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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-11, in the reply filed on 02/09/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicants did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
2. Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/09/2026.
Status of Application
3. This application was filed on 06/21/2023.
Claims 1-15 were originally presented in this application for examination.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending in this application for examination.
Specification
4. The examiner has not checked the specification to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors (grammatical, typographical, and idiomatic). Cooperation of the applicant(s) is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant(s) may become aware of in the specification, in the claims and in any further amendment(s) that applicant(s) may file.
Applicant(s) is also requested to complete the status of the copending applications referred to in the specification by their Attorney Docket Number or Application Serial Number, if any.
The status of the parent application(s) and/or any other application(s) cross-referenced to this application, if any, should be updated in a timely manner.
Double Patenting
5. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of copending Application No. 18/258,589 (which is US 2024/0066513 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons.
Copending application teaches the claimed method of forming a batch of porous adsorbent filaments comprising the same process steps as recited in the instant claim 1 and any additional claim limitations recited in the copending application and the instant application would have been obvious due to the open-ended transitional phrase “comprises” in the preamble of instant claim 1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marlin et al. (US 2020/0338525 A1), hereinafter “Marlin et al.” taken together with Pellow (US 5,090,968).
The claimed invention relates to a method of forming a batch of porous adsorbent filaments, wherein the method comprises:
providing a precursor mixture,
forcing the precursor mixture at a fixed rate through an orifice and then through a multiplicity of perforations in a belt, wherein the belt moves across and in tight registry with said orifice to form a batch of precursor porous adsorbent filaments, and
drying the batch of precursor porous adsorbent filaments to form the batch of porous adsorbent filaments,
wherein the batch of porous adsorbent filaments comprises a moisture content of at least about 20 wt.% (as recited in the instant claim 1).
Marlin et al. discloses a method of forming a batch of shaped adsorbent particles, wherein the method comprises:
applying a precursor mixture into a shaping assembly within an application zone to form a batch of precursor shaped adsorbent particles;
drying the batch of precursor shaped adsorbent particles within the shaping assembly to form the batch of shaped adsorbent particles, and
ejecting the batch of shaped adsorbent particles from the shaping assembly, wherein the batch of shaped adsorbent particles comprises a moisture content of at least about 20 wt. % (see p. 25, claim 9),
wherein the shaped adsorbent particles of the batch of shaped adsorbent particles are porous solid particles (see p. 25, claim 12).
The instant claimed method of claim 1 differs from the method of Marlin et al. in the form of adsorbent being “filaments”.
The instant claim 1 further differs from the disclosed method in “forcing the precursor mixture at a fixed rate through an orifice and then through a multiplicity of perforations in a belt, wherein the belt moves across and in tight registry with said orifice to form a batch of precursor porous adsorbent filaments”.
However, it is considered the different feature in claim 1 would be easily derived from the method disclosed by Pellow with no unexpected effect because such technique is known and has been used by Pellow to produce filament particles.
Specifically, Pellow discloses a process for producing a process for producing filamentary abrasive particles comprises: (i) forcing by a forcing means an aqueous dispersion of an abrasive material at a fixed rate through an orifice and through a multiplicity of perforations in a belt which moves across and in tight registry with said orifice to form filamentary particles (see col. 5, claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, Marlin et al. discloses the precursor mixture comprises aluminas, boehmites, bayerites, silicas, titanias, zirconias, etc. (see p. 25, claim 10), which meets the claimed limitation on “a ceramic component”.
Regarding claim 3, Marlin et al. discloses the batch of shaped adsorbent particles comprises a lithium aluminate (see p.25, claim 11).
Regarding claims 4 & 5, the batch of shaped adsorbent particles comprises a moisture content of at least about 30 wt.% and not greater than about 60 wt.%, based on the total weight of the batch of porous adsorbent filaments, respectively, are taught in Marlin et al. (see [0054]).
Regarding claim 6, Marlin et al. discloses the batch of shaped lithium bayerite adsorbent particles may have a particular envelope density of at least about 0.9 g/cm3 and not greater than about 2.0 g/cm3 (see [0091]).
The additional feature of claim 7 is disclosed in Marlin et al. (see p. 25, claim 14). Marlin et al. discloses the batch of shaped adsorbent particles comprises a plurality of particles having a columnar shape.
The additional features of claims 8 & 9 are disclosed in Marlin et al. (see p. 25, claim 15). The reference teaches the batch of shaped adsorbent particles has an average particle diameter of not greater than about 5.0 mm and a particle aspect ratio (L/D) distribution span PARDS of not greater than about 50%, where PARDS is equal to (AR90-AR10)/ AR50, where AR90 is equal to an AR90 particle aspect ratio (L/D) distribution measurement of the batch of shaped adsorbent particles, AR10 is equal to an AR10 particle aspect ratio (L/D) distribution measurement, and AR50 is equal to an AR50 particle aspect ratio (L/D) distribution measurement of the batch of shaped adsorbent particles.
Regarding claim 10, Marlin et al. teaches the batch of shaped adsorbent particles may be an average particle length of at least about 0.001 mm (see [0063]), which encompass the instantly claimed range of “at least about 0.01 mm”.
Regarding claim 11, the shaped adsorbent particles may have a Mohs hardness not greater than a Mohs hardness of abrasive particles is taught in Marlin et al. (see [0074]).
Claims 1-11 are unpatentable as being obvious over Marlin et al. in combination with Pellow.
Citations
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. All references are cited for related art. See PTO-892 Form prepared.
US 2021/0121865 A1 (relates to a method of forming a batch of porous catalytic carrier particles by shaping the precursor mixture, drying the batch of precursor porous catalytic carrier particles within the shaping assembly, etc.)
Conclusion
8. Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 1-11 are rejected. Claims 12-15 are withdrawn. No claims are allowed.
Contacts
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner CAM N. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1357. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (8:30 am – 5:00 pm) at alternative worksite or at cam.nguyen@uspto.gov.
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 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Cam N. Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/CNN/
September 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights