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 § 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.
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.
Claims 1–3, 5–11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomita et al., “Humidity Control Ability of Silica with Bimodal Pore Structures Prepared from Water Glass,” Journal of the Ceramic Society of Japan 112, 491–495 (2004).1
Regarding claims 1–3, Tomita teaches a method for controlling the relative humidity in a building, which reads on the claimed “method for controlling the relative humidity in an enclosed space.” See Tomita abstract, introduction.
The method comprises placing a bimodal porous silica comprising mesopores in the building (see Tomita abstract, introduction), which reads on the claimed step of “placing a mesoporous solid inside the enclosed space.”
The bimodal porous silica comprises:
Mesopores with a mean diameter of 10 nm (see Tomita abstract, p. 493), which reads on the claimed range of “mesopores, the mean diameter of which varies from 3 to 50 nm as measured by nitrogen adsorption combined with the BJH method according to standard ASTM D4641-17”2 (claim 1) and “mesopores, mean diameter of which varies from 3 to 50 nm as measured by nitrogen desorption combined with the BJH method according to standard ASTM D4641-17” (claim 2).
A mesoporous volume of 0.160 to 0.897 cm3/g (see Tomita Table 3, p. 494), which overlaps with the claimed range of “a mesoporous volume greater than or equal to 0.2 mL/g as measured by nitrogen adsorption combined with the BJH method according to standard ASTM D4641-17”
The bimodal porous silica also comprises macropores, as claimed. See Tomita abstract. The bimodal porous silica also has:
A total pore volume (Vt) of 0.218 to 1.96 cm3/g (See Tomita Table 3, ps. 494, 492), which overlaps with the claimed range of “the total macroporous and mesoporous volume varies from 0.3 to 2 mL/g,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
A ratio of macroporous volume divided by total pore volume (Vt), which ranges from 0 to 0.92 (as Samples 3–6 in Table 3 lack macropores but have mesopores, while Samples 1 and 2 show a ratio of macropores to total pore volume of 0.92 in Sample 1 and 0.81 in Sample 2, calculated by subtracting Vmeso from Vt to obtain the volume of macropores, and then dividing by Vt) (see Tomita Table 3, p. 494). The prior art range of 0 to 0.92 overlaps with the claimed range of “the total ratio (macroporous volume)/(total macroporous volume and mesoporous volume) is less than 0.6,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
The microporous volume is 0 mL/g, because there is no discussion of micropores. The prior art value of 0 mL/g is within the claimed range of “the microporous volume is less than 0.1 mL/g.”
With respect to the limitations of a ratio of the mean diameter of the mesopores measured by nitrogen desorption and as measured by nitrogen adsorption of 0.3 to 1 (claim 1) and a mean diameter of mesopores as measured by nitrogen desorption/mean diameter of the mesopores as measured by nitrogen adsorption ratio ranging from 0.4 to 1 (claim 3), these limitations describe the difference in pore diameter based on the technique used to measure the pores. A ratio of 1 means that the mean diameter of the mesopores is the same when measured by nitrogen desorption and as measured by nitrogen adsorption. The mesopores of the bimodal porous silica of Tomita are presumed to have about the same diameter when measured using nitrogen desorption as with nitrogen adsorption because mesopores have a 2 to 50 nm, which would be the same regardless of measurement technique. Therefore, the ratio mean diameter of the mesopores measured by nitrogen desorption and as measured by nitrogen adsorption is presumed to be around 1, which is within the claimed ranges of 0.3 to 1 (claim 1) and 0.4 to 1 (claim 3).
Regarding claim 5, Tomita teaches that the bimodal porous silica is made of oxides of silicon, as claimed, because silica is silicon dioxide.
Regarding claim 6, Tomita teaches that the building can be a house, which reads on the claimed “building for residential or personal use.” See Tomita p. 491 (Introduction).
Regarding claims 7–9, Tomita teaches that the bimodal porous silica has a mean pore diameter of 10 nm. See Tomita p. 493. The mean pore diameter of 10 nm reads on a mean pore diameter of adsorption ranging from 10 to 40 nm (claim 7), 5 to 13 nm (claim 8) and 3 to 10 nm (claim 9). The mean pore diameter of 10 nm also reads on a mean pore diameter of desorption ranging from 10 to 35 nm (claim 7) and 5 to 13 nm (claim 8). The mean pore diameter of 10 nm is close enough to 9 nm (claim 9) to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05, subsection I (a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close).
Tomita also teaches that the bimodal porous silica is able to control the relative humidity at values of 40 to 80% (see Tomita p. 494), which reads on 80 to approximately 95% (claim 7), 60 to approximately 80% (claim 8) and 40 to approximately 60% (claim 9).
Regarding claim 10, Tomita teaches that the bimodal porous silica has zero microporous volume, as claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Tomita teaches that the bimodal porous silica is in the form of powder, which reads on “agglomerates.” See Tomita Table 3 (Sample 6), p. 494. Either the aggregates of fine crystallites or powder read on the claimed “agglomerates.”
Regarding claim 17, Tomita teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Tomita differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the amount of time that bimodal silica is left in the room. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach that the bimodal silica is left in the room for a period of at least 10 days, as claimed. But the bimodal silica is provided to remove contaminants, such as moisture, from air within the room. See Tomita p. 491 (Introduction). Therefore, it would have been obvious to use routine experimentation to determine the optimal amount of time to leave the bimodal silica in the room to determine the appropriate amount of time for it to remove contaminants from air. See MPEP 2144.05, subsection II (where 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1–7, 10, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Purnell, US 6,190,440 B1 in view of Platt, Jr. et al., US 2009/0263499 A1 and in further view of Boualleg et al., US 2017/0129781 A1, and as evidenced by Smith et al., US 7,033,421 B1.
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Purnell teaches a method of using a container 10 containing an adsorbent material 46 (such as alumina) to adsorb moisture from air in a room in a building by having air freely move through the adsorbent material 46. See Purnell Fig. 1, col. 1, ll. 24–28, col. 4, ll. 28–58. The room reads on the “enclosed space.” The method comprises placing the container 10 and adsorbent material 46 in the room, so that the air can freely move through the adsorbent material 46. Id. at col. 4, ll. 28–58. The adsorbent 46 reads on the “mesoporous material” (as explained in more detail below), and therefore, this reads on “placing a mesoporous solid inside the enclosed space.”
PNG
media_image1.png
542
985
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Purnell differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the method being for “controlling” the relative humidity in the room (the “enclosed space”). This is because the reference only teaches the method being used for adsorbing moisture from air in the room (see Purnell col. 4, ll. 54–58), whereas the specification provides a special definition for “controlling” as capturing moisture in air when the relative humidity of the air exceeds a desired maximum value and releasing it spontaneously once the relative humidity of the air is below a desired minimum value (see Spec. p. 6, ll. 1–4).
But, as noted Purnell teaches that the adsorbent material 46 can be alumina (see Purnell col. 4, ll. 54–58), which is a material that is capable of adsorbing moisture from relatively high-humidity air (e.g., RH of 70% or more) and of desorbing moisture from relatively low-humidity air (e.g., RH of 60% or less) (see Smith col. 2, ll. 55–57). Also, Platt teaches that the relative humidity of a room in a building should be maintained from 20 to 90% so that the room is comfortable. See Platt [0033]. It would have been obvious for the room that the container 10 is placed in to have a relative humidity between 20 to 90% so that the room is comfortable. With this modification, the method of using the container 10 would read on “controlling the relative humidity” in the room because the adsorbent material 46 would adsorb moisture when the relative humidity in the room is relatively high (e.g., above 70%) and would desorb moisture when the relative humidity in the room is relatively low (e.g., below 60%).
Purnell also differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the structure of the adsorbent material 46 (alumina) (the “mesoporous solid”). Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach the adsorbent material 46 has the claimed characteristics.
But Boualleg teaches an alumina material that can be used as an adsorbent. See Boualleg [0001]–[0003]. The alumina material comprises:
Mesopores, the median diameter is 18 nm or more (see Boualleg [0011]), which is within the claimed range of “mesopores, the mean diameter of which varies from 3 to 50 nm as measured by nitrogen adsorption combined with the BJH method according to standard ASTM D4641-17” 3
A mesoporous volume of 0.7 mL/g or more (see Boualleg [0037]), which is within the claimed range of “a mesoporous volume greater than or equal to 0.2 mL/g as measured by nitrogen adsorption combined with the BJH method according to standard ASTM D4641-17”
The alumina comprises macropores (see Boualleg [0020])
The total macroporous and mesoporous volume ranges from 0.9 to 1.1 mL/g (adding up total mesopore and macropore volume as the alumina lacks micropores) (see Boualleg [0101], [0102], [0042]), which is within the claimed range of “the total macroporous and mesoporous volume varies from 0.3 to 2 mL/g”
The ratio (macroporous volume/(total macroporous and mesoporous volume) is 0.1 to 0.35 (as the macropore volume is 10 to 35% of the total pore volume with the mesopores being the only other pores) (see Boualleg [0094]), which is within the claimed range of “the ratio (macroporous volume)/(total macroporous and mesoporous volume) is less than 0.6”
The microporous volume is 0 mL/g because there is an absence of micropores (see Boualleg [0042]), which is within the claimed range of “the microporous volume is less than 0.1 mL/g”
With respect to the limitations of a ratio of the mean diameter of the mesopores measured by nitrogen desorption and as measured by nitrogen adsorption of 0.3 to 1 (claim 1) and a mean diameter of mesopores as measured by nitrogen desorption/mean diameter of the mesopores as measured by nitrogen adsorption ratio ranging from 0.4 to 1 (claim 3), these limitations describe the difference in pore diameter based on the technique used to measure the pores. A ratio of 1 means that the mean diameter of the mesopores is the same when measured by nitrogen desorption and as measured by nitrogen adsorption. The mesopores of the alumina of Boualleg are presumed to have about the same diameter when measured using nitrogen desorption as with nitrogen adsorption because mesopores have a median diameter of 18 to 25 nm (see Boualleg [0039]), which would be the same regardless of measurement technique. Therefore, the ratio mean diameter of the mesopores measured by nitrogen desorption and as measured by nitrogen adsorption is presumed to be around 1, which is within the claimed ranges of 0.3 to 1 (claim 1) and 0.4 to 1 (claim 3).
The alumina of Boualleg is advantageous because it has a relatively large total pore volume with a relatively high mechanical strength. See Boualleg [0003], [0010]. It would have been obvious to use the alumina of Boualleg as the alumina of the adsorbent material of Purnell to provide an alumina material that das a relatively large total pore volume with a relatively high mechanical strength.
It also would have been obvious to use the alumina of Boualleg as the alumina of Purnell because this would merely represent the selection of a known material based on the suitability of its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using the alumina of Boualleg as the alumina of the adsorbent material of Purnell. This is because Purnell is not specific about the characteristics of the adsorbent material, but names alumina in a list of suitable adsorbents (see Purnell col. 4, ll. 54–58), while Boualleg teaches that its alumina material can be used as an adsorbent (see Boualleg [0003]).
Regarding claim 2, Purnell as modified teaches that the adsorbent material 46 has mesopores, the mean diameter of which varies from 18 to 25 nm (see Boualleg [0096]), which is within the claimed range of 3 to 50 nm.
Regarding claim 4, Purnell as modified teaches that the adsorbent material 46 is a metal oxide-based solid, as claimed, because the adsorbent material 46 can comprise alumina, which is aluminum oxide.
Regarding claim 5, Purnell as modified teaches that the adsorbent material 46 is an oxide of aluminum, as claimed, because the adsorbent material 46 can be alumina, which is aluminum oxide.
Regarding claim 6, Purnell as modified teaches that the “enclosed space” is a room in a building for residential or professional use, as claimed. See Purnell col. 1, ll. 27–34.
Regarding claim 7, Purnell as modified teaches that the adsorbent material 46 has median pore diameter of 18 to 25 nm (see Purnell [0039]), which is within the claimed range of “a mean pore diameter on adsorption ranging from 5 to 15 nm and a mean pore diameter on desorption ranging from 5 to 12 nm.” The diameter is presumed to be the same regardless of whether the pores are measured using desorption or adsorption. Also, alumina can adsorb moisture from relatively high-humidity air (RH of 70% or more) and of desorb moisture from relatively low-humidity air (RH of 60% or less) (see Smith col. 2, ll. 55–57). Adsorbing moisture from air having a relative humidity of 70% or more reads on the limitations of enabling the relative humidity to be controlled at values ranging from 80 to 95%.
Regarding claim 10, Purnell as modified teaches that the adsorbent material 46 has zero microporous volume, as claimed, because the alumina of Boualleg has an absence of micropores. See Boualleg [0091].
Regarding claim 11, Purnell as modified teaches that the adsorbent material 46 is in the form of agglomerates, as claimed, because it comprises particulate adsorbent matierl46 that can be packed into an annular space. See Purnell col. 4, ll. 47–51.
Regarding claim 17, Purnell as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Purnell as modified differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the amount of time that the container 10 with the adsorbent material 46 is left in the room. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach that the adsorbent material 46 is left in the room for a period of at least 10 days, as claimed. But the container 10 is provided to remove contaminants, such as moisture, from air within the room. See Purnell col. 3, ll. 34–38. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use routine experimentation to determine the optimal amount of time to leave the container 10 in the room to determine the appropriate amount of time for the container 10 to remove contaminants from air. See MPEP 2144.05, subsection II (where 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).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Purnell, US 6,190,440 B1 in view of Platt, Jr. et al., US 2009/0263499 A1 in view of Boualleg et al., US 2017/0129781 A1 in further view of Hurst et al., US 2014/0323289 A1, and as evidenced by Smith et al., US 7,033,421 B1.
Regarding claim 12, Purnell as modified teaches that the adsorbent material 46 can comprise zeolite and alumina. See Purnell col. 4, ll. 54–58. Also, Hurst teaches that most zeolites are three-dimensional crystals with a crystal size of 0.1 to 30 µm. See Hurst [0019]. It would have been obvious for the zeolite of Purnell as modified to have a crystal size of 0.1 to 30 µm because most zeolites have crystals this size. The prior art crystal size of 0.1 to 30 µm reads on part of the “mesoporous solid (i.e., adsorbent material 46, which includes zeolite) being in the form of crystals of size of less than 100 µm as measured by scanning electron microscopy.”
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made, as explained above.
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 T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
1 Tomita is in the record as the 5-page Non Patent Literature document filed June 13, 2024. A more legible copy is provided with this communication.
2 Note that the limitations describing how the values are measured fail to patentably distinguish over the prior art, and that the values of the prior art are presumed to read on the claimed values (even if the art is silent as to the measurement technique or uses a different measuring technique) because the values are reported as either anticipating or overlapping with the claimed values.
3 Note that the limitations describing how the values are measured fail to patentably distinguish over the prior art, and that the values of the prior art are presumed to read on the claimed values (even if the art is silent as to the measurement technique or uses a different measuring technique) because the values are reported as either anticipating or overlapping with the claimed values.
Prosecution Insights