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 Group I, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on 10/31/25 is acknowledged.
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, 5 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cattaneo et al (US 20050272601; hereinafter Cattaneo).
As regarding claim 1, Cattaneo discloses the claimed invention for a boron oxide-containing adsorbent, comprising: a porous adsorbent base (component B), and boron oxide (component A) at surfaces of the porous adsorbent base ([0010]-[0012], [0018], [0022], [0024], [0026]; claims 1-2 and 4).
As regarding claim 5, Cattaneo discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Cattaneo discloses the claimed invention for porous adsorbent base and boron oxide ([0010]-[0012], [0018], [0022], [0024], [0026]; claims 1-2 and 4).
Regarding limitations recited in claims 10-11, which are directed to method of making said boron oxide-containing adsorbent (e.g. “applying aqueous boric acid solution to surfaces of porous adsorbent base, removing water from the boric acid solution, and forming boron oxide at the surfaces from the boric acid”) 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 briquette as recited in claims 1 and 6-7 is the same as the briquette disclosed by modified Stephens, as set forth above, the claim is unpatentable even though the briquette of modified Stephens was made by a different process. In re Marosi, 710 F2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
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) 2-4, 6-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cattaneo et al (US 20050272601; hereinafter Cattaneo).
As regarding claim 2, Cattaneo discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Cattaneo discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the porous adsorbent base comprises porous adsorbent carbon particles. 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 wherein the porous adsorbent base comprises porous adsorbent carbon particles in order to provide adsorption capacity, rapid mass transfer, chemical stability, and broad-spectrum contaminant removal, since it was known in the art as shown in JP 2902032 (hereinafter JP ‘032; title, abstract, pg 1 left col ln 13 – right col ln 1).
As regarding claim 3, Cattaneo as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Cattaneo as modified discloses the claimed invention for the porous adsorbent carbon particles being derived from a natural carbon source or from synthetic hydrocarbon polymer (JP ‘032 – spherical cellulose particles; pg 2 right col ln 10-12).
As regarding claim 4, Cattaneo discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Cattaneo discloses the claimed invention except for from 70 to 95 weight percent porous adsorbent base, and from 5 to 30 weight percent boron oxide, based on total weight porous adsorbent base and boron oxide. 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 from 70 to 95 weight percent porous adsorbent base, and from 5 to 30 weight percent boron oxide, based on total weight porous adsorbent base and boron oxide in order to maximized adsorption efficiency while preserving porosity, mechanical integrity, and material economy, 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 claims 6-9, Cattaneo discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Cattaneo discloses the claimed invention except for a surface area of at least 500 square meters per gram; the porous adsorbent base comprising particles having an average diameter of less than 1 centimeter; the porous adsorbent base comprising a monolith having a dimension of at least 2 centimeters; and less than 1 weight percent water based on total weight boron oxide-containing adsorbent. 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 surface area of at least 500 square meters per gram; the porous adsorbent base comprising particles having an average diameter of less than 1 centimeter; the porous adsorbent base comprising a monolith having a dimension of at least 2 centimeters; and less than 1 weight percent water based on total weight boron oxide-containing adsorbent in order to maximize adsorption efficiency, maintain pore accessibility, control boron oxide reactivity, and ensure mechanical and flow stability, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As regarding claim 12, Cattaneo discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Cattaneo discloses the claimed invention except for a purifier device comprising a purifier vessel comprising an interior, an inlet, an outlet, and boron oxide-containing adsorbent. 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 purifier device comprising a purifier vessel comprising an interior, an inlet, an outlet, and boron oxide-containing adsorbent in order a device for gas sorption , and broad-spectrum contaminant removal, since it was known in the art as shown in Battilana et al (US 6304367; hereinafter Battilana; fig. 2).
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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