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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 13 July 2026 has been considered. It is acknowledged that claims 1, 4, 7-10, 16, 18-19, 22, 25, 28, 30-31, and 39-40 are amended, and claims 2-3, 5-6, 21, 23-24, 26-27, and 42 have been cancelled by Applicant. Accordingly, claims 1, 4, 7-20, 22, 25, and 28-41 are under full consideration. Per the amendment, the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections of claims 1-42 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 13 July 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under Mahecha-Botero et al. (US-10350543-B2), hereinafter “Mahecha”, in view of Jinming (CN-110882624-A) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wang (CN-101143321-B), Rashidi (EP-1782884-A1), and Iizuka et al. (US-8252257-B2), hereinafter “Iizuka”.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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.
Claims 1, 4, 7-8, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahecha-Botero et al. (US-10350543-B2), hereinafter “Mahecha”, in view of Jinming (CN-110882624-A), Wang (CN-101143321-B), Rashidi (EP-1782884-A1), and Iizuka et al. (US-8252257-B2), hereinafter “Iizuka”.
Regarding Claim 1, Mahecha discloses an apparatus for converting a toxic gas to benign substances (a process for cleaning process gas… to produce a tail gas substantially free of these pollutants; see Abstract), comprising: a housing (housing; see Col. 23 Line 20) characterized with multi-stages (stages b-h; see Col. 9 Line 60 – Col. 10 Line 14) including a first stage, a second stage, a third stage and a fourth stage coupled to one another in sequence (stages b-h; see Col. 9 Line 60 – Col. 10 Line 14), wherein the toxic gas comprises ethylene oxide, propylene oxide, ozone, nitric oxides, volatile organic carbons, or CO (removing sulfur oxides (SOx) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from process gas; see Col. 3 Lines 65-67); the first stage comprises a catalytic system (sulfur oxides oxidation catalyst; see Col. 9 Line 66) configured to convert the toxic gas into byproducts (oxidizing sulfur oxides in the process gas using a SOx oxidation catalyst; see Col. 4 Lines 4-5); the second stage comprises a filter adapted to capture remaining unconverted toxic gas (“particulate matter” includes a wide range of industrial particulate matter as well of the combustible carbonaceous fractions… which stay in the gas phase; see Col. 12 Lines 34-40) and the byproducts (“particulate matter removal stage”; see Col. 10 Line 1; and “PM removal stage comprises one or more particulate filters”; see Col. 7 Lines 46-47) the third stage comprises at least one oxidizer to oxidize remaining unconverted toxic gas to benign substances (nitrogen oxides oxidation catalyst downstream of the PM removal stage; see Col. 10 Lines 3-5); and the fourth stage comprises a scrubber configured to remove products generated as part of the first and third stages (an absorber/condenser downstream for removing oxidation products as sulfuric acid and nitric acid; see Col. 10 Lines 6-9).
The limitations claiming that the benign substances produced include CO2 and water, and that volatile organic compounds or water molecules are generated in the first and third stages, are consequential limitations, or intended results of operation, that occur depending on the content of the fluid being processed. These limitations do not further limit the structure of the apparatus, but merely set forth a manner of operating the apparatus. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus. Additionally, the limitation claiming the composition of the toxic gas is a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the apparatus, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the apparatus.
Mahecha does not explicitly teach the filter being carbon fiber. However, Jinming discloses the use of a carbonaceous fibrous material adapted to filter a gas (the primary filtration unit is made of activated carbon fiber cotton; see [0010]).
Mahecha and Jinming are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gas purification. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mahecha by incorporating the teachings of Jinming and including a carbon fiber filter. Doing so would have enabled removal of large pollutant particles and most harmful elements from the gas (see Jinming [0026]).
Mahecha does not explicitly teach an active porous catalytic bed. However, Wang discloses wherein the catalytic system comprises an active porous (porosity is inevitable in a fixed bed of catalytic powder) catalytic bed (The catalyst was evaluated for its performance in a fixed-bed reactor; see [0018]) formed of a metal oxide (The active component of the metal oxide catalyst is one of cobalt, iron, manganese, copper, zinc, tin, and cerium; see [0016]), wherein the metal oxide comprises cobalt tetraoxide (Co3O4) (“metal oxide catalyst is one of cobalt”; see [0016] and “The precipitant used is Na2Co3”; see [0017]). It is understood by those of ordinary skill in the art that obtaining a metal oxide catalyst by using Na-2Co3 results in CoO, but more commonly Co3O4. Using this composition as the metal oxide catalyst would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it is low in cost (see Wang [0020]).
Mahecha and Wang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gas purification via oxidation. These modifications would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it would allow for catalytic oxidation (see Wang [0018]) and is low cost (see Wang [0020]).
Modified Mahecha does not explicitly teach MgO support. However, Rashidi discloses a nanoscale catalyst supported on magnesia (MgO) (catalysts comprise a nanoporous MgO support; see [0002]). Mahecha and Rashidi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of catalytic gas purification. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use MgO as a support, especially because doing so has the advantage of being easily removable from the product (see Rashidi [0007]). Using nanoporous support also makes it possible to increase the product yield (see Rashidi [0015]). Iizuka, also analogous due to being in the field of gas purification, discloses use of a nanocluster for catalysts (see Col. 4 Line 57). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because formation of a nanocluster results in the expression of specific catalytic activity (see Iizuka, Col. 7 Lines 57-58).
Regarding Claim 4, Mahecha, Jinming, Wang, Rashidi, and Iizuka together disclose the apparatus of claim 1. Modified Mahecha does not explicitly teach powder catalysts. However, Wang discloses wherein the catalytic system is in the form of powders (The carrier can be various commercially available or self-made powdered…; see [0015]). The limitation claiming “with an average size ranging from nanometers to centimeters” is a result-effective variable affecting catalytic performance and flow characteristics. The claimed range of nanometers to centimeters encompasses essentially all conventional powder sizes and does not reflect criticality. Therefore, this would have been an obvious choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Further, using a catalyst in the form of a powder also would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it contributes to a low activation temperature and good catalytic activity (see Wang [0022]).
Regarding Claim 7, Mahecha, Jinming, Wang, Rashidi, and Iizuka together disclose the apparatus of claim 1. Wang further discloses wherein a ratio of Co304 to MgO is in a range from 0.01 wt% to 99.99 wt% (loading of the active component is 5-80% of the weight conversion value of the metal element; see [0009]). When mathematically converting the ratio discloses by Wang to describe a ratio of Co304 to MgO, the resulting ratio encompasses a majority of the claimed ratio. MPEP 2144.05.I states that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. The disclosed ratio also has the added benefit of contributing to a low activation temperature and good catalytic activity.
Regarding Claim 8, Mahecha, Jinming, Wang, Rashidi, and Iizuka together disclose the apparatus of claim 1. The limitation claiming, “wherein the first stage further comprises carbon dioxide (CO2) being introduced into the first stage at a temperature ranging from room temperature to over 100 °C” is a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the apparatus, but merely sets forth a manner of operation. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 18, Mahecha, Jinming, Wang, Rashidi, and Iizuka together disclose the apparatus of claim 1. Mahecha further discloses wherein the scrubber comprises surface area activated charcoal or graphitic structures, carbon nanostructures of various shapes and sizes (graphene, fibers, nanotubes, plates), porous structures decorated with such materials, graphite, cellulose, Chitosan, starch, Xanthan, alginate, polyvinyl alcohol, and/or polyurethanes (absorber made of one or more of the following: graphite, silicon carbide, silicon iron, boron silicate glass, glass, glass lined steel, tantalum-lined steel, PTFE lined steel, glass fibers, PFA, fluoro-polymer lining, and acid resistant bricks; see Col. 6 Lines 26-30).
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahecha-Botero et al. (US-10350543-B2), hereinafter “Mahecha”, in view of Jinming (CN-110882624-A), Wang (CN-101143321-B), Rashidi (EP-1782884-A1), Iizuka et al. (US-8252257-B2), hereinafter “Iizuka”, and Gebald et al. (US-20120076711-A1), hereinafter “Gebald”.
Regarding Claim 9, Mahecha, Jinming, Wang, Rashidi, and Iizuka together disclose the apparatus of claim 1.
Modified Mahecha does not explicitly teach amine functionalization. However, Gebald discloses carbonaceous fibrous material decorated with amine functionalization (The amine modification of the fiber filaments can be achieved… carbon fibers can be air oxidized…; see [0055]) configured to trap unconverted toxic gas through surface bonding (CO2 transport to the amine functionalized surface, hence, the more CO2 can be captured; see [0046]).
Mahecha and Gebald are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gas purification. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to decorate the carbonaceous fibrous material with amine functionalization. Doing so would allow a design for more compact energy efficient systems (see Gebald [0046]).
Regarding Claim 10, Mahecha, Jinming, Wang, Rashidi, Iizuka, and Gebald together disclose the apparatus of claim 9. Gebald further discloses wherein the carbonaceous fibrous material is decorated with amine NH2 functional chemical groups including primary and secondary amine groups (composed of primary, secondary, and tertiary amines; see [0137]) and/or pyridinic or imidazole, and/or with zinc oxide (ZnO) aluminum oxide (A1203) nanostructures, CaO, CaCO3, MgO, Ti2 and derivatives, SiO2, or zeolites. Including primary and secondary amine groups would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because doing so increases amine efficiency (see Gebald [0138]).
Regarding Claim 11, Mahecha, Jinming, Wang, Rashidi, Iizuka, and Gebald together disclose the apparatus of claim 10. Gebald further discloses wherein the carbonaceous fibrous material comprises carbon nanofibers (the fibres are nanofibrillated; see [0024]) having a surface area in a range of 1-200 m2/g, preferably in a range of 40-100 m2/g (featuring a high surface area in the range of 1-100 m2/g; see [0036]). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it would allow for efficient CO2 adsorption on the surface of the fibers (see Gebald [0036).
Regarding Claim 12, Mahecha, Jinming, Wang, Rashidi, Iizuka, and Gebald together disclose the apparatus of claim 11. Mahecha further discloses wherein the second stage further comprises catalysts (one or more particulate filters comprise a catalytic filter; see Col. 7 Lines 50-51) including alumina or zinc salts, metal catalysts (catalytic filter with PGM loading; see Col. 7 Line 51), metal oxide catalysts, supported on metal oxides, zeolites, graphitic materials, Lewis acids catalysts, bases such as amines, halides, acetates, oxides, nitrites, ammonium, and/or phosphonium.
Regarding Claim 13, Mahecha, Jinming, Wang, Rashidi, Iizuka, and Gebald together disclose the apparatus of claim 11. Mahecha further discloses wherein the second stage further comprises inorganic porous systems that can be functionalized with chemical group functionalities (PM removal is performed by one or more particulate filters, for example, monolith-type diesel particulate filters; see Col. 13 Lines 52-54).
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahecha-Botero et al. (US-10350543-B2), hereinafter “Mahecha”, in view of Jinming (CN-110882624-A), Wang (CN-101143321-B), Rashidi (EP-1782884-A1), Iizuka et al. (US-8252257-B2), hereinafter “Iizuka”, and Hoag et al. (US-6474908-B1), hereinafter “Hoag”.
Regarding Claim 14, Mahecha, Jinming, Wang, Rashidi, and Iizuka together disclose the apparatus of claim 1.
Modified Mahecha does not explicitly teach the use of persulfate or perborate. However, Hoag discloses a solid oxidizer including persulphate (oxidized by ammonium persulfate; see Col. 3 Line 11).
Mahecha and Hoag are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of oxidative purification. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mahecha by incorporating the teachings of Hoag and using a solid oxidizer including persulphate. Doing so would enable oxidation of VOCs (see Hoag, Col. 4 Lines 38-39)
Regarding Claim 15, Mahecha, Jinming, Wang, Rashidi, Iizuka, and Hoag together disclose the apparatus of claim 14. Hoag further discloses oxidative metal salts (ferrous sulfate may be injected to add iron cations; see Col. 11 Lines 25-26) adapted to induce Fenton type chemistry along with the solid oxidizer (The metal cations catalytically decompose the persulfate to form sulfate free radicals; see Col. 4 Lines 37-39). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because adding metal salts enables decomposition of the persulfate (see Hoag, Col. 4 Lines 37-39).
Regarding Claim 16, Mahecha, Jinming, Wang, Rashidi, Iizuka, and Hoag together disclose the apparatus of claim 15. Hoag further discloses wherein the metal salts include cobalt oxide or iron oxide or iron sulfate particles (ferrous sulfate may be injected to add iron cations; see Col. 11 Lines 25-26). Using iron sulfate would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it decomposes into iron cations (see Hoag, Col. 11 Lines 26-27).
Regarding Claim 17, Mahecha, Jinming, Wang, Rashidi, Iizuka, and Hoag together disclose the apparatus of claim 15. Wang further discloses the use of a porous particulate bed in an oxidation process (the catalyst prepared in this invention was evaluated for its performance in a fixed-bed reactor for the catalytic oxidation of CO; see [0018]), and as explained in the rejections of claims 14-15, Hoag discloses the use an oxidizer and metal salt in an oxidation process. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the porous particulate bed of Wang because it would allow for evaluation of performance in an oxidation reaction (see Wang [0018]), and to incorporate the oxidizer and metal salt of Hoag because it would enable oxidation of VOCs (see Hoag, Col. 4 Lines 38-39) and enable decomposition of the persulfate (see Hoag, Col. 4 Lines 37-39), respectively. When modifying Mahecha with the teachings of Wang and Hoag, it would naturally follow that the solid oxidizer and metal salt of Hoag would be incorporated into the bed of Wang as the oxidation stage in Mahecha’s disclosure because all of these teachings relate to an oxidation process.
Claims 19-20, 22, 25, 28-29, and 39-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahecha-Botero et al. (US-10350543-B2), hereinafter “Mahecha”, in view of Jinming (CN-110882624-A), Wang (CN-101143321-B), Rashidi (EP-1782884-A1), Iizuka et al. (US-8252257-B2), hereinafter “Iizuka”, and Zoican-Loebick (US-10464044-B1), hereinafter “Zoican”.
Regarding Claim 19, Mahecha, Jinming, Wang, Rashidi, and Iizuka together disclose the apparatus of claim 18. Mahecha does not explicitly teach adsorbing media. However, Zoican discloses a scrubber (activated carbon scrubbers with the novel sorbent of this invention; see Col. 3 Lines 43-44) comprising adsorbing media that capture remaining unconverted toxic gas and the derivatives (sorbent bed where in adsorption mode a flow of gaseous feed stream containing at least one VOC in an initial concentration is contacted with the sorbent for a time during which an effluent stream exiting the sorbent bed contains an acceptably reduced concentration of the VOC; see Col. 10 Lines 50-55) and can be functionalized with various functional chemical groups (nitrogen and oxygen-functionalized graphene; see Col. 4 Lines 64-65).
Mahecha and Zoican are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gas treatment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the scrubber of Mahecha, an absorber, with the scrubber of Zoican, an adsorber containing an adsorbing media that can be functionalized. Doing so would enable an excellent degree of regenerability of the sorbent and would save energy by minimizing a need for thermal regeneration (see Zoican, Col. 3 Lines 47-54).
Regarding Claim 20, Mahecha, Jinming, Wang, Rashidi, Iizuka, and Zoican together disclose claim 19. Zoican further discloses wherein the adsorbing media comprises graphitic materials (nitrogen and oxygen-functionalized graphene; see Col. 4 Lines 64-65). Doing so would enable an excellent degree of regenerability of the sorbent and would save energy by minimizing a need for thermal regeneration (see Zoican, Col. 3 Lines 47-54).
Regarding Claim 22, Mahecha, Jinming, Wang, Rashidi, and Iizuka together disclose the apparatus of claim 1. Mahecha discloses a method for converting a toxic gas into benign substances (a process for cleaning process gas… to produce a tail gas substantially free of these pollutants; see Abstract), comprising: catalytically converting the toxic gas into byproducts in a first stage (oxidizing sulfur oxides in the process gas using a SOx oxidation catalyst; see Col. 4 Lines 4-5); capturing the remaining toxic gas (“particulate matter” includes a wide range of industrial particulate matter as well of the combustible carbonaceous fractions… which stay in the gas phase; see Col. 12 Lines 34-40) and the byproducts in a second stage (“particulate matter removal stage”; see Col. 10 Line 1; and “PM removal stage comprises one or more particulate filters”; see Col. 7 Lines 46-47); oxidizing the remaining toxic gas (nitrogen oxides oxidation catalyst downstream of the PM removal stage; see Col. 10 Lines 3-5) in a third stage; and removing, from a fourth stage, all of volatile organic compounds or water molecules generated as part of the first and third stages (“an absorber/condenser downstream for removing oxidation products as sulfuric acid and nitric acid”; see Col. 10 Lines 6-9).
Mahecha does not explicitly teach the fourth stage as removing VOCs. However, Zoican discloses a scrubbing stage, analogous to Mahecha’s scrubbing stage which includes the absorber/condenser previously mentioned, in which volatile organic compounds are removed from a gaseous stream (see Abstract). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fourth stage, or the scrubbing stage, of Mahecha to include the scrubbing method taught by Zoican in which VOCs are removed. Doing so would reduce pollutants, and contaminants that are hazardous or otherwise harmful to humans (see Zoican, Col. 6 Lines 27-30).
Mahecha does not explicitly teach the benign substances from the third stage including CO2 and water. However, Jinming discloses oxidation of waste gas, which includes benzene, toluene, xylene, formaldehyde, ethyl acetate, ethane, acetone, urethane, etc. (see [0026]), which transform into benign substances that include CO2 and water (see [0027]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the process of Mahecha by incorporating the use of waste gas as a feed stream, as taught by Jinming because it is inevitably emitted during industrial production and contains a large number of various harmful gases (see Jinming [0005]).
Regarding the limitations claiming, “wherein the toxic gas comprises ethylene oxide, propylene oxide, ozone, nitric oxides, volatile organic carbons, or CO, and wherein the catalytic conversion is performed by a catalytic system comprising an active porous catalytic bed formed of a metal oxide nanocluster comprising cobalt tetraoxide (Co304) supported on magnesia (MgO)” these were addressed in the claim 1 rejection. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as the rejection of these shared limitations in claim 22 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 25, Mahecha, Jinming, Wang, Rashidi, Iizuka, and Zoican together disclose the method of claim 22. The remaining limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 4. Please refer to the rejection of claim 4 as the rejection of claim 25 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 28, Mahecha, Jinming, Wang, Rashidi, Iizuka, and Zoican together disclose the method of claim 22. The remaining limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 7. Please refer to the rejection of claim 7 as the rejection of claim 28 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 29, Mahecha, Jinming, Wang, Rashidi, Iizuka, and Zoican together disclose the method of claim 22. Mahecha further discloses introducing carbon dioxide (CO2) into the first stage (GTP as described herin can be applied to mobile as well as stationary applications, such as industrial process gas and exhaust gas produced from diesel engines; see Col. 13 Lines 29-32) at a temperature ranging from room temperature to over 100 °C (process gas temperature is above the minimum operating temperature of the catalyst… minimum operating temperature is approximately 370o C; see Col. 15 Lines 20-28).
Regarding Claim 39, Mahecha, Jinming, Wang, Rashidi, Iizuka, and Zoican together disclose the method of claim 22. The remaining limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 18. Please refer to the rejection of claim 18 as the rejection of claim 39 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 40, Mahecha, Jinming, Wang, Rashidi, Iizuka, and Zoican together disclose the method of claim 39. The remaining limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 19. Please refer to the rejection of claim 19 as the rejection of claim 40 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 41, Mahecha, Jinming, Wang, Rashidi, Iizuka, and Zoican together disclose the method of claim 40. The remaining limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 20. Please refer to the rejection of claim 20 as the rejection of claim 41 follows the same rationale.
Claims 30-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahecha-Botero et al. (US-10350543-B2), hereinafter “Mahecha”, in view of Jinming (CN-110882624-A), Wang (CN-101143321-B), Rashidi (EP-1782884-A1), Iizuka et al. (US-8252257-B2), hereinafter “Iizuka”, Zoican-Loebick (US-10464044-B1), hereinafter “Zoican”, and Gebald et al. (US-20120076711-A1), hereinafter “Gebald”.
Regarding Claim 30, Mahecha, Jinming, Wang, Rashidi, Iizuka, and Zoican together disclose the method of claim 22. The remaining limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 9. Please refer to the rejection of claim 9 as the rejection of claim 30 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 31, Mahecha, Jinming, Wang, Rashidi, Iizuka, Zoican, and Gebald together disclose the method of claim 30. The remaining limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 10. Please refer to the rejection of claim 10 as the rejection of claim 31 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 32, Mahecha, Jinming, Wang, Rashidi, Iizuka, Zoican, and Gebald together disclose the method of claim 31. The remaining limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 11. Please refer to the rejection of claim 11 as the rejection of claim 32 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 33, Mahecha, Jinming, Wang, Rashidi, Iizuka, Zoican, and Gebald together disclose the method of claim 32. The remaining limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 12. Please refer to the rejection of claim 12 as the rejection of claim 33 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 34, Mahecha, Jinming, Wang, Rashidi, Iizuka, Zoican, and Gebald together disclose the method of claim 32. The remaining limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 13. Please refer to the rejection of claim 13 as the rejection of claim 34 follows the same rationale.
Claims 35-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahecha-Botero et al. (US-10350543-B2), hereinafter “Mahecha”, in view of Jinming (CN-110882624-A), Wang (CN-101143321-B), Rashidi (EP-1782884-A1), Iizuka et al. (US-8252257-B2), hereinafter “Iizuka”, Zoican-Loebick (US-10464044-B1), hereinafter “Zoican”, and Hoag et al. (US-6474908-B1), hereinafter “Hoag”.
Regarding Claim 35, Mahecha, Jinming, Wang, Rashidi, Iizuka, and Zoican together disclose the method of claim 22. The remaining limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 14. Please refer to the rejection of claim 14 as the rejection of claim 35 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 36, Mahecha, Jinming, Wang, Rashidi, Iizuka, Zoican, and Hoag together disclose the method of claim 35. The remaining limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 15. Please refer to the rejection of claim 15 as the rejection of claim 36 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 37, Mahecha, Jinming, Wang, Rashidi, Iizuka, Zoican, and Hoag together disclose the method of claim 36. The remaining limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 16. Please refer to the rejection of claim 16 as the rejection of claim 37 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 38, Mahecha, Jinming, Wang, Rashidi, Iizuka, Zoican, and Hoag together disclose the method of claim 36. The remaining limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 17. Please refer to the rejection of claim 17 as the rejection of claim 38 follows the same rationale.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA LEE KUYKENDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-3806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/A.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights