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. Election/Restriction REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art. The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e). When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions: As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories: (1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or (2) A product and a process of use of said product; or (3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or (4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or (5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process. Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c). Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372. This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted. Group I , claims 1-6 , drawn to an absorbent . Group II , claims 7-9 , drawn to a filter medium comprising an absorbent . Group III , claim 10 , drawn to an air filter comprising an absorbent-comprising filter medium . Group IV , claim 11 , drawn to a method of making an absorbent . The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: the Groups lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of the G roups require the common technical feature of claim 1’s absorbent , th e s e common technical features do not make for a special technical feature as t hey do not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Pinnavaia et al., US 2006/0273015 (published 12/7/06) (“Pinnavaia”) . Pinnavaia discloses MP+AP-HMS, which is mesoporous silica supporting mercaptopropyl (“MP”) and aminopropyl (“AP”) thereon. See Pinnavaia at, e.g. , par. 10, 22-25; Table 2. The requisite unity of invention is thus lacking a posteriori . During a 12/17/25 telephone conversation with agent Virginia Henrici a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-6 . Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 7-11 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner per 37 CFR 1.142(b) as drawn to non-elected inventions. Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i). This Restriction Requirement (“R/R”) is between product claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product, and all product claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product claim for that process invention to be rejoined. In the event of rejoinder, the R/R between the product claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn; rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability per 37 CFR 1.104. To be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including those of 35 U.S.C. 101-103 & 112. Until all claims to the elected product are found allowable, an otherwise proper R/R between product claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that commensurate in scope with an allowable product claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Also, for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Note: 35 U.S.C. 121’s prohibition against double patenting rejections does not apply where the R/R is withdrawn by the examiner before the/any patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01. 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. Claims 1 and 4 - 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)( 1 ) as being anticipated by Pinnavaia et al., US 2006/0273015 (published 12/7/06) (“Pinnavaia”) . Regarding claims 1 and 6 , Pinnavaia discloses MP+AP-HMS, which is mesoporous silica supporting mercaptopropyl (“MP”) and aminopropyl (“AP”) thereon. See Pinnavaia at, e.g. , par. 10, 22-25; Table 2 . Regarding claim 4 , Pinnavaia discloses that its MP+AP-HMS is effectively employed in water at “ambient… pH”, which is understood to mean ~7.0. See id. at, e.g. , par. 32. Regarding claim 5 , Pinnavaia discloses MP+AP-HMS that has been protonated by treating with aq. HCl; the HCl is considered to be supported upon the mesoporous silica since it serves to protonate the MP and AP supported thereon. See id. at, e.g. , par. 24 and 26. Claims 1 -2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)( 1 ) as being anticipated by EP3045224A1 (2016) ( see applicant’s 11/7/24 IDS) (“’224”). Regarding claims 1-2 and 6 , ‘224 discloses a sorbent comprising porous silica with i) an acid hydrazide compound and ii) a thiol-comprising compound, supported thereon. See ‘224 at, e.g. , clms. 1 and 6. Regarding claims 4-5 , ‘224 discloses such features. See id. at, e.g. , clms. 4-5. Claims 1 , 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)( 1 ) as being anticipated by Klatte, US 5,314,852 (1994). Regarding claims 1 and 3 , Klatte discloses a zeolite -itself a porous, inorganic medium- impregnated with methionine, i.e. the methionine is supported thereon. See Klatte at, e.g. , col. 1, ln. 23-28, col. 2, ln. 48-53, and col. 5, ln. 39-46; clms. 41-42. Regarding claim 5 , Klatte further discloses supporting an additional material upon its zeolite, namely the organic acid lysine. See id. at, e.g. , clms. 41-42. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DANIEL BERNS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (469)295-9161 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8:30-5:00 (Central) . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Anthony Zimmer can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-3591 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT /DANIEL BERNS/ December 19, 2025 Primary Examiner Art Unit 1736