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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1–12 and 17 in the reply filed on January 09, 2025 is acknowledged.
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 1–9, 11, 12 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 in view of Le Bec, US 2007/0123419 A1.
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Purnell teaches a method of using a container 10 containing an absorbent material 46 (such as activated charcoal) to adsorb moisture from air in a room in a building by having air freely move through the activated charcoal 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 activated charcoal 46 in the room, so that the air can freely move through the activated charcoal 46. Id. at col. 4, ll. 28–58. The activated charcoal 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 activated charcoal (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 Ito et al., US 2016/0061461 A1, [0067], [0102]). 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 activated charcoal 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 activated charcoal 46 (the “mesoporous solid”). Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach the activated charcoal has the claimed characteristics.
But Le Bec teaches an active charcoal material that can be used for air treatment, with the active charcoal being beneficial for having improve mechanical properties. See Le Bec abstract.
The active charcoal has mesopores (see Le Bec [0025]), and mesopores are understood in the art as having a diameter of 2 to 50 nm (see e.g., Orikasa et al., US 2015/0367323 A1, [0012]). The prior art range of 2 to 50 nm overlaps with on a “mean diameter which varies from 3 to 50 nm,” thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness1.
The active charcoal also has a mesoporous volume of greater than or equal to 0.20 mL/g, which is within the claimed range of greater than or equal to 0.2 mL/g. See Le Bec [0025].
The active charcoal has macropores and micropores, as claimed. See Le Bec [0024]–[0025].
The active charcoal further has a total microporous and mesoporous volume of 0.6 to 0.7 mL/g (when the mesopore volume is at 0.2 mL/g), which is within the claimed range of 0.3 to 2 mL/g. See Le Bec [0024]–[0025].
Also, the active charcoal has a ratio of macroporous volume to total macroporous and mesoporous volume is from 0.57 to 0.83 (when macropore volume is 0.4 or 0.5 mL/g and mesopore volume is 0.2 mL/g), which overlaps with the claimed range of less than 0.6. See Le Bec [0023]–[0026].
Further, the micropore volume is greater than or equal to 0.2 mL/g which touches the claimed range of less than 0.2 mL/g. See Le Bec [0024].
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 active charcoal of Le Bec 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).
The active charcoal of Le Bec is beneficial because it has improved mechanical properties. See Le Bec abstract. It would have been obvious to use the active charcoal of Le Bec as the active charcoal in Purnell to provide an active charcoal material with improved mechanical properties.
Regarding claim 2, Purnell as modified teaches that the active charcoal 46 (the “mesoporous solid”) has mesopores with a diameter of 2 to 50 nm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 3 to 50 nm. see Le Bec [0025] (the active charcoal has mesopores); Orikasa et al., US 2015/0367323 A1, [0012] (mesopores are known in the art as having a diameter of 2 to 50 nm).
Regarding claim 4, Purnell as modified teaches that the activated charcoal (the “mesoporous solid”) is a carbon-based solid, as claimed, because it is activated charcoal. See Purnell col. 4, ll. 54–58.
Regarding claim 5, Purnell as modified teaches that the activated charcoal (the “mesoporous solid”) is active carbon, as claimed, because activated charcoal is a type of active carbon.
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 claims 7–9, Purnell as modified teaches that the activated charcoal 46 (the “mesoporous solid”) has a diameter ranging from 2 to 50 nm. See Le Bec [0025] (activated charcoal has mesopores); Orikasa et al., US 2015/0367323 A1, [0012] (mesopores are understood in the art as having a diameter of 2 to 50 nm). The diameter is presumed to be the same regardless of whether the pores are measured using desorption or adsorption. Therefore, the prior art range of 2 to 50 nm overlaps with the claimed ranges of a mean pore diameter on adsorption ranging from 10 to 35 nm (claim 7), 5 to 15 nm (claim 8) and 3 to 10 nm (claim 9), and the claimed ranges of a mean pore diameter on desorption from 10 to 35 nm (claim 7), 5 to 13 nm (claim 8) and 3 to 9 nm (claim 9). Also, activated charcoal 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 Ito et al., US 2016/0061461 A1, [0067], [0102]). 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% (claim 7) and 60% to 80% (claim 8). Desorbing moisture from air having a relative humidity of 60% or less reads on the relative humidity to be controlled at values from 60 to 80% (claim 8) and from 40 to 60% (claim 9).
Regarding claim 11, Purnell as modified teaches that the activated charcoal 46 (the “mesoporous solid”) is in the form of agglomerates, as claimed, because the activate charcoal 46 is in particulate form. See Purnell col. 4, ll. 47–58.
Regarding claim 12, Purnell as modified teaches that the activated charcoal 46 (the “mesoporous solid”) is in the form of crystals, because active carbon is mainly composite of graphite, which is a crystalline form of carbon. See e.g., Ikenaga et al., US 5,494,500, col. 1, ll. 46–52. Also, the particle size of the active charcoal of Le Bec can be 0.2 mm, which converts to 200 µm. See Le Bec [0031]. Because the graphite crystals are within the interior of the activated charcoal particles, it would have been obvious for the graphite crystals to have a size less than 100 µm because they would be expected to be much smaller than the size of the activated charcoal particles themselves.
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 activated charcoal 46 (the “mesoporous solid”) is left in the room (the “enclosed space”). Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach that the activated charcoal 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 10 is allowable over Purnell as modified because the activated charcoal 46 of Purnell as modified by Le Bec has a microporous volume of greater than or equal to 0.2 ml/g. See Le Bec [0024]. Therefore, the prior art fails to teach that the “mesoporous solid has zero microporous volume,” as claimed.
Conclusion
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 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.