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
Since it appears that all of Claims 2-8 are directed to the method of Claim 1 in the claimset dated 23 June 2025, the restriction requirement dated 3 June 2025 is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 6, 7, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: For each of Claims 4, 6, 7, and 8, please start the claim with “The method” instead of “A method”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Status
Claims 1-8 are pending in the current application.
Claim Interpretation
With regard to Claim 4, “by treatment with polyolefin vapors”, and Claim 6, “characterized in that the components are bonded to each other by heating the mixture of granules of the both components to the foaming temperature of the microporous polymer component” is a product-by-process limitations. MPEP § 2113 states that “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”. Therefore, the structure implied by the process steps of “by treatment with polyolefin vapors” and “characterized in that the components are bonded to each other by heating the mixture of granules of the both components to the foaming temperature of the microporous polymer component” will be considered when assessing patentability of Claims 4 and Claim 6. However, the Applicant should note that “the Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature" than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). See MPEP § 2113(II).
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 1-8 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.
With regard to Claim 1, “the collected from the body of water absorbent compound, impregnated with liquid hydrocarbons” is unclear. The Examiner suggests that the claim include active steps, as required in MPEP § 2115.
For example, “…by placing granules of a bi-component floating porous absorbent compound on a surface of a body of water,
impregnating the bi-component floating porous absorbent compound with liquid hydrocarbons,
recovering the liquid hydrocarbons from the bi-component floating porous absorbent compound by distillation, and
reactivating the bi-component floating porous absorbent compound”.
With regard to Claim 2, line 3, the term “preferably” is unclear because it is not clear what the boundaries of the claim are. The claim does not appear to require the macroporous polymer to be polystyrene, polypropylene, or polyethylene.
With regard to Claim 2, line 4, “any other similar foamed polymer material” is not clear as the specification provides no basis for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine what polymer materials are included with “any other similar foamed polymer material”.
With regard to Claim 5, “the microporous component” lacks antecedent basis in the claims. Claim 5 is dependent on Claim 1, but a microporous component is not introduced until Claim 3.
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 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al (US 4,025,689) in view of Weinberg (US 3,756,948) and Hess et al (US 2,859,173).
With regard to Claim 1, Kobayashi et al (Kobayashi) discloses graphitized hollow spheres and a method for the manufacture thereof comprising coating a spherical core of foamed polystyrene with carbonaceous powder and a binder (Abstract). Kobayashi discloses a method for removing petroleum and other liquid hydrocarbons (C4/L29-34, the hollow spheres may be used as an oil sequestrant).
Kobayashi discloses granules of a bi-component floating porous absorbent compound (Abstract, graphitized hollow spheres and a method for the manufacture thereof comprising coating a spherical core of foamed polystyrene with carbonaceous powder and a binder).
However, Kobayashi is silent to placing granules of the bicomponent floating porous absorbent compound on a surface of a body of water and collecting from the body of water absorbent compound, impregnated with liquid hydrocarbons.
Weinberg discloses crumbs of a particular polystyrene foam are disclosed for the absorption of hydrocarbon oils, one use being for the cleaning up of oil spills on a body of water (Abstract). Weinberg discloses that the polystyrene foam crumbs, similar to the foamed polystyrene of Kobayashi, are spread upon the oil layer, floating on water, such that the absorbent material becomes substantially saturated with about nineteen times its own weight in crude oil within a matter of one minute (C2/L28-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to place the granules of the bicomponent floating porous absorbent compound of Kobayashi on a surface of a body of water and collecting from the body of water absorbent compound, impregnated with liquid hydrocarbons, as taught by Weinberg, since Kobayashi already discloses that the graphitized hollow spheres may be used for oil sequestration, and in order to clean up oil spills on a body of water.
However, modified Kobayashi is silent to the absorbent compound undergoing hydrocarbon recovery by distillation, and absorbent reactivation.
Hess et al (Hess) discloses treating a petroleum fraction with solid adsorbents which adsorb straight chain hydrocarbons (C2/L16-34). Hess discloses that the straight chain hydrocarbons may be recovered from the solid adsorbents by desorption using superheated steam and then condensing the steam (i.e., distillation (C4/L30-59). Hess discloses that the adsorbent may be regenerated in order to further adsorb the petroleum fraction to be treated (C5/L58-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the absorbent compound of modified Kobayashi to undergo hydrocarbon recovery by distillation and absorbent reactivation, as taught by Hess, in order to remove the hydrocarbons from the adsorbent and reuse the adsorbents.
With regard to Claim 2, Kobayashi discloses wherein the bi-component compound comprises a floating component characterized in that the floating component is a foamed closed cell macroporous polymer (Abstract, spherical core of foamed polystyrene).
With regard to Claim 3, Kobayashi discloses wherein the bi-component compound comprises an absorbent component characterized in that the component is an open pore microporous activated carbon (C4/L17-39, the hollow spheres of the invention obtained using a carbonaceous substance as the coating substance exhibit outstanding properties as an activated carbon).
With regard to Claim 5, Kobayashi discloses characterized in that the components are bonded to each other, so that one granule of the floating component is surrounded on all sides by a plurality of granules of the microporous component (Abstract, coating a spherical core of foamed polystyrene with carbonaceous powder).
With regard to Claim 6, Kobayashi discloses characterized in that the components are bonded to each other by heating the mixture of granules of the both components to the foaming temperature of the macroporous polymer component (C5/Example 4, cores coated with shale blended with water and dried at about 100°C until the shells were thoroughly solidified).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al (US 4,025,689) in view of Weinberg (US 3,756,948) and Hess et al (US 2,859,173), as applied to the claims above, and in further view of Singh et al (“An efficient use of waste PE for hydrophobic surface coating and its application on cotton fibers for oil-water separator”).
With regard to Claim 4, modified Kobayashi discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above. However, modified Kobayashi is silent to characterized in that the absorbent component is hydrophobized by treatment with polyolefin vapors.
Singh et al (Singh) discloses cotton fibers modified to have a hydrophobic surface coating (Abstract). Singh discloses that due to such special wettability, the cotton fibers exhibited high selective oil absorption capacity when used as absorptive materials for separating various oil/water mixtures under acidic, alkaline, and salt aqueous solutions (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the absorbent component of modified Kobayashi to be hydrophobized by treatment with polyolefin vapors, as taught by Singh, in order for the activated carbon to exhibit high selective oil absorption capacity when used as absorptive materials for separating various oil/water mixtures.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al (US 4,025,689) in view of Weinberg (US 3,756,948) and Hess et al (US 2,859,173), as applied to the claims above, and in further view of Zenno et al (US 4,102,783).
With regard to Claim 7, modified Kobayashi discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above. However, modified Kobayashi is silent to characterized in that prior to mixing the components, the polymer component granules are covered with a layer of hot-melt adhesive, the softening temperature of which is lower than the foaming temperature of the polymer component.
Zenno et al (Zenno) discloses an adsorbent for effectively collecting or removing oily materials floating on water (Abstract). Zenno discloses that polyvinyl alcohol may be used as the binder for the cotton mixture of the invention (C12/L30-37). The examiner notes that polyvinyl alcohol meets the requirements regarding hot-melt adhesive and softening temperature, as set forth in the instant specification on page 9.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for modified Kobayashi to be characterized in that prior to mixing the components, the polymer component granules are covered with a layer of hot-melt adhesive, the softening temperature of which is lower than the foaming temperature of the polymer component, as taught by Zenno, in order to bind the polystyrene core to carbonaceous powder of Kobayashi.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al (US 4,025,689) in view of Weinberg (US 3,756,948) and Hess et al (US 2,859,173), as applied to the claims above, and in further view of Otwell et al (US 2021/0046420).
With regard to Claim 8, modified Kobayashi discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
However, modified Kobayashi is silent to characterized in that the hydrocarbon distillation, pyrolysis and microporous component re-activation processes are carried out inside a fluidized bed reactor, using superheated steam.
Hess et al (Hess) discloses treating a petroleum fraction with solid adsorbents which adsorb straight chain hydrocarbons (C2/L16-34). Hess discloses that the straight chain hydrocarbons may be recovered from the solid adsorbents by desorption using superheated steam and then condensing the steam (i.e., distillation (C4/L30-59). Hess discloses that the adsorbent may be regenerated in order to further adsorb the petroleum fraction to be treated (C5/L58-67).
Hess further discloses that the solid adsorbent may be in the form of a fluidized bed (C4/L3-7). Therefore, Hess discloses all the limitations above with the exception of pyrolysis.
Otwell et al (Otwell) further discloses that sorbent can be reactivated using a non-oxygen atmosphere to create pyrolysis on the sorbent ([0191]-[0192]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for modified Kobayashi to be characterized in that the hydrocarbon distillation, pyrolysis and microporous component re-activation processes are carried out inside a fluidized bed reactor, using superheated steam, as taught by Hess and Otwell, in order to recover hydrocarbons from the sorbent and reactivate the sorbent.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN LEBRON whose telephone number is (571)272-0475. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 571-272-0579. 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.
Benjamin Lebron
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1777
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777