DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This Office action is based on the 18/236,116 application filed 21 August 2023, which is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-15 are pending and have been fully considered.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant is reminded that “[u]nder a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1327. In the instant case, manufacturing coffee activated carbon has been interpreted as “performing a main process of manufacturing the coffee activated carbon by [1.] carbonizing and [2.] activating dried coffee powder particles, and [3.] performing a post-treatment process” [see paragraph 0012 of the published application]. See, also, paragraph 0020 of the same: “[r]eferring to FIG. 1, a method for manufacturing coffee activated carbon according to example embodiments of the present disclosure may include an operation of performing a main treatment process (S100) and an operation of performing a post-treatment process (S200).”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are 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 1 recites “performing, by a thermal decomposition furnace, a main treatment process of carbonizing and activating dried coffee powder particles and manufacturing coffee activated carbon; and performing a post-treatment process…” Recall, from the Claim Interpretation section above, that performing a post-treatment process is part of manufacturing coffee activated carbon. Therefore, it is unclear how many post-treatment processes there are in the method of manufacturing coffee activated carbon. Additionally, note that the preamble to claim 1 recites “[a] method for manufacturing coffee activated carbon, the method comprising: performing, by a thermal decomposition furnace, a main treatment process of carbonizing and activating dried coffee powder particles and manufacturing coffee activated carbon; and performing a post-treatment process of sieving…” It is unclear if the method of manufacturing coffee activated carbon is completed after the first performing step and before the second performing step, in which case the second performing step produces a different product, say, a sieved or sized manufacturing coffee activated carbon. If such is the case, the preamble should be amended to recite what the method is actually for. In any case, claim 1 should be reviewed and amended to whatever extent necessary to accurately recite the method and product obtained therefrom.
Claim 10 attempts to claim a process (“a stabilization process”) without setting forth any steps involved in the process thereby raising an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. It may be the case that a stabilization process is simply storing activated carbon at room temperature for about 2 to about 6 hours [see paragraphs 0049 & 0051 of the published application]. However, if such is the case, the stabilization process appears to be nothing more than what would occur in the absence of purposeful action. Consequently, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be determined.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokubu et al (JP 2009292670).
Note: in the discussion that follows, reference will be made to the WIPO machine translation of the aforementioned reference.
With respect to claims 1, 5-6, and 8-10, Kokubu et al discloses “[t]he first step in the production method of the present invention is a step of producing raw material activated carbon by treating a porous organic material or a porous carbon material using superheated steam. As the ‘porous organic material’ to be processed in the first step, conventionally known organic materials can be used as raw materials for activated carbon, and coffee grounds, coconut shells, wood, bamboo, and the like can be exemplified…The porous organic material to be used is preferably pre-dried. The ‘porous carbon material’ to be treated in the first step is preferably a carbonized product (charcoal) of the above-described porous organic material, and is preferably obtained by carbonizing the porous organic material by heating at 400 to 500° C. The carbonized product in an amorphous state can be obtained in a high yield by carbonizing the porous organic material at a relatively low temperature. The raw activated carbon obtained by treating this with superheated steam can effectively increase the specific surface area by the heat treatment performed in the later step (third step) while the amorphous state is maintained. When the porous carbon material is treated using superheated steam, it is preferable that the formation of the porous carbon material (carbonization of the porous organic material) is performed prior to the treatment with superheated steam in the treatment chamber of the treatment device using superheated steam described later. Hereinafter, both the porous organic material and the porous carbon material may be referred to as a ‘porous material’” [paragraphs 0017-0018] and “[t]he treatment temperature of the superheated steam in the first step is preferably 700 to 950° C” [paragraph 0021]. The carbonizing porous organic material by heating at 400 to 500o C corresponds to the step of “performing, by a thermal decomposition furnace, a main treatment process of carbonizing” in instant claim 1. Note that the instant specification discloses “[i]n the operation of performing the carbonization process (S110), the coffee powder particles may be added to a thermal decomposition furnace and carbonized at a temperature of about 300° C. to about 750° C” [paragraph 0034 of the published application]. The treatment with superheated steam corresponds to “activating dried coffee powder particles and manufacturing coffee activated carbon.” Note that the instant application discloses “[i]n the operation of performing the activation process (S120), the carbonized coffee powder particles and active gas may be added to the thermal decomposition furnace to activate the carbonized coffee powder particles at a temperature of about 900° C. to about 1100° C. to manufacture the coffee activated carbon” [paragraph 0041 of the published application] and “the active gas may include, for example, at least one selected from the group consisting of steam (H2O)” [paragraph 0047]. Kokubu et al further discloses “[f]or the activated carbon thus obtained, particles having a particle diameter of 300 to 500 μm were collected by an electromagnetic sieve shaker for each particle diameter” [paragraph 0043]. It is expected that collected activated carbon is kept at room temperature for one or more hours.
Kokubu et al does not appear to explicitly disclose “drying, by an oven device.” However, the reference is concerned with “applications [of activated carbon—Examiner’s insertion] such as hydrogen storage, electric double layer capacitors, and gas adsorption such as volatile organic compounds (VOC)” [paragraph 0002; see, also, paragraph 0060]. Consequently, it would have been obvious to dry the activated carbon in, for example, an oven, to remove water vapor (steam) so provide sites for hydrogen storage or gas adsorption. The reference is clearly familiar with drying at elevated temperatures such as one might find in an oven, e.g., 120o C. See discussion in next paragraph. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious.
With respect to claims 2 and 4, the coffee grounds correspond to the coffee waste. The aforementioned pre-drying corresponds to the first drying process of the instant claim. See, also, paragraph 0041: “the coffee grounds, which are porous organic materials, were obtained by roasting and pulverizing coffee beans, drying the residue after extracting the beverage components for 3 days, and then drying the dried residue at 120°C for 24 hours by a dryer.” Kokubu et al further discloses “1.0 Kg of coffee grounds was filled in the wire mesh container” [paragraph 0043, reference example 1], wherein the wire mesh corresponds to the first sieving.
With respect to claim 3, since the mean particle diameter (D50) of coffee grounds ranges from 500 to 1,000 mm, it would have been obvious to use one or more larger sieve sizes in order to separate grounds from other, larger coffee waste materials.
With respect to claim 7, while Kokubu et al does not explicitly disclose the use of an inert gas during carbonization, it is well-known in the art to use an inert gas such as nitrogen.
With respect to claims 11 and 12, applicant is reminded that the repetition of a known process until success is achieved is “one of [the] ‘inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.’” Perfect Web Technologies Inc. v InfoUSA Inc., 92 USPQ2d 1850.
With respect to claim 13, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce moisture to the highest extent possible in order to provide sites for adsorption and/or storage as discussed previously.
With respect to claim 14, Kokubu et al discloses that the “specific surface area of the raw material activated carbon obtained in the first step is…preferably 400 to 1500 m2/g” [paragraph 0028].
With respect to claim 15, applicant is reminded that “[t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297.” In the instant case, it is well known in the art that automobile air conditioning combination (“combi”) filters may comprise activated carbon.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee et al (US 2022/0227982), which discloses “[t]he average particle diameter (D50) of the waste coffee grounds may be about 500 μm to 1,000 μm” [paragraph 0051]; Kuemmerle (TW M501369), which discloses “a replaceable filter car air-conditioning combination filter, comprising: a filter core having a plurality of filter perforations, and each filter perforation is adjacently arranged to form a honeycomb shape. The filter core is a ceramic reinforced activated carbon composite material; a filter cotton is attached to at least one side of the filter core, and the filter cotton can be disposed corresponding to each filter perforation; the replaceable filter core is provided by the creation The automobile air-conditioning combination filter has a plurality of filter perforations through the filter core, and at least one side of the filter core is provided with filter cotton, and the filter core can be a ceramic-reinforced activated carbon composite material;” and Park et al (KR 20180125758), which discloses “[a] method for producing a biomass adsorbent comprising the steps of: a) drying the coffee by-products at 80 to 120 DEG C;
b) heating and carbonizing the dried coffee by-product in the presence of an inert gas; And
c) activating the carbonized coffee byproduct by spraying steam.
The method of claim 1, wherein the drying of a) is performed for 0.5 to 2 hours.
The method of producing a biomass adsorbent according to claim 1, wherein the inert gas of b) is nitrogen.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN A MCCAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5548. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8 to 4:30 Mountain Time.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/BRIAN A MCCAIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
23 January 2026