6DETAILED 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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended claim 1 to recites the process limitation “wherein the sintered body is obtained by calcining the granulated material at a calcination temperature of 800 to 900 ˚C”. Applicant argues the process limitation is not taught by the cited art Riman. Claim 1 is a product claim and therefore is not defined by process limitations.
Applicant then argues the unexpected results of from calcining the sintered body at 800 to 900°C, a critical temperature range which Applicant submits produces a phosphorous adsorbent having unexpectedly good properties. See the specification at, e.g., paragraphs [0046] to [0052] of the specification and the drawings (Figures 5 and 6). Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the unexpected results appear to be the result of both a calcination temperature of 800 to 900 ˚C and the specified amount of incinerator ash, cement and lanthanum as defined in paragraph 18 of Applicant’s specification. Paragraph 18 of Applicant’s specification states “When the amount of each component falls in the above-defined range, it is possible to obtain granules that can exert higher phosphorus adsorption performance.” In other words, based on Applicant’s specification, both the calcining temperature and the specified amount of incinerator ash, cement and lanthanum are required to achieve unexpected results.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riman et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0158873).
Regarding claim 1, Riman et al. teaches hydrothermal liquid phase sintering (HLPS) used to make monolithic dense bodies for gas sequestration which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of a sintered body (paragraph 23). Rian et al. teaches gases can be any type of gas, such as a GHG or FG, including carbon dioxide, or a gas containing, in general, carbon, sulfur, phosphor, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, or combinations thereof (paragraph 73). Riman et al. teaches ceramic granules which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of granulated material (paragraphs 40 and 42). Riman et al. teaches matrix can further comprise an inert fill material such as ash which encompasses incinerator ash (paragraph 56). Riman et al. teaches silicates such as kaolinite, phyllosilicate, aluminosilicate and hydroxyapatite comprising calcium carbonate which combines meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of cement (paragraphs 53-55). Riman et al. teaches lanthanum and lanthanide (paragraphs 46, 48, 65, and 80).
Regarding claim 2, Riman et al. teaches matrix can further comprise an inert fill material such as ash which encompasses coal ash (paragraph 56).
Regarding claim 5, Riman et al. teaches a porous solid which meets the limitation of wherein the phosphorus adsorbent is porous (paragraph 42).
Claim(s) 3, 4, and 6, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riman et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Min et al. (CN1830541A; translation provided by Google Patents 05/16/2026) in view of Asaoka et al. (Optimum reaction ratio of coal fly ash to blast furnace cement for effective removal of hydrogen sulfide; Chemosphere Volume 168, Pages 384-389 February 2017).
Regarding claims 3, 4, and 6, Riman et al. teaches a phosphorous adsorbent comprising a sintered body of granulated material. Riman et al. does not teach the ratio between ash, cement and lanthanum.
Min et al. teaches denitrification and phosphorus removal material of the present invention comprises rare earth lanthanum ions (abstract). Min et al. teaches 3-20% of rare earth lanthanum ion, 5-10% of fly ash, 0.5% of surfactant ～1%, cement 1～5% (page 2). Min et al. teaches the nitrogen and phosphorus removal material is composed of components in the following weight ratio (page 2).
Asaoka et al. teaches optimize the mixing ratio of fly ash and BFC to create an environmental remediation agent for the removal of hydrogen sulfide (page 385). Asaoka et al. teaches CFA was mixed with BFC at a mixing ratio of 0,40, 70,87, 95 and 100 wt% (page 385). Asaoka et al. teaches specific surface area of 7.44-20.8 m2/g (page 388, Table 2). Asaoka et al. teaches another important factor is the crushing strength of the GCA to withstand the weight and strain of the heavy machinery used for remediation (pages 387-388).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the ratio between ash, cement and lanthanum in the sintered granulated material taught by Riman et al. because it optimizes the adsorption of phosphorous, the specific surface area and the crushing strength of the particles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUINEVER S GREGORIO whose telephone number is (571)270-5827. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 11 am - 9 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, Coris Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/GUINEVER S GREGORIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 08/22/2026
Prosecution Insights