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 .
Examiner Notes
Claims 1 and 5-16 are pending of which claims 12-15 are withdrawn. Claims 1 and 5 are currently amended and claim 4 has been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 5-11, and 16 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 1 recites the broad recitation of at least one sheet, and the claim also recites a plurality of sheets which is the narrower statement 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. I.e., it is unclear if the device must include two or more sheets (e.g., plurality) or if only a single sheet (e.g., at least one) is required.
For sake of further examination either a single or plurality of sheets will be viewed as meeting the claimed limitations.
Claims 5-11 and 16 are rejected as being dependent upon indefinite claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7-11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardwick et al. (US 2016/0250619) in view of Yamanaka et al. (US 2006/0133975) in view of Tom et al. (US 2003/0113538).
Regarding claims 1, 9-10, and 16, Hardwick discloses a device which treats flue gases (0012). The device comprising a sorbent polymer composite comprising a sorbent material and hydrophobic polymers (0014-0015) in the form of a plurality of sheets (Fig. 1, 2; 100). Suitable sorbent material including activated carbon (0016) and suitable polymers including PTFE, PVDF and CFE (0015), exemplary materials for the claimed sorbent and polymer (specification 0028 and 0029). Hardwick teaches a gas stream flowing over the surface of the composite forming a liquid (0020).
Hardwick does not disclose the sheet comprising perforations having a size ranging from 0.5 to 2 mm and density ranging from 2% to 7% (or 1 mm and 5.5% as claimed in claim 16), and each perforation extends through the sheet.
Regarding the perforation size, Tom, in the analogous field of sorbent material (0002), discloses a particulate sorbent comprising interior channels, having a length that communicates an interior volume with the exterior surface (0042). Tom teaches that the length of the channels is at least equal to the diameter of the channel and as a long as necessary to communicate the interior volume with the exterior surface (0054), teaching lengths of at least 0.1 to not exceeding 3 cm (0058, 0059), overlapping the claimed size from 0.5 to 2 mm in claim 1 and 1 mm in claim 16 (MPEP 2144.05).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the length of the holes of modified Hardwick to range from 0.1 to 3 cm as taught by Tom, to communicate the interior volume with the exterior surface.
As the channels extend through the sheets, communicating with the exterior surface, the device would be configured such that the at least one liquid product is drainable through each channel as claimed.
Regarding the perforation density, Yamanaka, in the analogous field of gas filter devices teaches an adsorbent comprising holes extending through the porous sheet (0040). Yamanaka does not expressly teach a density of the holes, however, teaches that the holes provide for increased hazardous substance adsorption and increased speed of adsorption (0045), thus, the hole density is a result-effective variable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a cause effective variable such as hole density through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Given Hardwick in view of Yamanaka in view of Tom teaches the same sorbent polymer composite material, structure, and liquid product, the sheet being configured such that the liquid product accumulates within the sheet and causes the product to form an internal network that percolates through the plurality of holes to allow access to the second surface is expected from the prior art product.
Once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977)), see MPEP 2112. Applicant has not clearly shown an unobvious difference between the instant invention and the prior art’s product.
Regarding claim 5, Tom, in the analogous field of sorbent material (0002), discloses a particulate sorbent comprising interior channels in which adjacent channels are connected (Fig. 5, Fig. 6).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the holes of modified Hardwick to be connected as taught by Tom, to communicate the interior volume with the exterior surface (0048-0049).
Regarding claim 7, Hardwick teaches removal of sulfur oxides and mercury vapor (0001).
Regarding claim 8, Hardwick teaches the liquid product being sulfuric acid (0021).
Regarding claim 11, Hardwick teaches a halogen source (0014, 0039).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardwick in view of Yamanaka in view of Tom as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Stark et al. (US 2014/0260976).
Regarding claim 6, modified Hardwick discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Hardwick does not disclose a plurality of pleated sheet alternating with a plurality of flat sheets.
Stark, in the analogous field devices to remove pollutants (0001), teaches a device comprising a plurality of modules alternating layers of pleated and flat sheets (0011).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the device of Hardwick to comprising alternating pleated and flat sheets of material, as taught by Stark, to provide passageways for gas flow and increased surface area to enhance pollutant/liquid-containing droplet removal capabilities of the device (0006).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the office has not explained how the prior art channels inherently of explicitly disclose the feature that the at least one liquid product is drainable through each channel as claimed.
The channels are taught as extending to through the material and to the exterior surfaces (Tom: 0042, Fig. 1, 5-6). Thus a liquid is capable of draining through each channel as required by the claim.
Applicant maintains that the perforation size and density are not merely result-effective variables subject to routine optimization and are critical features that provide unexpected benefits.
As noted previously whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296. In the current case, it is maintained that the evidence provided to support criticality of the perforation size and density is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. For example the claimed perforation size ranges from 0.5 to 1 mm and the claimed perforation density ranges from 2 to 7% however applicant only provides only one data point within each range (e.g., example 1 perforation diameter 1 mm and density 5.5%). It is noted that minimally data points outside of the claimed range, within the claimed range, and at or proximate the claimed endpoints of the range are suggested to establish criticality of a claimed range. Furthermore, the sorbent polymer of example 1 is a specific material whereas the claim is not limited in material composition. A trend from the current evidence cannot be established that that the proffered unexpected result would be present in other materials.
While claim 16 recites the specific points of example 1, as noted above, the materials of the composite are not limited. It is further maintained that the evidence relied upon for a showing of unexpected results should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). Yamanaka teaches that the holes provide for increased hazardous substance adsorption (0045). It is not seen how increased SO2 or Hg removal efficiency are unexpected when that is a primary function by addition of the perforation in the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Deckman et al. (US 2008/0282885) teaching flow channels though an adsorbent material.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781