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.
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) 1 and 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenbank et al (US 20200038798; hereinafter Greenbank).
As regarding claim 1, Greenbank discloses the claimed invention for a combination canister and scrubber (abstract, [0015]-[0016]) incorporated into an evaporative emissions control system for an automobile for reducing evaporative emissions, said combination canister and scrubber comprising a main canister housing ([0130]-[0131]) containing a Graphene-derivative sorbent material ([0011], [0057], [0063], [0164]) which is adsorptive of vaporized hydrocarbons for preventing bleed emissions while also providing low flow restrictions; and a scrubber ([0130]-[0131] – “The housing may also include sections which are separated and are connected by an additional part, for instance, at least one hose or tube which is designed to transfer fuel vapors as needed, or a thin portion of housing that contains the sorbent material sheets.”) connected by a vent port, said scrubber including an additional volume of an adsorbent material with a polymer foam mixture with enhanced surface area to prevent bleed emissions of vaporized hydrocarbons.
Greenbank does not disclose the scrubber positioned externally of said main canister housing. Reddy teaches the scrubber (95 of figs. 3-5) positioned externally of said main canister housing (50). Both Greenbank and Reddy are directed to emission control canister. 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 scrubber positioned externally of said main canister housing as taught by Reddy in order to enhance combination canister and scrubber performance.
Alternatively, 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 scrubber positioned externally of said main canister housing in order to enhance combination canister and scrubber performance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
As regarding claim 4, Greenbank as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Greenbank as modified discloses the claimed invention for said Graphene-derivative material being selected from a group not limited to any of monolayer Graphene, few layered Graphene, Graphene oxide, reduced Graphene oxide and functionalized Graphene, said Graphene or Graphene derivative based sorbent material further being activated using either of a chemical or thermal technique ([0017], [0041], [0058], [0064], [0081], [0102], and [0136]).
As regarding claim 5, Greenbank as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Greenbank as modified discloses the claimed invention for said Graphene-derivative sorbent material further comprising any of a foam, felt or powder ([0043], [0064], [0172]).
As regarding claim 6, Greenbank as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Greenbank as modified discloses the claimed invention for an activated carbon sandwiched between one or more layers of said foam, felt or powder ([0004], [0011], [0063], [0110]).
As regarding claim 7, Greenbank as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Greenbank as modified discloses the claimed invention for said Graphene-derivative material being mixed with a polymer ([0083]).
As regarding claim 9, Greenbank as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Greenbank as modified discloses the claimed invention for said graphene foam further comprising said Graphene-derivative material being selected from a group not limited to any of monolayer Graphene, few layered Graphene, Graphene oxide, reduced Graphene oxide and functionalized Graphene ([0017]).
As regarding claim 11, Greenbank as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Greenbank as modified discloses the claimed invention for said polymer further comprising a thermoplastic polymer selected from a group including any one or more of a polyurethane, polyester, polypropylene, nylon 6, nylon 6,6, nylon-12, nylon-6,12, polyethylene, terephthalate, polybutylene, polyphthalamide, polyoxymethylene, polycarbonate, and polyvinylchloride ([0012]).
As regarding claim 8, Greenbank as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Greenbank as modified discloses the claimed invention except for said Graphene-derivative sorbent material extruded in a honeycomb design pattern to provide plurality of passageways for a flow of vapor through said scrubber. 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 said Graphene-derivative sorbent material extruded in a honeycomb design pattern to provide plurality of passageways for a flow of vapor through said scrubber in order to enhance the combination canister and scrubber performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Ruettinger et al (US 20210245135; hereinafter Ruettinger; [0275]).
As regarding claim 10, Greenbank as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Greenbank as modified discloses the claimed invention except for a loading concentration of said Graphene-derivatives being provided in a range of 0.1-60 percent by weight. 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 loading concentration of said Graphene-derivatives being provided in a range of 0.1-60 percent by weight in order to enhance the combination 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 12, Greenbank as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Greenbank as modified discloses the claimed invention except for said Graphene-derivative sorbent material being combined with any of a lingocellulosic material or a charcoal incorporated into said felt. 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 said Graphene-derivative sorbent material being combined with any of a lingocellulosic material or a charcoal incorporated into said felt in order to enhance the combination canister and scrubber performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Pronovost et al (US 20210245135; hereinafter Pronovost; [0075]).
Claims 13-20 are likewise rejected for reasons analogous to those outlined with respect to claims 1 and 4-12 above.
As regarding claim 13, Greenbank does not disclose the scrubber including a subsidiary housing incorporated into said main housing (of canister). 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 scrubber including a subsidiary housing incorporated into said main housing (of canister) in order to enhance the system performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Meiller et al (US 20060065252; 392 of figs. 11-12).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 4-20 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
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 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
Prosecution Insights