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 . 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 3, 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
There is no support for the ‘without additives’ limitation in claim 1, either explicitly or by inference. Moreover, specification pg. 6 lines 8-18 contemplates-and does not exclude- molecules/atoms above and beyond CO2 and H2O in the activation gas.
Obviousness rejection:
Claims 1, 3, 5-10 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 the size, see Dietz para 56, in context to fig. 2. It appears that the coating approximately (only) doubles the particle size.
As to the additive limitation, Dietz teaches activation using CO2/steam (para 62). Nothing else is recited.
For claim 3, see Dietz table 2.
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 9/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The claims recite the composition of the gas activation agent. The claims do not limit the ingredients used in the initial synthesis of the carbon. Dietz does not perform activation using ‘several additives’; these are in the initial synthesis of the carbon.
The portion of the specification point to support of the new limitation does not provide proper support for exclusion (in any step) of additives. Also, H2 in the activation gas deliberately added is indistinguishable from that which is a residual impurity. Perhaps applicant should claim an activation gas which ‘consists essentially of’ the desired components. This language would not necessarily be permitted to be added in an after-final amendment, however.
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.
/STUART L HENDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights