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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed March 20, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 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.
Claim Interpretation
The phrase “at an interior” recited in line 2 is interpreted as follows: “[[at]] in an interior of the storage vessel”.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-7 and 9-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "a multi-layer," a plurality of layers," and "each layer" in line 2 and the limitation "the layer" in line 12 that make the metes and bounds of claim 1 unclear and imprecise. The antecedent for the limitation "the layer" is ambiguous. For the recitation “comprising a plurality of layers, each layer comprising, first adsorbent particles…, second adsorbent particles…, and binder…”, the limitation "a plurality of layers" is interpreted as having at least two layers comprising one layer and another layer; whereas, one layer comprises “first adsorbent particles…, second adsorbent particles…, and binder…” and another layer also comprises, “first adsorbent particles…, second adsorbent particles…, and binder…”[emphasis added]. However, the limitation "the layer" in line 12 results in the recitation “binder holds together the first adsorbent particles and the second adsorbent particles within the layer [i.e., a single layer/one layer]…” having ambiguity [emphasis added]—should one of ordinary skill in the art interpret said binder to be in the one layer and also the other layer, as interpreted above for said plurality of layers. If so, then the recitation should be amended as follows: “binder that holds together the first adsorbent particle and the second adsorbent particles within [[the]] each layer of the plurality of layers…” to obviate ambiguity and for precision. If not, then make clarifications for the record.
Claims 2, 6-7, and 9-10 depend from claim 1 and are also rejected.
For examination of the merits, the limitation “the layer” in line 12 is interpreted as “each layer of the plurality of layers.
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 Rezaei (US 20190083954 A1).
For claim 1, Rezaei discloses a composite adsorption media (par [0036]) comprising: a multi-layer composite body comprising a plurality of layers (“capture material may include one or more zeolite monoliths”; “ prepared layer by layer”), each layer comprising first adsorbent particles comprising metal organic framework adsorbent, activated carbon adsorbent, porous organic polymer adsorbent, or zeolite adsorbent (one zeolite monolith that is a 13X zeolite material or a 5A zeolite material; par [0036]); second adsorbent particles comprising metal organic framework adsorbent, activated carbon adsorbent, porous organic polymer adsorbent, or zeolite adsorbent that is different from the metal organic framework adsorbent, activated carbon adsorbent, porous organic polymer adsorbent, or zeolite adsorbent of the first adsorbent particles (the other zeolite monolith of a 13X zeolite material or a 5A zeolite material distinct from the previous zeolite materials); and binder that holds together the first adsorbent particles and the second adsorbent particles within the layer (bentonite clay; par [0036]). Rezaei does not specifically identify the binder comprised of bentonite clay as inorganic at par [0039] but does disclose the bentonite clay as an inorganic binder at par [0040]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to combine one of the 13X zeolite material and 5A zeolite material with the bentonite clay binder to form a layer and the other of one of the 13X zeolite material and 5A zeolite material with the bentonite clay binder to form another layer on a substrate as taught in Rezaei.
For claim 2, the teaching of Rezaei is set forth above and 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 teaching of Rezaei is set forth above and 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 Rezaei in view of Villechange (9714390 B2).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Rezaei is relied upon as set forth 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 indicated with claim 1 above, the prior art of record teaches the composite adsorption media. The prior art does not appear to teach a storage vessel comprising said composite adsorption media of claim 1 at an interior, and a valve to control flow of gas into and out of the storage vessel. Villechange (9714390 B2) 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, US 20180043329 A teaches at least one sorbent material and at least one binder (pars [0013], [0015]).
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 May 11, 2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights