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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/03/2026 appear to traverse rejection with the argument being that the geopolymer resin of Seo is not a composition that is mixed with metakaolin, but rather the geopolymer resin is obtained by mixing metakaolin with NaOH and water glass (Remarks of 03/03/2026 at 4). The applicant further argues that the carbon dioxide adsorbent of Seo is obtained from a solid separated from the geopolymer resin, and the geopolymer resin is obtained from a mixture including metakaolin (See Remarks of 03/03/2026 at 5).
The argument is persuasive as to the rejection set forth in the Office action mailed November 5, 2025. Seo does not establish that metakaolin is an adsorbent material mixed with a separate resin material to form the claimed master batch. Seo instead identifies the metakaolin-containing reaction mixture as the geopolymer resin and subsequently separates a zeolite solid from the heated composition (Seo, [0058]-[0059]). Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 10-12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) over Seo is WITHDRAWN. The dependent-claim rejections that relied on that anticipation finding are also withdrawn and replaced as set forth below.
Applicant also argues that obviousness requires a strict teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine references (Remarks filed March 3, 2026, p. 2). That legal proposition is not persuasive because the obviousness inquiry is flexible and is not limited to a rigid teaching-suggestion-motivation formula. Nevertheless, the prior rejection is withdrawn because of the factual deficiency identified above, not because a rigid formula applies.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koizumi (US 2016/0193585 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Koizumi teaches the claimed method of manufacturing an absorber. Claim 1 requires “mixing a base adsorbent material and a base resin material to produce an adsorbent composite having a form of a master batch.” Koizumi mixes zeolite, which is expressly identified as an adsorbent, with a resin and metal soap; disperses the mixture in a kneader or Henschel mixer; heats and kneads the mixture in an extruder; and extrudes and cools it into pellets expressly identified as a “master batch” (Koizumi, [0037]-[0038] and [0050]). Claim 1 further requires “producing an absorber in a film form using the adsorbent composite.” Koizumi reheats the fabricated master batch and forms it by inflation formation into an adsorbent-containing film that absorbs water, water vapor, and organic gas (Koizumi, [0010], [0049]-[0051]).
Regarding claim 3, Koizumi teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Koizumi further teaches mixes zeolite with polyetherimide, isolates a polymer-bound zeolite concentrate, then adds further polymer to produce a membrane. (Koizumi Col. 14, lines 61–67; col. 15, lines 1–17, Example 2A).
Regarding claim 4, Koizumi teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Koizumi further teaches an adsorbent composition of resin, zeolite and a metal soap (Koizumi, abstract), which is capable of adsorbing carbon dioxide.
Regarding claim 5, Koizumi teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above.
Claim 5 further requires “wherein the base adsorbent material is in a powder form.” Koizumi identifies zeolite as a porous particulate adsorbent and describes molecular-sieve zeolite by an average particle diameter, including about 10 μm and 3 μm to 5 μm, thereby expressly teaching the adsorbent in powder or particulate form (Koizumi, [0037]-[0039]).
Regarding claim 6, Koizumi teaches the method of claim 5 as discussed above.
Claim 6 further requires “wherein a particle diameter of the base adsorbent material is 0.1 μm to 10 μm.” Koizumi expressly uses hydrophobic zeolite having an average particle diameter of 3 μm to 5 μm, which falls within the claimed range (Koizumi, [0039]).
Regarding claim 7, Koizumi teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above.
Claim 7 further requires “wherein the producing of the adsorbent composite comprises performing a melt blending process on the base adsorbent material and the base resin material.” Koizumi mixes zeolite and resin, heats and kneads the mixture at 100 °C to 250 °C in an extruding machine, and extrudes the molten mixture into master-batch pellets (Koizumi, [0050]). This is an express melt-blending process.
Regarding claim 12, Koizumi teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above.
Claim 12 further requires “wherein the base adsorbent material comprises at least one of zeolite-based material, carbon-based material, alumina, or silica.” Koizumi expressly uses natural, artificial, or synthetic zeolite as the adsorbent mixed with the resin (Koizumi, [0037]-[0039]).
Regarding claim 13, Koizumi teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Claim 13 further requires “wherein the base resin material comprises at least one of polypropylene resin, acrylate-based resin, epoxy resin, phenolic resin, polyamide-based resin, polyimide-based resin, polyester-based resin, or polyphenylenesulfide-based resin.” Koizumi expressly identifies polypropylene homopolymer, random polypropylene, block polypropylene, chlorinated polypropylene, and carboxylic-acid-modified polypropylene as suitable resins (Koizumi, [0035]).
Regarding claim 14, Koizumi teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Koizumi further teaches the same process produces a film containing the adsorbent and chemically bound polymer. ESCA confirms the bound polymer; casting is expressly disclosed. (Koizumi, Col. 15, lines 6–17; col. 13, lines 46–60)
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sooknoi (US 8,697,777 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Sooknoi independently teaches all limitations of claim 1. For “mixing a base adsorbent material and a base resin material to produce an adsorbent composite having a form of a master batch,” Sooknoi teaches ethylene-adsorbing zeolites, selects a styrene–ethylene/butylene–styrene copolymer as the matrix, mechanically mixes the dry components, melt-mixes them, and cuts the mixture into master-batch pellets (Sooknoi col. 3, ll. 46–57; col. 4, ll. 14–28). For “producing an absorber in a film form using the adsorbent composite,” Sooknoi teaches that master batch with a second polymer and forms a zeolite-containing plastic film (Sooknoi, col. 4, ll. 29–49).
Claim 2 further requires “wherein the producing of the absorber having the film form comprises performing a film casting process using the adsorbent composite.” Sooknoi teaches cast film extrusion as a process for forming the film from that master batch and second polymer (col. 4, ll. 37–43).
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koizumi (US 2016/0193585 A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Koizumi teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Claim 8 further requires “wherein, in the producing of the adsorbent composite, a weight of the base adsorbent material is 5 wt % to 50 wt % on a basis of total weight of the base adsorbent material and the base resin material.” Koizumi teaches zeolite loading ranges with a 40 wt % lower endpoint based on the entire composition and metal soap at 0.5 to 5 parts by weight per 100 parts resin (Koizumi, [0040] and [0047]). Normalizing a selected 40 wt % zeolite loading to the claim’s denominator, which excludes metal soap, gives a zeolite fraction of approximately 40.1 to 41.2 wt % of zeolite plus resin. This falls within the claimed 5 to 50 wt % range.
It would have been obvious because Koizumi identifies zeolite loading as a result-effective variable: higher loading improves adsorption performance, whereas lower loading improves film formability (Koizumi, [0040]).
Regarding claim 9, Koizumi teaches the method of claim 8 as discussed above.
Claim 9 further requires “wherein, in the producing of the adsorbent composite, the weight of the base adsorbent material is 20 wt % to 30 wt % on a basis of total weight of the base adsorbent material and the base resin material.” Koizumi teaches a zeolite loading range with a 20 wt % lower endpoint based on the entire composition and the same 0.5 to 5 parts metal soap per 100 parts resin (Koizumi, [0040] and [0047]). Normalizing that selected loading to zeolite plus resin gives approximately 20.1 to 20.8 wt % zeolite, within the claimed 20 to 30 wt % range. It would have been obvious to select that disclosed range endpoint because Koizumi identifies the adsorption-performance and film-formability tradeoff as the reason for adjusting zeolite content (Koizumi, [0040]).
Claim(s) 4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koizumi (US 2016/0193585 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nozue (US 2019-007612 A).
With respect claim 4, Koizumi teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above.
Claim 4 further requires “wherein the base adsorbent material comprises a material capable of absorbing carbon dioxide.” Koizumi teaches gas-adsorbing zeolite, but Koizumi does not expressly teach “wherein the base adsorbent material comprises a material capable of absorbing carbon dioxide.” Seo teaches hierarchical zeolite adsorbents that adsorb carbon dioxide from a gas stream (Seo, abstract and [0033]-[0038]). It would have been obvious to select for Koizumi’s master-batch film a zeolite known from Seo to adsorb carbon dioxide because Koizumi expressly teaches selecting zeolite according to the target substance to be adsorbed, thereby producing a film directed to carbon-dioxide adsorption (Koizumi, [0038]-[0040]). The predictable result is a master-batch film capable of carbon-dioxide adsorption. A reasonable expectation of success exists because both references use zeolite for molecular adsorption and Koizumi teaches that its resin film retains gas-adsorption function; the proposed selection changes the target zeolite but not the master-batch film-forming process.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Koizumi (US 2016/0193585 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nozue (US 2019-007612 A).
Regarding claim 10, Koizumi teaches the method of claim 1 as mapped above, including forming a zeolite-resin master batch and producing the adsorbent film from it (Koizumi, [0050]).
Claim 10 further requires “removing moisture of the absorber.” Koizumi does not teach “removing moisture of the absorber” after the absorber has been formed. However, Nozue teaches a resin sheet containing an inorganic adsorbent such as zeolite and expressly teaches heating the formed sheet under vacuum to release moisture absorbed during storage (Nozue, [0029]–[0032] and [0037]–[0039]). Thus, Nozue teaches moisture removal from the absorber sheet itself, rather than only drying a powder before film formation.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to apply Nozue’s post-formation vacuum-heating treatment to Koizumi’s adsorbent film to remove adventitious moisture and restore adsorption capacity before use. Nozue explains that absorbed moisture reduces adsorption capability and that heating under reduced pressure releases that moisture ([0020]–[0021], [0032], and [0039]). Both references concern resin-bound zeolite adsorbents whose adsorption sites can take up moisture, making Nozue’s treatment pertinent to the same moisture-occupancy problem in Koizumi’s film. A reasonable expectation of success follows from Nozue’s express treatment of a formed resin/adsorbent sheet, its instruction to respect the resin’s heat resistance, and its disclosed low-temperature baking option of 70–90 °C (Nozue, [0020], [0025], and [0029]).
Regarding claim 11, Koizumi in view of Nozue teaches the method of claim 10 for the reasons set forth above.
Claim 11 further requires “wherein the removing of moisture further comprises performing a vacuum drying process on the absorber.” Koizumi does not expressly teach this vacuum-drying step. Nozue expressly supplies it by heating the already-formed adsorbent sheet under vacuum to release absorbed moisture ( [0039]; see also [0021]). That treatment is vacuum drying of the absorber.
Claim 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Koizumi (US 2016/0193585 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Toia (US 20100183914A1).
Regarding claim 15, Koizumi teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Claim 15 further requires . However, Toia teaches supplying the rechargeable lithium battery, active-material electrodes, separator, and protected getter sheet. (Toia, [0003]–[0007], [0014], [0025]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Koizumi, a cathode comprising a cathode active material; an anode comprising an anode active material; and a separator as Toia teaches immobilize the adsorbent and protect it from electrolyte attack while preserving access to gas. Toia teaches complete enclosure and less chemically resistant inner polymers. (Toia, [0025], [0031], [0034]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STARFARI TESHAWN MCCLAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0169. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM- 5 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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (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.
/STARFARI TESHAWN MCCLAIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights