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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A (fig. 1) in the reply filed on 09/02/25 is acknowledged.
The Applicant submits that Species A and Species B are related. However, Species B includes a gas monitor and flow valve, whereas Species A does not include such features. Accordingly, the Applicant has elected Species A, as shown in fig. 1, and the claims 1-11 are directed to Species A.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 106345400 (hereinafter CN ‘400).
As regarding claim 1, CN ‘400 discloses the claimed invention for an adsorbent composition for capturing pollutants, comprising: a porous composition that includes a plurality of ferric oxyhydroxide particles; and an additional component in the porous composition; wherein the additional component is selected from the group consisting of copper chloride (CuCl2), zinc chloride (ZnCl2), polyvinylpolypyrrolidone, silicon carbide, silicon dioxide, activated carbon or other carbonaceous material, and a combination thereof (abstract and claim 1).
With respect to the limitations recited in claims 7 and 11, which pertain to the manner in which a material or article is worked upon, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article being worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 2-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 106345400 (hereinafter CN ‘400).
As regarding claims 2-5, CN ‘400 discloses all of limitations as set forth above. CN ‘400 discloses the claimed invention except for a diameter of each of the plurality of ferric oxyhydroxide particles being between 0.1 mm and 5mm; between 20 and 1000 square meters per gram; surface area between 50% and 75% of a total volume of the porous composition; and the additional component is between 25% and 50% of a total volume of the porous composition. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a diameter of each of the plurality of ferric oxyhydroxide particles being between 0.1 mm and 5mm; between 20 and 1000 square meters per gram; surface area between 50% and 75% of a total volume of the porous composition; and the additional component is between 25% and 50% of a total volume of the porous composition in order to maximized adsorption efficiency and capacity, minimize pressure drop, improve kinetic response and reduce material usage while maintaining performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As regarding claim 6, CN ‘400 discloses all of limitations as set forth above. CN ‘400 discloses the claimed invention except for iron sulfide. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide iron sulfide in order to provide the large surface area and pore structure of the support, yielding a high effective, selective, and stable material for removing pollutants, since it was known in the art as shown in Hayes et al (US 20120322696; hereinafter Hayes; claim 14).
As regarding claim 8, CN ‘400 discloses all of limitations as set forth above. CN ‘400 discloses the claimed invention except for an apparatus for capturing pollutants in a gaseous stream, comprising: a housing with an inlet and an outlet; and the adsorbent composition disposed in the housing, such that the gaseous stream is in contact with the adsorbent composition as the gaseous stream flows from the inlet to the outlet. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide iron sulfide in order to provide the large surface area and pore structure of the support, yielding a high effective, selective, and stable material for removing pollutants, since it was known in the art as shown in Chapel (US 3941573; abstract and figs. 1-5).
As regarding claim 9, CN ‘400 discloses all of limitations as set forth above. CN ‘400 discloses the claimed invention for wherein the apparatus is a replaceable cartridge (Chapel – abstract and figs. 1-2).
As regarding claim 10, CN ‘400 discloses all of limitations as set forth above. CN ‘400 discloses the claimed invention except for the housing comprising one of polyvinylchloride and stainless steel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide the housing comprising one of polyvinylchloride and stainless steel in order to provide mechanical, chemical , and thermal protection for the porous adsorbent, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Magali Slawski can be reached at (571) 270-3960. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773