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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected claim group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on April 16,2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-7 and 11 in the reply filed on April 16,2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search burden.
This is not found persuasive because establishment of a search burden is used to determine whether the Office may require restriction in national applications filed under 35 (U.S.C. 111(a). The analysis used to determine whether the Office may require restriction differs in national stage applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371 (unity of invention analysis) as compared to national applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) (independent and distinct analysis). See MPEP Chapter 1800, in particular MPEP § 1850, § 1875, and § 1893.03(d), for a detailed discussion of unity of invention under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 11 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.
Regarding claim 1, the line “hydrated alumina, calculated as alumina” makes it unclear if the hydrated alumina would count as alumina in the composition or if it would be separate from alumina.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation "10-50 parts", and the claim also recites "preferably 20-40 parts of the molecular sieves" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation "20-55 parts", and the claim also recites "preferably 30-45 parts of the hydrated alumina" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation "5-35 parts", and the claim also recites "preferably 8-30 parts of the alumina" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation "less than 0.05mmol/g", and the claim also recites "preferably 0.01-0.04 mmol/g" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation "pattern of the adsorbent composition involves diffraction peaks at 20 of 6.030, 13.470, 15.320, 28.010, 37.960 and 49.280", and the claim also recites "more preferably involves diffraction peaks at 20 as outlined in the following table: 6.03, 9.87, 11.6, 13.47, 15.32, 19.9, 23.16, 26.5, 28.01, 30.8, 31.8, 37.96, 46.34, 49.28, 64.7, 66.8" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation "hydrated alumina comprises one or more of pseudo-boehmite, boehmite, gibbsite and bayerite", and the claim also recites "preferably is pseudo-boehmite, or the hydrated alumina " which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation :"one or two selected from the group consisting of X-type molecular sieves and Y- type molecular sieves", and the claim also recites "preferably one or two selected from the group consisting of 13X and NaY" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-5,7, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi (KR 101682907).
Regarding claim 1, Choi teaches a type of absorbent composition that is comprised of a grade 4A zeolite (molecular sieve), alumina boehmite solution (hydrated alumina) and gamma alumina (Choi[0052]). Therefore, this disclosure meets the limitations set in the instant claim requiring an adsorbent composition to comprise of molecular sieves, hydrated alumina and alumina.
Regarding claim 3, while Choi does not note if strong acids were found during the characterization of the adsorbent, due to similarities in composition, such as the use of zeolite (molecular sieve), alumina boehmite solution (hydrated alumina) and gamma alumina (Choi[0052]) required in the independent claim. It can be concluded that with the similarities in composition between the prior art and the claimed invention, they would share characteristics that are inherent to each other such as having an identical strong acid content.
Regarding claim 4, Choi while the prior art does not note the XRD peaks, due to similarities in composition, such as the use of zeolite (molecular sieve), alumina boehmite solution (hydrated alumina) and gamma alumina (Choi[0052]) required in the independent claim. It can be concluded that with the similarities in composition between the prior art and the claimed invention, they would share traits that are inherent to each other such as diffraction peak locations at 2Ɵ.
Regarding claim 5, Choi discloses the use of alumina boehmite solution in the adsorbent composition (Choi[0052]). Therefore, this disclosure fulfills the limitations set in the instant claim requiring the hydrated alumina to comprise of boehmite.
Regarding claim 7, Choi discloses that a molecular sieve can be a 13X zeolite or zeolite Y (Choi[0025]). Therefore, this disclosure meets in limitation set in the instant claim requiring the molecular sieve to be a X-type (13X) or Y type (NaY) molecular sieve.
Regarding claim 11, the preamble mention “a method for removing” which is inconsistent with the elected claims that focus on the composition of the claimed invention. With the limitation being that the absorbent is added into an olefin stream for removing polar compounds the claim does not place any limitations on the composition of the absorbent. See MPEP 2111.02.
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (KR 101682907), and further in view of Wang (CN 102921373 A).
Regarding claim 6, Choi does not disclose the surface area of the alumina used in the composition. However, Wang who teaches a process of synthesizing an absorbent for an olefin stream, discloses the use of a bulk alumina carrier with a specific surface area (SSA) greater than 200m2/g and a pore volume greater than 0.3 ml/g (Wang[0011]). Due to the specific surface area overlapping with the claimed range of 200-300 m2/g and the pore volume requiring a value greater than 0.3 ml/g which includes values between 0.5 and 0.8 cm/g, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to utilize alumina with structural values that fall within the SSA and pore volume requirements set by the instant claim in order to evenly distribute zeolite crystals within the pores (Wang[0012 ¶2]) which leads to the improvement of the heat and mass transfer efficiency of the absorbent (Wang[0012 ¶3]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is rejected under 112(b) , but would be allowable if the rejection is overcome and the claim is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Indicating Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
While Choi teaches a type of absorbent composition that is comprised of a grade 4A zeolite (molecular sieve), alumina boehmite solution (hydrated alumina) and gamma alumina (Choi[0052]), Wang teaches a process of synthesizing an absorbent for an olefin stream, discloses that the aluminum hydroxide raw material being used has a specific surface area of greater than 200m2/g and a pore volume greater than 0.3 ml/g (converted to cm3/g) (Wang[0011]).
Regarding claim 2, Choi teaches that an adsorption template is composed of a calcined mixture of zeolite and gamma alumina (Choi[0024]). The zeolite of the template is 90 to 95 parts, while the gamma alumina is in 5 to 10 parts by weight(Choi[0027]). Furthermore, in Table 1, the ratio between the adsorbent material, alumina boehmite, and water are given with the second row providing a ratio of 9:1:1 based on weight. With the high amount of zeolite to alumina, the suggested weight distribution does not meet or render obvious the composition required by the instant claim. It is for this reason that claim 2 is considered novel and nonobvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNETTE H PHAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4520. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6:30 EST.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 5712703591. 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.
/ANNETTE PHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights