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 . The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 8 is 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 8 is unclear. What shape does a ‘filler’ have and why cant it have any shape? The same is true of the other options. Why would they in any way be limited in shape?
Obviousness rejection:
Claims 1, 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreisz et al. 20040144252 taken with Dietz 20220234893.
Kreisz teaches, especially in paras 18-24, sorbing polyhalogenated hydrocarbons by a polymer having 0.1-30% soot or active carbon. This does not teach the soot treatment, however Dietz teaches, especially in para 57, activating soot at 850-1000 in CO2.
For claim 3, see Dietz table 2.
For claim 4, see Dietz para 56, in context to fig. 2. It appears that the coating approximately (only) doubles the particle size.
For claim 5, Polyolefin is taught Kreisz in para 18.
For claim 6, see Kreisz claim 1.
For claim 7, see Kreisz para 2.
For claims 8-10, see Kreisz para 3.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
While the arguments imply that different shapes are possible, it is unclear what shapes are required/encompassed/excluded. The injection molding is not relevant. Claim 1 requires soot, which is what carbon black is. The conclusion ‘treating carbon black … does not suggest treating soot’ is incorrect and actually contradicts the lines immediately thereabove in which applicant argues the distinction between soot and active carbon (a distinction which the examiner does not dispute). Dietz need not teach the thermoplastic because Kreisz already does; Dietz simply teaches treating the soot option that Kreisz contemplates. The treatment of claim 1 essentially activates the soot, as demonstrated by Dietz, because the steps are the same steps conventionally used to convert carbonized carbon to active carbon (the purpose of which is generally to create porosity and increase surface area). The steps of Dietz result in high surface area (para 57), consistent with the sorbent properties desired by Kreisz.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
/STUART L HENDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736