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, see remarks, filed 09/17/2025, with respect to 09/17/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous prior art rejections, have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Schrage (US9406028).
Please see below.
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8, 11, & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schrage (US9416028).
Applicant’s claims are directed to a method.
Regarding Claim 8, Schrage discloses the method for removing a metal element other than cesium or strontium from water (See Abstract & Column 5 lines 1-5 & Column 5 lines 40-45; aqueous medium, Ni 2+, La 3+, Co 2+, or mixtures thereof), comprising a step of bringing an adsorbent comprising a metal salt of a cyanometallic acid as an adsorbent for a metal element into contact with an aqueous sample comprising the metal element (See Column 5 lines 1-55; hexacyanoferrate (II/III) anions and metal cations), wherein the metal element is at least one selected from the group consisting of manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel, zinc, ruthenium, rhodium, barium, lanthanum and cerium (See Column 5 lines 40-45; aqueous medium, Ni 2+, La 3+, Co 2+, or mixtures thereof), and the salt of the cyanometallic acid is a first-row transition metal salt of a hexacyanometallic acid (See Column 5 lines 1-55; hexacyanoferrate (II/III) anions and metal cations and the first row transition metals).
Regarding claim 11, Schrage discloses the method according to claim 8, wherein the metal salt of a cyanometallic acid is obtained by a reaction of a salt of a cyanometallic acid and a compound comprising a metal element (See Column 5 lines 1-55; hexacyanoferrate (II/III) anions and metal cations and the first row transition metals).
Regarding Claim 12, Schrage discloses the method according to claim 11, wherein the reaction is carried out using a porous substance carrying either one of the compound comprising a metal element or the salt of a cyanometallic acid and an aqueous solution of the other, and wherein the metal salt of a cyanometallic acid is formed and fixed inside and outside the porous substance (See Claim Rejections above in view of porous support – polymer based spherical activated charcoal/activated carbon which has pores/is impregnated Column 2 lines 30-36 & Column 5 line 65 to Column 6 line 30).
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schrage (US9416028) in view of Schonfeld (US11198624).
Applicant’s claim is directed toward a method.
Regarding Claim 10, Schrage discloses the method according to claim 8, except for further comprising a step of removing the adsorbent.
Schrage does disclose that the adsorbent is used in conjunction with an adsorption column (See Column 3 lines 25-45).
Schonfeld discloses the use of adsorbent particles that are used in an
adsorbent column (See Column 1 lines 33-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Schrage with the step of removing the adsorbent as disclosed by Schofeld because according to Schofeld when using adsorbents that are both common to Schrage and Schofeld to remove contaminants from water/aqueous media, the adsorbent may be partially or fully removed from the process cycle in order to introduce new adsorption material (See Column 13 lines 14-30).
Claims 13 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schrage (US9416028) in view of von Blucher (EP1918022/US20080107589) and in further view of Bertram (DE102007033178). An English machine translation of the Bertram document is supplied with this office action. Claim mapping is done to the English Machine Translation.
Applicants’ claims are directed to a method.
Regarding Claim 13, Schrage discloses the method according to claim 12, except wherein the porous substance is a hydrophilic fiber. Schrage does disclose that in regards to making the adsorbent, reference is made to EP1918022 and DE10191656 (See Column 3 lines 59-67). Von Blucher (EP19188022 - US20080107589 is the US PG-Pub Application of EP1918022) is directed to the making of adsorbents for use with fibers for protective clothing (See US PG Pub [0079]).
Bertram also discloses the method of adsorptive filter material to be used with fibers for protective clothing, in which a combination of porous substances may include hydrophilic fibers (See [0002] & [0014]-[0016]; viscose is a hydrophilic fiber).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include hydrophilic fibers from Bertram into the method of Schrage as at least part of the porous substances or a substrate for the porous substances to be integrated into, since Schrage indicates that the polymer based spherical activated carbon and their processing from documents such as the US20080107589 is the US PG-Pub Application of EP1918022 and Bertram are within the context of the method of Schrage (See Schrage lines 59-67) and when integration within protective clothing is needed.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Schrage in view von Blucher and in further view of Bertram discloses the method according to claim 13, wherein the first-row transition metal is at least one selected from the group consisting of iron, cobalt, copper, and zinc (See Schrage; Column 5 lines 1-55; hexacyanoferrate (II/III) anions and metal cations and the first row transition metals).
Conclusion
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 BOBBY RAMDHANIE whose telephone number is (571)270-3240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday.
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 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.
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779