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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 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 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.
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) 1-2 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Yasuharu et al. TW 202132221.
Claim 1, Yasuharu teaches a composite metal oxide represented by the formula of Mg6Al4O12 which satisfies the recited formula for x=0.4 (claim 1, pg. 4). Yasuharu teaches the formula being MgxAlyOz where 2x+3y=2z and pg. 4 teaches that x:y is 3:2. Yasuharu additionally teaches the composite metal oxide is prepared by dissolving metal salts of Mg and Al in an alkaline solution to produce a slurry, the slurry then being dried, washed, pulverized and calcined at a temperature between 500-700oC for 1-10 hours (pg. 6). The instant application teaches that the solid base content is controlled by the conditions the slurry is burned/calcined (par 42 of the printed publication). The temperature taught by Yasuharu is within the range taught by the instant application and therefore the process of Yasuharu is assumed to produce the recited composite metal oxide having the same solid base content.
Claim 2, Yasuharu further teaches the BET specific surface area is in the range of 150-300 m2/g (claim 1).
Claims 6 and 7, Yasuharu further teaches an adsorbent comprising the composite metal oxide of claim 1 (pg. 7); and a method of treating a liquid that includes contacting the liquid with the composite metal oxide of claim 1 (pg. 7).
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuharu et al. TW 202132221 in view of Wang CN 107661742.
Claim 3, Yasuharu teaches the composite metal oxide of claim 1 but does not specifically teach a mixture comprising the composite metal oxide and a layered double hydroxide.
Wang teaches a similar method of making a composite metal oxide by dissolving magnesium and aluminum salts in an alkaline solution, precipitating and crystallizing the precipitate, drying, grinding and roasting the powder to make a composite material and then covering that material with a layer of hydrotalcite, which is a layered couple hydroxide (example 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the composite metal oxide with the hydrotalcite because the hydrotalcite is a known adsorbent with good characteristics to remove chloride ions from water and the addition of the composite metal oxide increases the surface area and thus the adsorption of the mixture (pg. 2).
Claim 4, Yasuharu further teaches a hydrotalcite (layered double hydroxide) having the recited formula as the precursor for the composite metal oxide (pg. 5). The layered double hydroxide is known in the art as demonstrated by Yasuharu and would have been an obvious choice of a layered double hydroxide as it would already be made as part of the process of making the composite metal oxide.
Claim 5, Wang does not teach the specific mixing ratio of composite metal oxide to layered double hydroxide. The recited range is effectively half of the possible ratios and one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that the ratio would be adjusted depending of the specific application and desired outcome. [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN M KURTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/BENJAMIN M KURTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779