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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-8 are pending. Claims 4-8 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5407889 by Remes (Remes).
In regard to claims 1 and 2, Remes teaches an adsorbent comprising a metal salt of a cyanometallic acid (abstract).
Regarding limitations recited in claims 1-2, which are directed to method of making said adsorbent (e.g. “obtained by a reaction of a salt of a cyanometallic acid and a compound comprising a metal element, wherein the reaction is carried out using the compound comprising a metal element in an amount of less than 100 mol% of a theoretical amount relative to 1 mol of the salt of a cyanometallic acid” (claim 1); “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 or outside the porous substance” (claim 2)) it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same or obvious as the product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process.). See MPEP 2113 and 2114. Therefore, since the adsorbent as recited in claims 1-2 is the same as the adsorbent disclosed as set forth above the claim is unpatentable even though the adsorbent was made by a different process. In re Marosi, 710 F2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5407889 by Remes (Remes), as noted above, and evidenced by US 20170326493 by Marra (Marra) and US 20140194665 by Ishii (Ishii).
In regard to claim 3, Remes teaches the limitations as noted above. Remes teaches the porous substance is a hydrophilic fiber (abstract; porous supporting material; claim 5, wood comprising wood fibers; C4/L35, cotton cellulose). Cellulose is widely known to be a hydrophilic substance, as shown, for example by US 20170326493 or US 20140194664 ([0045]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The IDS submitted 7/19/2022 cites “Ishizaki” as reference 9 in the Non Patent Literature section; this reference was not considered because the copy provided is not legible.
The information disclosure statement filed 7/19/2022 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because reference 9 is not legible. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
In regard to the Applicant’s argument the claims of the present application provide increased defects in the coordination structure of the metal salt and cyanometallic acid thereby allowing harmful ions to be adsorbed in the defects or void portions; Test Example of the present specification shows adsorbents of the present disclosure have excellent adsorption abilities for a plurality of harmful ions in comparison with adsorbents obtained using the compound in comparative Examples 1-5; Remes is silent about such characteristics in adsorbent; Remes does not disclose any embodiments of the present invention, the Examiner does not find this persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., increased defects in coordination structures; allowing harmful ion to be adsorbed in the defects or void portions; excellent adsorption abilities for a plurality of harmful ions) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Examiner notes the claims are directed towards the statutory category of a product; product by process type limitations are interpreted as noted above.
In regard to the Applicant’s argument regarding the Double Patenting Rejection, the Examiner notes the ODP rejection has been removed.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARA M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9958. The examiner can normally be reached 9 to 5:30.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/KARA M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights