder is selected from polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF).
Both polyethylene and poly (vinylidene fluoride) are known thermoplastic binders for use in creation of carbon block filters, as taught by Knipmeyer (US 8,167,141, C9/L44-C10/L40). The Examiner notes that both Taylor (C1/L8-10) and the instant application [0002]-[0009] are directed to activated carbon adsorbents.
Furthermore, Matweb.com discloses that the average melt flow value for PVDF is 8.56 g/10 min, which meets the requirement of Taylor that the MFI be greater than 1 g/10 min for the second binding agent particle (small particle size binder).
Furthermore, MakeItFrom.Com compares several properties of low density polyethylene (LDPE), as taught by Taylor, and PVDF, as taught by Knipmeyer. MakeItFrom.Com discloses that PVDF has 7x higher tensile strength vs LDPE, a 3x Axial strength to weight, and a nearly 2x bending strength to weight.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select PVDF as the small particle thermoplastic binder for use in the creation of a carbon block filter, since the inherent properties of PVDF indicate that it has a MFI greater than 1 g/10 min and greater strength vs LDPE according to multiple property measurements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for wherein the small particle size binder for creation of a carbon block filter is selected from polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), as taught by Knipmeyer, as evidenced by Matweb.com and MakeItFrom.com, since the inherent properties of PVDF indicate that it has a MFI greater than 1 g/10 min, as required by Taylor, and greater strength vs LDPE according to multiple property measurements.
With regard to Claim 2, Taylor discloses wherein the device is formed into a monolith, an annulus or a solid article (C10/Example 3, porous carbon block).
With regard to Claim 5, modified Taylor of Claim 1 comprises wherein the small particle size binder and large particle size binder comprise different monomer repeat units (polyethylene and polyvinylidene fluoride).
With regard to Claim 6, Taylor discloses wherein the adsorbent comprises activated carbon (C10/Example 3, porous carbon block).
With regard to Claims 7 and 8, modified Taylor of Claim 1 comprises wherein the small particle size binder and large particle size binders comprise a thermoplastic polymer (Knipmeyer provides evidence that both polyethylene and polyvinylidene fluoride are thermoplastic binders).
With regard to Claim 9, Taylor discloses wherein the thermoplastic polymer of the large particle size binder is polyethene (C10/Example 3).
With regard to Claims 10, 11, and 12, Taylor discloses wherein the thermoplastic polymer comprises polyethylene (C10/Example 3).
With regard to Claim 13, Taylor discloses wherein the small particle size binder and the large particle size binder form a bimodal particle size system (C10/Example 3, see definition of bimodal in [0086] of instant specification).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Page 6 of the filing that the mere fact that references can be combined or modified does not render the resultant combination obvious unless the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to optimize a parameter if there is no evidence in the record that the prior art recognized that the particular parameter affected the result. Applicant argues that there is no expectation that choosing PVDF over the low density polyethylene for the small particle binder would result in better retention of the adsorbent in the block.
Applicant argues on Page 7 of the filing that there is no expectation of improved retention. Applicant argues that strength of materials is not related to retention of small adsorbent particles.
In response, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to choose PVDF over low density polyethylene as the small particle binder since PVDF has an MFI greater than 1 g/10 min and greater strength than LDPE according to multiple property measurements. In addition to the greater strength, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success that a binder of greater strength such as PVDF would resist activated carbon adsorbent washout from the porous composite block of Taylor better than a binder of lower strength such as LDPE.
As noted in Taylor, binder particles are mixed with activated carbon grains, and the mixture is heated and pressed to form a porous composite block filter (C1/L17-28). Therefore, the purpose of the binder particles is to bind the activated carbon grains together, and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill that a higher strength binder would hold the activated carbon grains of a composite block better than a lower strength binder.
The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN LEBRON whose telephone number is (571)272-0475. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 571-272-0579. 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.
Benjamin Lebron
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1777
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777