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.
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. Furthermore, since the goal is to de-water ethanol, it is obvious to optimize the water sorption ability; col. 2 lines 25-38.
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.
While Greenbank does not characterize the pores in the same way (diameter vs. inlet size), the two are not mutually exclusive; in order for a substance to be sorbed into a pore (and thus be reflected to the person making the measurement), it must first fit into the mouth. If it did not, it would not be sorbed in the first place. Therefore Greenbank must logically create pores that can sorb and trap water molecules in order for an adsorption value to be observed/calculated. If the pore was really large, the water could simply enter and exit readily and no (equilibrium) sorption value would be observed. Hence the claimed sizes are obvious. If there is an identifiable material used by Greenbank, applicant should acquire it and report all of its relevant properties.
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.
/STUART L HENDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights