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 .
Response to Amendment
The indication of the subject matter of previous claim 9, now included in claim 1, as allowable subject matter is withdrawn in view of newly found prior art.
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 7, 8 and 22 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.
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 7 recites the broad recitation between 50% and 85%, and the claim also recites between 55% and 85%, between 55% and 80% and between 50% and 80% which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are 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 8 claims “wherein the zero-valent metal comprises between about 48.8% wt/wt and about 78.8% wt/wt.” but is not clear what wt/wt is in reference to. The claim could read wherein the zero-valent metal comprises between about 48.8% wt/wt and about 78.8% wt/wt of the mixture.”
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 22 recites the broad recitation between 1% and 20%, and the claim also recites between 1% and 15%, between 1% and 10%, between 5% and 20%, between 5% and 15% and between 5% and 10% which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are 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.
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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, 10-21, 26-29, 48 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Despen et al. US 2016/00114308.
Regarding claim 1, Despen et al. disclose a composition comprising:
halogenated activated carbon;
a halogenated compound which can be a metal salt;
a salt such as a metal salt [0006-0011]; and
teaches providing the composition with an additive such as a metal [0182-0184].
Despen et al. disclose an embodiment comprising:
halogenated biogenic activated carbon;
halogenated compound;
salt; and
additive selected from a metal, metal oxide, metal hydroxide or a combination thereof [0266-0276].
Despen et al. disclose that the activated carbon is made from carbon-containing feedstock, preferably biomass, [0063] which is pyrolyzed [0155] and disclose that in certain embodiments, the halogenated biogenic activated carbon includes oxygen which is beneficial in the activated carbon for certain applications [0253]. Thus Despen et al. disclose an “oxidized black carbon” as per the present specification.
Despen et al. disclose the additive can be a metal that may provide improved properties of the biogenic activated carbon, thus suggests the use of any type metal including zero-valent metal.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a specific combination of oxidized black carbon and zero-valent metal with metal salt halogenated compound and metal salt, as Dresden et al. disclose the use of halogenated biogenic activated carbon that includes oxygen for certain applications and discloses the use of metal as additive to improve properties of the biogenic activated carbon.
Further, regarding the use of zero-valent metal, Despen et al. disclose the use of the compositions for various including water purification, groundwater treatment and wastewater treatment [0322], and it is known in the art to use zero-valent materials for water treatment.
Regarding claims 2-5, Despen et al. disclose that the metal can be aluminum (a paramagnetic, three valence electron, p-block, Group 13 metal).
Regarding claim 6, Despen et al. disclose providing the additive as solid powder [0229].
Regarding claim 10, Despen et al. disclose that the halogenated compound and/or the salt may be a sulfate such as ferric chloride sulfate [0010].
Regarding claim 10, Despen et al. disclose an embodiment wherein the additive is a first additive selected from a metal, metal oxide, metal hydroxide or combination and second additive selected from sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, magnesium oxide, sodium silicate, potassium permanganate, organic acid or combinations thereof [0287-0299]. Providing the composition with sodium hydroxide or magnesium oxide (a hydroxide or oxide) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as alternative second additives that can be provided in the composition.
Regarding claims 11 and 14, Despen et al. disclose an embodiment wherein the additive is a first additive selected from a metal, metal oxide, metal hydroxide or combination and second additive selected from sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, magnesium oxide, sodium silicate, potassium permanganate, organic acid or combinations thereof [0287-0299]. Providing the composition with sodium hydroxide would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as one of the alternative second additives that can be provided in the composition.
Regarding claim 12 and 13, Despen et al. disclose the halogenated compounds and/or the salt includes at least one cation selected from the group consisting of magnesium, potassium, calcium, sodium, ammonium, copper, cobalt, nickel, manganese, iron, zinc, molybdenum and tungsten [0011]].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a salt of magnesium, potassium, calcium and/or sodium as taught by Despen et al. as alkali and alkaline earth metals used as cations for the halogenated compound and/or the salt.
Regarding claim 15, Despen et al. disclose the metal can be aluminum.
Regarding claim 16, Despen et al. disclose the halogenated compounds and/or the salt includes a salt of at least one cation selected from the group consisting of magnesium, potassium, calcium, sodium, ammonium, copper, cobalt, nickel, manganese, iron, zinc, molybdenum and tungsten [0011]] and the additive metal can be magnesium, aluminum, nickel, chromium, silicon, boron, cerium, molybdenum, phosphorous, tungsten, or vanadium [0184].
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the halogenated compounds and/or the salt of the same metal as the additive as Despen et al. teach that the salts can be of magnesium, nickel, molybdenum or tungsten and the additive metal can also be of magnesium, nickel, molybdenum or tungsten. Any combination of the metals for the salts and metal as additive would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as suitable for the composition.
Regarding claims 17-20, Despen et al. disclose the carbon-containing feedstock to form the halogenated activated carbon preferably includes biomass selected from group including softwood chips, hardwood chips, timber harvesting residue, corn, wheat straw, rice straw, coconut shells [0147].
Regarding claims 21, Despen et al. disclose the carbon-containing feedstock to form the halogenated activated carbon preferably includes biomass (biogenic feedstock). Bamboo is not specifically listed as a biomass used to make the halogenated activated carbon; however wood and grass are listed, and the use of bamboo would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a known biomass/biogenic feedstock used to make activated carbon.
Regarding claim 26, Despen et al. disclose the halogenated biogenic activated carbon may be powder of average mesh size of about 10 mesh, about 6 mesh, about 4 mesh or about 2 mesh [0259], thus providing a mixture with particles between 2 mesh and 20 mesh.
Regarding claim 27, Despen et al. disclose powder of the halogenated biogenic activated carbon and to which is added, after pulverization of the active carbon, additive such as metal applied as a solid powder [0183] [00229].
Regarding claim 28, Despen et al. disclose the halogenated activated carbon can be formed by pyrolysis of biomass [0063] and can include oxygen [0253], thus “oxybiochar” per the present specification.
Regarding claim 29, Despen et al. disclose a composition wherein the halogenated activated carbon can be formed by pyrolysis of biomass [0063] and can include oxygen [0253], thus “oxybiochar” per the present specification, and the composition provided with first additive such as aluminum and second additive such as sodium hydroxide [0295-0298].
Regarding claim 48, Despen et al. disclose that in certain embodiments, the halogenated biogenic activated carbon includes oxygen which is beneficial in the activated carbon for certain applications and in some embodiments, the characteristics of an activated carbon product can be optimized by blending an amount of fossil fuel based activated carbon (i.e. with very low oxygen content) with a suitable amount of biogenic activated carbon product having a greater oxygen content [0253]. Thus by providing a blend of biogenic activated carbon product having a greater oxygen content with a fossil fuel based activated carbon having very low oxygen content, a mixture comprising oxidized black carbon and black carbon is provided.
Regarding claim 49, Despen et al. disclose a halogenated activated carbon composition comprising at least 85 wt% carbon, which would inherently have a pH of at least 10 due to the composition mainly comprising halogenated activated carbon comprising at least 85 wt% carbon.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-25 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.
Claims 7, 8 and 22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art of record, Despen et al. disclose providing a halogenated activated carbon composition comprising at least 85 wt% carbon with halogenated compound and salt in amount of about 0.1 to 15 wt% and additives such as metal. There is no teaching or suggestion to provide the composition of between about 48.8% and 78.8% wt/wt or between 50% and 85% wt/wt zero-valent metal or to provide the composition of oxidized black carbon content of between 1% and 20% wt/wt. of the composition.
Withdrawn Process Claims:
Process of use of a product claims which include all the limitations of an allowable product are eligible for consideration for rejoinder upon allowance of the product claim. Note here that withdrawn process claims 30-46 using the composition of claim 1 may be eligible for rejoinder if claim 1 is amended to be allowable. However claims 32 and 36 have broad-narrow claim issue and claim 33 has a “such as” preferably language claim issue that should be fixed for rejoinder.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELVIN C MAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-1234. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Yvonne L Eyler can be reached at (571)272-1200. 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.
/MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759