DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-9 are pending, and under examination on the merits.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment by Applicants’ representative Eugene T. Perez on 12/18/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.§112(b)
Applicant’s argument over rejection of claim 3 for lacking antecedent base from claim 2 is on the ground that claim 3 depends from claim 2, which in turn depends from claim 1; by virtue of this dependency chain, claim 3 incorporates all limitations of claim 1 including the recitation of "a hydrophilic fiber"; accordingly, having clear and proper antecedent basis through claim 1. Applicant’s argument has been considered, and is found persuasive. The rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.§102(a)(1)/103(a)
Applicant’s argument over rejection of claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7 is on the ground that cited Nefzi et al. discloses that sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid are employed solely as processing reagents to modify diatomite during synthesis, which are subsequently and completely removed through washing steps prior to performance testing. The final composite in Nefzi is therefore a neutral material used for the adsorption of toluene in aqueous solution, where adsorption occurs through physical interactions. Nefzi does not disclose or suggest any acid-base neutralization process or the presence of a retained chemical reagent within the composite.
Applicant’s argument has been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Nefzi et al. does not disclose hydrochloric acid is completely removed through washing steps prior to performance testing, nor a neutral material used for the adsorption of toluene in aqueous solution. Instead, Nefzi et al. teaches the diatomite-cellulose was prepared by reacting NaOH-cellulose (hydrophilic fiber) basic solution with diatomite (a porous body mainly composed of silicon dioxide) and CaCO3, wherein NaOH and cellulose reach inside the pore of the diatomite (see Fig. 1). After treating with NaOH/urea solution and CaCO3 solution, and in 2M HCl solution, the resulting diatomite-cellulose was then immersed in distilled water to dissolve CaCl2 and transferred into acetone (see “2.2.3. Diatomite-cellulose preparation” at p.229). It is a common knowledge in chemistry that additional HCl may still trapped inside of the pores of the treated diatomite porous body though hydrogen bonding with the Si-OH on the surface of the treated diatomite porous body. Therefore, the resulting modified diatomite-cellulose before additional wash with distilled water reads on Applicant’s claims. Furthermore, Nefzi et al. does not disclose hydrochloric acid is completely removed through washing steps from the fine pores of the porous body nor a neutral material within the fine pores of the porous body for neutralize a target gas is obtained, as being cited in claim 1. Therefore, Applicant fails to argue the claimed limitations. Therefore, both the 102/103 rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nefzi et al., Desalination and Water Treatment, (2019), 150, 228-236.
Applicant’s claim 1 is drawn to an adsorbent comprising: a porous body mainly composed of silicon dioxide, including a plurality of fine pores, and having a specific surface area of not less than 1 m2/g and not more than 10 m2/g; one of an acid and a base with which inside of the fine pores of the porous body is impregnated to neutralize a target gas to generate a salt; and a hydrophilic fiber held in the porous body.
Nefzi et al. discloses a cellulose modified diatomite for toluene removal from aqueous solution. The diatomite-cellulose was prepared by reacting NaOH-cellulose (hydrophilic fiber) basic solution with diatomite (a porous body mainly composed of silicon dioxide) and CaCO3, and then treated by acidic 2M HCl solution (an acid), see “2.2.3. Diatomite-cellulose preparation” at p.229, and Figs. 1-2 at p. 230. Nefzi et al. further discloses after modification, the cellulose filled up the pores of diatomite, which decreased the surface area of diatomite to 3.2965 m2/g, while its adsorption capacity increased. In addition, Nefzi et al. discloses the surface area of Iranian diatomite was 7.5 m2/g. Therefore, Nefzi et al. anticipates claims 1-2, 4, 5, and 7.
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 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.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 3, 6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nefzi et al. in view of Wei et al., J. of Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers, (2015), v.57, p.104-110, Kafy et al., Scientific Reports, (2017), v.7, 17683(1-7), JPS5524502A (“the `502 publication”), and JP4885114B2 (“the `114 patent”).
Nefzi et al. discloses a cellulose modified diatomite (adsorbent) for toluene removal from aqueous solution. The diatomite-cellulose was prepared by reacting NaOH and cellulose (hydrophilic fiber) basic solution with diatomite (a porous body mainly composed of silicon dioxide) and CaCO3, and then treated by acidic 2M HCl solution (an acid), see “2.2.3. Diatomite-cellulose preparation” at p.229, and Figs. 1-2 at p. 230. Nefzi et al. further discloses after modification, the cellulose filled up the pores of diatomite, which decreased the surface area of diatomite to 3.2965 m2/g, while its adsorption capacity increased. In addition, Nefzi et al. discloses the surface area of Iranian diatomite was 7.5 m2/g.
The difference between Applicant’s claim 3 and Nefzi et al. is that the prior art does not teach a fiber diameter of the hydrophilic fiber is less than 1 μm. Instead, Nefzi et al. teaches the adsorbent contains cellulose.
However, one ordinary skilled in the art would have known that cellulose is a fiber which includes cellulose nanofiber. In addition, the difference is further taught and/or suggested by Kafy et al., which teaches cellulose nanofiber has typical with around 5~20 nm and a length of several micrometer, see p.1. Therefore, Nefzi et al. in view of Kafy et al. would have rendered claim 3 obvious.
In terms of claim 6, wherein polyphosphoric acid is contained as the acid, Nefzi et al. teaches the acid is HCl aqueous solution, but does not teach the acid is polyphosphoric acid. However, the modification of silicon dioxide or diatomaceous earth with an acid such as phosphoric acid or polyphosphoric acid to remove a basic gas such as ammonia is known either from the `502 publication (see claim 1, page 2, upper left-column, page 2, lower right-hand column, pages 3-4, Examples), or the `114 patent (see claims 1-7, [0033]).
In terms of claims 8-9, Wei et al. teaches carboxymethyl cellulose fiber is used as a fast binding and biodegradable adsorbent, or a biodegradable binder. In terms of a content of the carboxymethylcellulose is in a range of not less than 0.5 wt% and not more than 1.5 wt%, the optimal weight percentage of carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) binder in adsorbents varies depending on the specific application, but commonly ranges from less than 1% to as high as 5%, well known to one ordinary skilled in the art according to Google search result. Since binders are not active ingredient(s) in the adsorbent, optimization of concentration of the binder is not considered inventive steps, rather routine practice at grasp of one ordinary skilled in the art. Even if the prior art does not teach these exact amounts, the prior art teaches the general conditions of the claim. In determining the differences between the prior art and the claims, the question under 35 U.S.C. 103 is not whether the differences themselves would have been obvious, but whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious. Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 218 USPQ 871 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Schenck v. Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Conclusions
Claims 1-9 are rejected.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yong L. Chu, whose telephone number is (571)272-5759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber R. Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Status Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/YONG L CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731