DETAILED ACTION
The papers submitted on 18 Aug. 2026, amending claims 1, 5, 6, 16, and 17 and cancelling claim 14 are acknowledged.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (CN111115631A), and further in view of Yamanaka et al. (JP2000084406A).
Regarding claim 1, Lu et al. discloses a method for preparing a high-mechanical-strength coffee grounds-based molded porous carbon material (paragraph 0013). The method uses waste coffee grounds as raw material (paragraph 0013). The coffee grounds are dried to a constant weight, and the particle size range is 80-300 mesh (paragraph 0025). The particle size is given in mesh units, so it is the position of the examiner that the grounds are sieved. In example 1, the drying takes place in an oven (paragraph 0044). The waste coffee grounds are mixed with a binder and molded into strip-shaped coffee grounds by extrusion molding (paragraph 0013). The strip-shaped coffee grounds are placed in a carbonization furnace, another name for a thermal decomposition furnace, and are carbonized and activated (paragraph 0018). After activation of the carbon strips, they are treated at room temperature (25-50 °C) for 12-24 hours (paragraph 0022). The examiner interprets this treatment as the stabilization process of the present invention.
Lu et al. does not disclose a post-treatment process of impregnating an impregnating agent including an amine group into a surface of the coffee activated carbon.
Yamanaka et al. discloses an adsorbent that has a large adsorption capacity for aldehydes (paragraph 0001). The activated carbon adsorbent is impregnated with cyclic saturated secondary amines (paragraph 0021).
The coffee grounds-based molded porous carbon of Lu et al. can have micropores, mesopores, and macropores, and has broad applications in adsorption separation (Lu, paragraph 0036). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to impregnate the coffee grounds-based molded porous carbon material with secondary amines, so the carbon material can remove aldehydes efficiently when used as an adsorbent (Yamanaka, paragraph 005).
Regarding claim 2, Lu et al. discloses the binder is starch (paragraph 0013).
Regarding claim 3, Lu et al. discloses the adhesive (binder) is mixed with a solvent to create solution B and the mass ratio of binder to solvent is 0.1:1 to 4:1 (paragraph 0016). The coffee grounds are mixed with an extrusion aid and structural reinforcement to create sample A (paragraph 0015). The mass ratio of extrusion aid to coffee grounds is 0:1 to 0.5:1 (paragraph 0019). The mass ratio of structural reinforcement to coffee grounds is 0:1 to 0.5:1 (paragraph 0020). Finally, the mass ratio of solution B to coffee grounds is 0.3:1 to 4:1 (paragraph 0021). The examiner calculates a binder wt% of 2.3 wt% based the total binding mixture (mixture of sample A and solution B).
Mass ratio of extrusion aid to coffee grounds = 0
Mass ratio of structural reinforcement to coffee grounds = 0
Mass ratio of binder to solvent = 0.1
Mass ratio of solution B to coffee grounds = 0.3
Wt % of solution B in binding mixture = (0.3/1.3)*100%
Wt % of binder in binding mixture = (0.3/1.3)*0.1*100% = 2.3%
Regarding claim 4, Yamanaka et al. discloses the cyclic saturated secondary amine is piperazine (paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 5, Yamanaka et al. discloses the amount of cyclic saturated secondary amine added to the activated carbon is preferably 5-20% by weight based on the weight of the anhydrous activated carbon (paragraph 0008).
Regarding claim 6, Lu et al. discloses coffee ground size in the range of 80-300 mesh (paragraph 0025). The particle size is given in mesh units, so it is the position of the examiner that the grounds are sieved. The adhesive (binder) is in solution B (paragraph 0016). The coffee grounds are in sample A (paragraph 0015). Sample A and solution B are mixed and placed into an extruder for extrusion molding and dried (paragraph 0017). The drying takes place in an oven (0044).
Regarding claim 7, Lu et al. discloses the coffee grounds are sieved in 80-300 mesh corresponding to roughly 44-180 microns which is outside the claimed range (paragraph 0025). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
Regarding claim 8, Lu et al. discloses the adhesive (binder) is mixed with a solvent to create solution B and the mass ratio of binder to solvent is 0.1:1 to 4:1 (paragraph 0016). The solvent is water (paragraph 0023). The coffee grounds are mixed with an extrusion aid and structural reinforcement to create sample A (paragraph 0015). The mass ratio of extrusion aid to coffee grounds is 0:1 to 0.5:1 (paragraph 0019). The mass ratio of structural reinforcement to coffee grounds is 0:1 to 0.5:1 (paragraph 0020). Finally, the mass ratio of solution B to coffee grounds is 0.3:1 to 4:1 (paragraph 0021). The examiner calculates a binder wt% of 2.3 wt% based on the total weight of the binding mixture and a coffee wt % of 77 wt% based on the total weight of the binding mixture.
Mass ratio of extrusion aid to coffee grounds = 0
Mass ratio of structural reinforcement to coffee grounds = 0
Mass ratio of binder to solvent = 0.1
Mass ratio of solution B to coffee grounds = 0.3
Wt % of solution B in binding mixture = (0.3/1.3)*100%
Wt % of binder in binding mixture = (0.3/1.3)*0.1*100% = 2.3%
Wt % of coffee grounds in binding mixture = (1/1.3)*100% = 77%
The wt% of coffee powder particles are outside the claimed range of 95-99 wt%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
Regarding claim 9, Lu et al. discloses carbonizing and activating the strip-shaped coffee grounds in a carbonization furnace (paragraph 0018).
Regarding claim 10, Lu et al. discloses the carbonization temperature is 700-900 °C, overlapping a portion of the claimed range (paragraph 0030). The subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to select the portion of the prior art’s range which is within the range of the applicants’ claims because it has been held prima facie case of obviousness to select a value in a known range by optimization for the results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ.
Regarding claim 11, Lu et al. discloses the inert atmosphere used in the carbonization process is either argon or nitrogen (paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 12, Lu et al. discloses the activation temperature is 700-950 °C, overlapping a portion of the claimed range (paragraph 0031). The subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to select the portion of the prior art’s range which is within the range of the applicants’ claims because it has been held prima facie case of obviousness to select a value in a known range by optimization for the results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ.
Regarding claim 13, Lu et al. discloses the gaseous activator is water vapor (paragraph 0033). The water vapor used in example 1 is steam (paragraph 0045).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. in view of Yamanaka et al. as applied to claims 1-13 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN104307474A).
Regarding claim 15, modified Lu et al. discloses the activated carbon adsorbent is impregnated with cyclic saturated secondary amines (Yamanaka, paragraph 0021). Modified Lu et al. does not disclose a second sieving process with an average particle diameter of 320 microns or a second drying process to remove moisture.
Zhang et al. discloses a method for preparing magnetic activated carbon. After an activation step (paragraph 0013), a post-treatment is done where the material is put in an electric heating oven to dry (paragraph 0014). The dry material is ground and crushed through a 100-mesh sieve which is 149 microns (paragraph 0014). The average particle size of a 100-mesh sieve would be different than 320 microns. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose the instantly claimed average through process optimization, since it has been held that the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Lu et al. by adding the post-treatment steps of a second sieving and drying process because a standard particle size will ensure consistent filtration performance and dry carbon is necessary to use as an adsorbent.
Regarding claim 16, Zhang et al. discloses the material is ground and crushed through a 100-mesh sieve which is 149 microns in the post-treatment step (paragraph 0014). 149 microns is outside the claimed range of the present invention. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
Regarding claim 17, Zhang et al. discloses the material is put in an electric heating oven to dry at 110 °C for 8-12 hours (paragraph 0014). It is the position of the examiner that the active carbon material has a 5 wt% or less of moisture based on the total weight of the active carbon because the drying temperature is higher and time is longer compared to the examples of the present disclosure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the limitation of a stabilization process of the coffee activated carbon is not taught in any reference cited in the office action. As a result, applicant argues (1) Lu et al.’s desiliconization process is distinct from applicants’ stabilization process, (2) an overlap in temperature does not mean Lu et al. discloses the same stabilization process, (3) Yamanaka fails to disclose a stabilization process, (4) Neither Lu nor Yamanaka provide reason to modify Lu’s desiliconization. As a result, this limitation has been amended into claim one and all claims are allowable.
Applicant’s reply fails to address how the language of claim one or the specification precludes a 25-50 °C desiliconization from a stabilization process of the coffee activated carbon. The only requirement of a stabilization process seen in the claim language or specification is a room temperature process after activation which is what Lu does (see rejection of claim 1). Absent evidence to the contrary, the examiner interprets the desiliconization step as also stabilizing the coffee activated carbon because the 25-50 °C temperature range includes room temperature, and the rejection is maintained. Additionally, there is no need for Yamanaka to cure the deficiencies of Lu or either reference to modify the desiliconization because the step is already interpreted as a stabilization.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al.
KR 20200082371 A
Kangim et al.
KR 102027061 B1
Wang et al.
CN 112707396 A
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A CALDERON whose telephone number is (571)272-9866. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 5712721176. 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.
/DAVID ANDREW CALDERON/ Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights