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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on March 16, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-23 are pending. Claims 15 and 23 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 2 contains trademarks/trade names. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name; the identification/description is indefinite.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 7 recites “5d30” and this renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what constitutes “5d30”.
Claims 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 9 recites “27 to 33% b weight of cotton and about 27% to 33% by weight of 1.5 polyester”; it is unclear what constitutes “1.5 polyester” and it is unclear the basis of 27-33% (i.e. 27-33% of cotton in the flexible sheet or the fiber component is 27-33% cotton and 27-33% polyester). Clarification is requested, this claim has not been further examined. Claim 14 is subsumed under the rejection.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston et al (US Patent Application 2004/0323068) in view of Both et al (US Patent Application 2013/0101477).
Regarding claims 1, 5-7, Johnston et al teaches a flexible composite material for filtration, purification and processing of contaminants such as carbon dioxide in the form of a sheet (Abstract, Paragraphs 22, 27, 90). Johnston et al further teaches composite materials comprising an expanding material and non-expanding material/adsorptive material (Paragraph 17, 27). Johnston et al further teaches examples of adsorbents include ion exchange resins comprising anion exchange resins (Paragraphs 63, 65). Johnston et al further teaches the expanding material may be in the form of fibers and can include natural or synthetic including polymers such as polyacrylics and polyacrylamides, cellulose, chitins, gelatins, cotton and combinations thereof depending upon the desired mechanical properties of the resulting composite purification material (Paragraphs 67-70). Johnston et al further teaches 0.1-99.9wt% of the expanding material and less than 50wt% of the adsorbent material (which overlaps the instantly claimed ranges) (Paragraph 63). Johnston et al further teaches pore characteristics in the composite material are manipulated and tuned by controlling the particle size, fiber dimensions or sheet thickness of the expanding and nonexpanding material as well as the ratio of expanding and non-expanding material (Paragraph 37). However, Johnston et al fails to specifically disclose the weight of the sheet.
In the same field of endeavor, Both et al teaches webs comprising fibers and sorbents wherein the sorbents loading levels are from about 100-2000gsm and 40-250 gsm of fibers (Abstract, Paragraphs 35, 57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the weight of the sheet between about 100-400gsm in Johnston et al in view of Both et al as Both et al teaches loading levels of fibers and sorbents into sheet material whereas Johnston et al already teaches overlapping amounts of the components in the composite material as the instant invention and an overlapping thickness of the composite material, hence, a similar weight range is expected in Johnston et al.
With regard to the product by process limitations, any difference imparted by the product by process limitations would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because where the examiner has found a substantially similar product as in the applied prior art, the burden of proof is shifted to the applicant to establish that their product is patentably distinct, not the examiner to show the same process of making, see In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685 and In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324.
Claims 2-4, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston et al (US Patent Application 2004/0323068) in view of Both et al (US Patent Application 2013/0101477) as applied to claims 1, 5-7 above, and in further view of Liu (US Patent Application 2009/0130321).
Regarding claims 2-4, 8, Johnston et al and Both et al disclose the invention substantially as claimed. Johnston et al and Both et al teach the features above. However, Johnston et al and Both et al fail to specifically disclose Dowex ion exchange resin, propylene fiber and polyester/cellulose or cotton/polyester fiber.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu teaches a film or membrane CO2 capture element comprising a CO2 sorbent and polymer (Abstract). Liu further teaches CO2 sorbent materials capable of absorbing and releasing gaseous CO2 under controlled conditions…Type 1 and 2 ion exchange materials including Dowex Marathon A anion exchange resin (Paragraphs 34, 45). Liu further teaches fiber matrix of polypropylene (Paragraphs 38). Liu et al further teaches Durx cellulose/polyester fiber (which satisfies 55%cellulose and 45%polyester) and cotton/polyester fiber comprising 37% cotton and 63% polyester (Paragraphs 57, 69).
With regard to Dowex ion exchange resin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Dowex ion exchange resin in Johnson et al and Both et al in view of Liu in order to provide the CO2 sorbent material. Simple substitution of one anion exchange resin for another would provide the CO2 sorbent properties to the flexible sheet material.
With regard to polypropylene fiber and polyester/cellulose or cotton/polyester fiber, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided polypropylene fiber, polyester/cellulose or cotton/polyester fiber in Johnston et al and Both et al in view of Liu in order to form the matrix material of the composite sheet and the broad teachings of Johnston et al encompass synthetic polymer fibers.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston et al (US Patent Application 2004/0323068) in view of Both et al (US Patent Application 2013/0101477) as applied to claims 1, 5-7 above, and in further view of Hiraki et al (US Patent Application 2013/0284022).
Regarding claims 10-12, Johnston et al and Both et al disclose the invention substantially as claimed. Johnston et al and Both et al teach the features above. However, Johnston et al and Both et al fail to specifically disclose guar gum and a surfactant.
In the same field of endeavor, Hiraki et al teaches a composition for forming a carbon dioxide separation membrane which includes a polymer, carbon dioxide carrier and polysaccharide (Abstract). Hiraki et al further teaches a guar gum as a viscosity modifying agent (Paragraphs 66-68). Hiraki et al further teaches surfactant as in additive component (Paragraph 80).
With regard to guar gum, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided guar gum in Johnson et al and Both et al in view of Hiraki in order to modify the viscosity of the composition forming the composite material.
With regard to the surfactant, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a surfactant in Johnson et al and Both et al in view of Hiraki in order to provide a dispersant to the composition. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston et al (US Patent Application 2004/0323068) in view of Both et al (US Patent Application 2013/0101477) as applied to claims 1, 5-7 above, and in further view of Kimura (WO Patent 2017/135230).
Regarding claim 13, Johnston et al and Both et al disclose the invention substantially as claimed. Johnston et al and Both et al teach the features above. However, Johnston et al and Both et al fail to specifically disclose polyamide epichlorohydrin.
In the same field of endeavor, Kimura teaches a carbon dioxide separation membrane comprising a hydrophilic polymer including polyamide epichlorohydrin (Abstract, Paragraph 46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided polyamide epichlorohydrin in Johnston et al and Both et al in view of Kimura in order to provide hydrophilic properties to the composite sheet/film.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston et al (US Patent Application 2004/0323068).
Regarding claims 16-19, Johnston et al teaches a flexible composite material for filtration, purification and processing of contaminants such as carbon dioxide in the form of a sheet (Abstract, Paragraphs 22, 27, 90). Johnston et al further teaches composite materials comprising an expanding material and non-expanding material/adsorptive material (Paragraph 17, 27). Johnston et al further teaches examples of adsorbents include ion exchange resins comprising anion exchange resins (Paragraphs 63, 65). Johnston et al further teaches the expanding material may be in the form of fibers and can include natural or synthetic including polymers such as polyacrylics and polyacrylamides, cellulose, chitins, gelatins, cotton and combinations thereof depending upon the desired mechanical properties of the resulting composite purification material (Paragraphs 67-70). Johnston et al further teaches 0.1-99.9wt% of the expanding material and less than 50wt% of the adsorbent material (which overlaps the instantly claimed ranges as the expanding material can be a mixture of natural and synthetic polymers as recited above) (Paragraph 63). Johnston et al further teaches pore characteristics in the composite material are manipulated and tuned by controlling the particle size, fiber dimensions or sheet thickness of the expanding and nonexpanding material as well as the ratio of expanding and non-expanding material (Paragraph 37). However, Johnston et al fails to specifically disclose the claimed process of making the composite.
With regard to the product by process limitations, any difference imparted by the product by process limitations would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because where the examiner has found a substantially similar product as in the applied prior art, the burden of proof is shifted to the applicant to establish that their product is patentably distinct, not the examiner to show the same process of making, see In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685 and In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324.
Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston et al (US Patent Application 2004/0323068) as applied to claims 16-19 above, and in further view of Liu (US Patent Application 2009/0130321).
Regarding claims 20-22, Johnston et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Johnston et al teaches the features above. However, Johnston et al fails to specifically disclose Dowex ion exchange resin and propylene fiber.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu teaches a film or membrane CO2 capture element comprising a CO2 sorbent and polymer (Abstract). Liu further teaches CO2 sorbent materials capable of absorbing and releasing gaseous CO2 under controlled conditions…Type 1 and 2 ion exchange materials including Dowex Marathon A anion exchange resin (Paragraphs 34, 45). Liu further teaches fiber matrix of polypropylene (Paragraphs 38).
With regard to Dowex ion exchange resin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Dowex ion exchange resin in Johnston et al in view of Liu in order to provide the CO2 sorbent material. Simple substitution of one anion exchange resin for another would provide the CO2 sorbent properties to the flexible sheet material.
With regard to polypropylene fiber, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided polypropylene fiber in Johnston et al in view of Liu in order to form the matrix material of the composite sheet and the broad teachings of Johnston et al encompass synthetic polymer fibers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANISHA DIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday and Friday, 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. 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.
/TANISHA DIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 May 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights