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 . The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. The RCE is accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-9, 12-20 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.
In claim 1, the phrase ‘in terms of … sieve’ is unclear because the units are ‘per gram’ and not ‘per cc of (relevant micro) pore volume.’ Therefore, the claim is self-contradictory and the claim would make sense if that phrase wasn’t even there.
Claims 1-9, 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabrera et al. 5071450.
Cabrera teaches, especially in col. 4-5, carbon sorbent for air separation. While not explicitly teaching the claimed distribution, it is obvious to create it since pores 3.8-4.3 A are desired to exclude nitrogen. The water sorption is not taught, however it appears possessed due to the similarity of the pores sizes as compared to a water molecule.
For claim 2, pellets are taught.
For claim 3, the size and shape are obvious to provide a packed bed to optimize pressure drop, noting also col. 1 lines 35-45.
For claim 4, coconut carbon is taught.
For claims 5 and 6, these do not actually limit the carbon and are a function of the process or alcohol. No differences are seen since the carbon is, or can be, the same.
The intended use preambles of claims 7-9, 12-20 do not limit the claims, as illustrated by comparing claims 7 and 8.
In so far as an ‘apparatus’ including the carbon is not explicitly taught, it is obvious to provide one in which the air separation may be performed with appropriate feed and pressure controls.
Claims 1-9, 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosaka et al. 4734394.
Kosaka teaches, especially in col. 3-4, carbon fibers have pore sizes of 3.5-5 A. While not explicitly teaching the claimed distribution, it is obvious to exclude pores larger than 4.6 A since it is suggested as an option to exclude larger atoms/molecules/elements.
The water sorption is not taught, however it appears possessed due to the similarity of the pores sizes as compared to a water molecule. Note the surface oxidation, which makes the carbon hydrophilic.
For claim 2, fiber is taught.
Claim 3 does not require that ‘pellet’ be chosen.
For claim 4, synthetic fiber is taught.
For claims 5 and 6, these do not actually limit the carbon and are a function of the process or alcohol. No differences are seen since the carbon is, or can be, the same.
The intended use preambles of claims 7-9, 12-20 do not limit the claims, as illustrated by comparing claims 7 and 8.
In so far as an ‘apparatus’ including the carbon is not explicitly taught, it is obvious to provide one in which the air separation may be performed with appropriate feed and pressure controls.
Claims 1-9, 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenbank et al. 4465875.
Greenbank teaches, especially in col. 2, carbon sorbent having pores of 2.5-3.5 A.
While not explicitly teaching the claimed distribution, it is obvious to exclude pores larger than 4.6 A since they are outside the desired pore size and to exclude larger atoms/molecules/elements.
The water sorption is not taught, however it appears possessed due to the similarity of the pores sizes as compared to a water molecule.
While the size and shape of claims 2-3 is not discussed, they are obvious to provide a sorbent material.
No difference is seen in claim 4.
For claims 5 and 6, these do not actually limit the carbon and are a function of the process or alcohol. No differences are seen since the carbon is, or can be, the same.
The intended use preambles of claims 7-9, 12-20 do not limit the claims, as illustrated by comparing claims 7 and 8.
In so far as an ‘apparatus’ including the carbon is not explicitly taught, it is obvious to provide one in which the air separation may be performed with appropriate feed and pressure controls.
Response to arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Previous remarks are noted.
The new limitation is discussed above. The claims are to ‘inlet diameter’, thus what Cabrera does to the inner galleries is not relevant. Note that the goal of Cabrera is to separate small molecules using small pores. The argument that Cabrera narrows ‘the … pore-mouth openings … to a uniform dimension of about 4.0 angstroms’ Is exactly what the claims require.
As to Kosaka, in order for a material to be sorbed into the pores, it must be able to fit into the mouth. Whether there are larger galleries which lead into (or even from) the micropores or whether the micropores are on the surface does not matter if the gas is trapped in those pores.
For Greenbank, the reference has the same use as the present withdrawn claims, thus the optimization is the same as for applicant. A process is not under examination and the references need not disclose the alleged mechanism of action.
If the method of measuring the pores that the references use discriminate by surface pores versus interior pores, applicant should demonstrate this and claim a feature not possessed by the references.
The claims do not require any minimum pore volume (pg. 7 bottom). If claim 1 is attempting to do that, it should be done clearly and directly (‘having a micropore pore volume of …‘ for example).
Liu 20180280927 is noted, but is silent on meso- and macropores.
O’Connor 20160213049 paragraphs 36-38 are noted.
/STUART L HENDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736