DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 12/17/25 is acknowledged.
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 (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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al. US Patent 10,086,357 in view of Lebowitz et al. US Publication 2005/0241479.
Regarding claim 1, Bae teaches a shaped absorbent comprising:
An admixture comprising a binder (column 6 line 7) and an activated adsorbent prepared by grinding an activated adsorbent precursor (column 4 lines 38-40).
Bae does not explicitly teach wherein the activated adsorbent powder has a butane activity (pBACT) of at least 50g/100g.
Lebowitz teaches an activated carbon adsorbent used in evaporative emission canisters. The activated carbon powder has a butane activity of 61.3%, which is equivalent to 61.3g/100g ([0055]). Therefore, the pBACT of activated carbon powders is known to be at least 50g/100g. In evaporative emission canisters, high butane activity is desirable for function and efficiency, therefore an activated carbon material with a high pBACT would have been an obvious choice to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Bae does not explicitly teach wherein the adsorbent material has a ratio of pore volumes of 0.05 µm – 1 µm (50 nm – 1000nm) to 0.05 µm – 100 µm (50 nm – 100,000 nm) that is greater than 80%, and a ratio of pore volumes of 0.05 µm – 0.5 µm (50 nm – 500 nm) to 0.05 µm – 100 µm (50 nm – 100,000 nm) that is greater than 50%.
However, Bae does teach that the activated carbon is conventionally formed to have 50% to 70% of micropores with a diameter of 2 nm and a large amount (30% to 50%) of mesopores with a diameter of 2 to 50 nm (column 6 lines 29-33). Bae further teaches that a volume of the ultra-micropore (having a diameter of 1 nm or less) may be in a range of 67% volume to 83% volume of a total of 100% volume of pores of the activated carbon surface (column 6 lines 47-50). Thus, Bae teaches that it is known to have a ratio of pore volume as an intentional design barrier in activated carbon. Bae also teaches that it is known to concentrate a majority of the pore volume into a defined size regime to improve adsorption performance. In Bae, the pore volume can be deliberately controlled and an optimized range includes a ratio of partial pore volume to total pore volume ratio exceeds 50% and even 80%, thereby teaching that concentrating a majority of pore volume into a defined pore-size range is known and effective optimization practice for activated carbon adsorbents
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply this known pore distribution optimization relevant to shaped activated carbon adsorbents that were made by grinding and binding. It is further considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the pore size of the adsorbent by routine experimentation involving predictable variations in binding and griding activated carbon adsorbents and arrive at a ratio of pore volumes of 0.05 µm – 1 µm (50 nm – 1000nm) to 0.05 µm – 100 µm (50 nm – 100,000 nm) that is greater than 80%, and a ratio of pore volumes of 0.05 µm – 0.5 µm (50 nm – 500 nm) to 0.05 µm – 100 µm (50 nm – 100,000 nm) that is greater than 50%.
In further consideration to the claimed pore volume ratios in light of Lebowitz, Lebowitz teaches that a high butane activity is desirable for adsorption capacity in evaporative emission canisters. Bae teaches that the adsorption performance of activated carbon is improved by engineering the pore volume distributions such that the majority of the pore volume lies within the selected pore size ranges and ratios. It would thus be further obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the pore distribution optimization practices in Bae to the activated carbon in Lebowitz when forming the shaped adsorbent in order to improve an adsorbent by providing high butane activity carbon with the pore distribution as claimed. A person having ordinary skill in the art of evaporative emission canisters would understand that high-butane activity carbon would efficiently function if the vapor can reach the micropores quickly and evenly. Bae teaches that mesopores and micropores are the effective sizes for adsorption by providing the needed diffusion highways (mesopores) and adsorption sites (micropores) for vapor hydrocarbons in evaporative cannisters.
Accordingly in view of Lebowitz’s teaching that high butane activity is desirable and Bae’s teaching that adsorption is improved by concentrating pore volume ratios into a given size, one having ordinary skill would find it obvious to provide an activated carbon adsorbent with high butane activity and a ratio of pore volumes of 0.05 µm – 1 µm (50 nm – 1000nm) to 0.05 µm – 100 µm (50 nm – 100,000 nm) that is greater than 80%, and a ratio of pore volumes of 0.05 µm – 0.5 µm (50 nm – 500 nm) to 0.05 µm – 100 µm (50 nm – 100,000 nm) that is greater than 50%.
Regarding claim 2, Bae teaches an activated carbon precursor is used (column 4 line 66).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Bae does not disclose the material used for the binder but it is obvious that known binder materials in adsorbents may be used. Lebowitz further teaches that binders for activated carbon adsorbents may include organic binders further including synthetic binders ([0038]).
Regarding claim 6, Bae teaches the carbon may be derived from starch, coconut, husk, citrus peels, and is not limited to various vegetable matter as the source (column 4 line 65 – column 5 line 6).
Regarding claim 7, Bae teaches the carbon may be formed as pellets or granules (column 6 line 6). Lebowitz further teaches that the adsorbent may be formed and granules, pellets, or a honeycomb ([0003]).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al. US Patent 10,086,357 in view of Lebowitz et al. US Publication 2005/0241479 and in further view of DeLiso US Patent 5,488,021.
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Bae teaches the use of a binder but is silent to the material used. Lebowitz teaches organic binders but does not explicitly teach organic binders and an inorganic, particularly clay for claim 5, are used in combination.
However, DeLiso teaches an activated carbon adsorbent using a combination of clay and organic binders (abstract, column 1 lines 55-60, column 5 lines 1-2). Adding clay binders with organic binders to activated carbon adsorbents provide strength to the material in addition to the flexibility, processability, and controlled pore distribution provided by the organic binders.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use both clay and organic binders and provide the benefits of increased strength from the clay in addition to the flexibility, processability, and controlled pore distribution provided by the organic binders.
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 (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.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hiltzik et al. US Publication 2019/0101083.
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1, Hiltzik teaches a shaped adsorbent material comprising an admixture of: a binder and an activated adsorbent powder prepared by grinding an activated adsorbent precursor ([0005]), wherein the activated adsorbent powder has a butane activity (pBACT) of at least 50 g/100g ([0023]), and wherein the adsorbent material has a ratio of pore volumes of 0.05-1 micron to 0.05-100 microns that is greater than 80%, and a ratio of pore volumes of 0.05-0.5 micron to 0.05-100 microns that is greater than 50% ([0026]).
A shaped adsorbent material comprising an admixture of: a binder and an activated adsorbent powder prepared by grinding an activated adsorbent precursor, wherein the activated adsorbent powder has a butane activity (pBACT) of at least 50 g/100g, and wherein the adsorbent material has a ratio of pore volumes of 0.05-1 micron to 0.05-100 microns that is greater than 80%, and a ratio of pore volumes of 0.05-0.5 micron to 0.05-100 microns that is greater than 50%.
Regarding claim 2, the activated adsorbent precursor is an activated carbon precursor ([0027]).
Regarding claims 3-5, the binder comprises at least one of an organic binder or a combination of an organic binder and an inorganic binder, wherein the organic binder is at least one of carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), a synthetic organic binder or both, and the inorganic binder is a clay ([0028]).
Regarding claim 6, the activated carbon precursor is derived from at least one of wood, wood dust, wood flour, cotton linters, peat, coal, coconut, lignite, carbohydrates, petroleum pitch, petroleum coke, coal tar pitch, fruit pits, fruit stones, nut shells, nut pits, sawdust, palm, vegetables, a synthetic polymer, natural polymer, lignocellulosic material, and a combination thereof ([0030]).
Regarding claim 7, the form is selected from a pellet, granule, sphere, honeycomb, monolith, cylinder, particulate, hollow-cylinder, star, twisted spiral, asterisk, configured ribbon, and a combination thereof ([0031]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON PREGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/SHARON PREGLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772