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 .
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed August 11, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 6-7, 9, and 10 have been considered but are moot. The new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the remarks. In light of amendments to claim 1, the 35 USC 112 rejection of claims 2, 6, and 9-10 are withdrawn; however, claim 7 remains rejected.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“parts per billion (ppb) [[(ppm)]] range” at pars [0023], [0042], and [0051];
“site or use” at par [0044];
“loose powder” at par [0102];
“phosphor[[o]]us (P)” at pars [0005] and [0022]
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 line 2, “each layer…[[are]] is formed”.
Claim 10 line 2, “disposed within at an interior”. Phrase is awkward.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the first gas" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 fails to recite the limitation "a first gas," which is recited in claim 2. For examination on the merits, claim 7 depends from claim 6 instead.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regufe (“Electrical conductive 3D-printed monolith adsorbent for CO2 capture,” Microporous and Mesoporous Materials 278 (2019), 403-413) in view of Rezaei (US 20190083954 A1).
For claim 1, Regufe teaches composite adsorption media comprising a multi-layer monolith formed by successively depositing a homogeneous ink containing zeolite 13X particles, activated-carbon particles, and carboxymethylcellouse binder. The zeolite particle correspond to the claimed first adsorbent particles, and the activated-carbon particles correspond to the claimed second adsorbent particles different from the first particles. Because the same mixed ink forms the successive layers, each layer contains both adsorbent blends held together by the binder (§§ 2.2-2.3, p. 405, Table 3, p. 407, and Fig. 6, p. 408). Regufe does not appear to disclose that said binder comprises inorganic particles.
Rezaei discloses incorporating bentonite clay as an inorganic binder together with organic binder into a homogeneous aqueous paste containing zeolite 13X and depositing that paste layer-by-layer to form a self-supporting monolith ([0039]-[0043]; Table 1). Therefore, Rezaei supplies the teaching of an inorganic-containing binder distributed within the deposited layers.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the binder formulation of Regufe to include bentonite clay as taught by Rezaei, while retaining an organic binder, as a known alternative hybrid binder formulation for obtaining cohesive, self-supporting printed adsorbent layers (§2144.03). A reasonable expectation of success is supported by both references fore use of homogeneous aqueous printing pastes, Rezaei’s use of the same zeolite 13X adsorbent, and Regufe’s demonstrated binding of zeolite and activated-carbon particles with an organic binder. Incorporating bentonite clay binder into the common mixed-adsorbent ink before deposition would be expected to produce a multilayer body in which every layer contains both different adsorbent blends held together by a binder comprising inorganic particles, as required by claim 1.
For claim 2, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. The teaching of Rezaei further discloses the multiple layers of the composite formed by an additive manufacturing method (pars [0039]-[0040]; “layer by layer”). Regarding the phrase “formed by an additive manufacturing method,” the instant invention is a product; the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP § 2113(I).
For claim 9, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. The teaching of Rezaei discloses a form of a composite adsorption media body is selected from: a geometrically-shaped particle, a repeating lattice structure, a matrix, a honeycomb, and a monolith (pars [0039]-[0040]; whereas zeolite monoliths are disclosed).
Claim(s) 6, 7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regufe and Rezaei in view of Villechange (9714390 B2).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. The phrase “wherein the first adsorbent particles are capable of adsorbing a first gas contained in a gas mixture that comprises the first gas and a second gas, and the second adsorbent particles are capable of adsorbing the second gas contained in the gas mixture” recited in claim 6 is intended use. The instant invention is an apparatus (i.e., product). The phrase “wherein the first gas can be adsorbed onto and selectively desorbed from the first adsorbent at selective desorption conditions that cause selective desorption of the first gas from the first adsorbent without substantial desorption of the second gas from the second adsorbent” recited in claim 7 is intended use. The instant invention is an apparatus (i.e., product). Apparatus claims are distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than an intended use or function. See MPEP § 2114. Nonetheless, Villechange (9714390 B2) teaches adsorbent used are selected as a function of the impurities to be adsorbed (col. 5, ll. 43-45). As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to select the composite adsorption media for the intended use recited in claim 6 and 7.
Regarding claim 10, as interpreted, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above and teaches the composite adsorption media. The prior art does not appear to teach a storage vessel comprising said composite adsorption media of claim 1 disposed within at an interior, and a valve to control flow of gas into and out of the storage vessel. Villechange does disclose a storage vessel (columns 1, 2; Fig. 2) and a valve (Fig. 2) to control flow of gas into and out of the storage vessel (Abstract; Fig. 2; 2nd embodiment, col. 7, l. 59-col. 8, l. 45). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the current invention to include the composite adsorption media of the prior art in the storage vessel of Villechange in order to discharge purified fluid.
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 SONJI TURNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 am - 2:00 pm (EST).
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/SONJI TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 October 2, 2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
