DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4 and 7-18 are pending, of which claims 8-14, 16, and 18 have been withdrawn.
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 .
Response to Arguments
On pages 6-7, Applicant argues that the instant application uses a combination of sodium carbonate, sodium bicarbonate, and sodium hydroxide, whereas this combination is not taught by the prior art.
Examiner notes that none of the claims under consideration recite the inclusion of sodium hydroxide. Rather, claim 1 as amended recites that the composition comprises sodium bicarbonate, sodium carbonate, and a binder or carrier. However, claim 1 as amended does require both sodium bicarbonate and sodium carbonate in the composition, which is not taught or suggested by the prior art of record. Accordingly, the prior rejections have been withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090060811 (“Kanazirev”).
Regarding claim 1, Kanazirev teaches an adsorbent composition that is useful for removing pollutants such as HCl from a gas stream (see e.g. paragraph [0001]). The composition of Kanazirev includes sodium carbonate and/or sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate (see e.g. paragraph [0027]). The composition further comprises an alumina carrier (see e.g. paragraph [0030]). The ratio of carbonates to alumina in the composition is about 2:1, meaning that the carrier is present in about 33-34% of the composition, which is within the claimed range, while 66-67% of the composition is sodium carbonates (see e.g. paragraph [0031]). Kanazirev teaches that the composition also includes water, meaning that the active material and carrier are both in an alkali solution (see e.g. paragraph [0031]).
None of the specific examples provided by Kanazirev include both sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate in a ratio that would result in both 1-20% sodium bicarbonate and 30-50% sodium carbonate. However, Kanazirev teaches that the invention can use pure sodium carbonate, or alternatively a mineral like trona that is a 1.26:1 weight ratio of sodium carbonate to sodium bicarbonate (see e.g. paragraph [0027]). Given these teachings of Kanazirev, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a mixture of sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate in a ratio 1.26:1 up to pure sodium carbonate would work in the invention. This would include having sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate both within the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 2, Kanazirev teaches that the carbonates are sodium carbonates (see e.g. paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 7, Kanazirev teaches that the sodium carbonate used can be in the form of the monohydrate (see e.g. paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 15, Kanazirev does not specifically provide the chlorine removal performance of the composition. However, the material taught by Kanazirev includes sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate on a carrier, similar to the instant invention. Kanazirev further teaches that the alumina is in the form of gibbsite, which is the exact same carrier as used in the specific examples of the instant invention (see e.g. paragraph [0030]). As such, the composition of Kanazirev would be expected to have the same hydrogen chloride picking ability as the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 17, Kanazirev teaches that the material is mechanically stable and does not appear to require disintegration and powdering after treatment with water and steam (see e.g. paragraph [0024]).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanazirev as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20070253879 (“Sakurai”).
Regarding claims 3-4, Kanazirev teaches the composition of claim 1, but uses an alumina carrier rather than one of the recited materials. However, Sakurai teaches a similar composition to that of Kanazirev including sodium carbonate, sodium bicarbonate, and a carrier that can be alumina (see e.g. paragraphs [0019] and [0035]). Similar to the composition of Kanazirev, Sakurai teaches that the composition is for removal of HCl from a gas stream (see e.g. paragraph [0023]). In an alternative to alumina, Sakurai teaches that the carrier can instead be palygorskite, which is the same mineral as attapulgite (see e.g. paragraph [0035]). Per MPEP 2143(B), simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. Here, the invention of claims 3-4 differs from Kanazirev only in the use of a palygorskite carrier rather than alumina. Per Sakurai, palygorskite can be used as an alternative carrier than alumina for a sodium carbonate/sodium bicarbonate adsorbent useful for removal of HCl from gas streams. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to substitute the alumina carrier of Kanazirev for the palygorskite carrier as taught by Sakurai with predictable results.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S SHERMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4784. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 ET.
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 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.
/E.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights