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 Status
The Amendment filed on 29 January 2026 has been entered; claims 1-4, 6, 8-12, and 20-24 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-7 of the Remarks, filed 29 January 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35 USC 112(b) and the rejection of claims 1-10 and 12 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made under 35 USC 112(b) for claims 9 and 10, and under 35 USC 103 over Maglio in view of Noh, as discussed in detail below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 9 and 10, it is unclear to the Examiner whether Applicant intends to claim that the media includes Ti-Fe-sulfates or FeSO4, or if the precursor only contributes titanium and “structural sulfate” to the media as recited in claim 1, especially in view of claim 10. For the purposes of examination, the latter interpretation will be taken.
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 1-4, 6, 8-12, and 20-24, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maglio et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2014/0190892) in view of Noh et al. (Microporous and Mesoporous Materials, 2006, 88, 197-204), hereinafter “Maglio” and “Noh”.
With respect to claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 20, 22, and 23, Maglio teaches a crystalline titanosilicate material comprising sodium or potassium as M (see formula in Paragraph [0017]) and having a preferred SiO2/Ti ratio ranging from 2-3 (see Table 2), which corresponds to a molar ratio of 1:1 for titanium to silicon in the situation where SiO2/Ti = 3, so 3 parts SiO2 per 1 part Ti, wherein Si is 1 of three molar ratio parts of SiO2, so 3/3 = 1 Si; 1Ti, so 1/1 Ti to Si, or 1, which is a discrete value within “0.5 to 2”. When SiO2/Ti = 2, the titanium to silicon molar ratio becomes 0.67, also a discrete value within “0.5 to 2”. In this instance, the Group I metal embodiment is selected, and the Group II metal as calcium according to claim 4 is rejected with claim 1 as being directed to a non-selected embodiment; however, it is noted that the media is picking up at least some of the calcium (see Tables 5 and 6).
Maglio also teaches amorphous titanium silicates which are used to remove cesium (Group I metal) and strontium (Group II metal) (Paragraph [0011], “a metal titanosilicate wherein the metals are cesium and strontium), wherein the amorphous titanium silicates have a silicon to titanium ratio ranging from 1.5:1 to 1.2:1 (titanium to silicon molar ratio ranging from 0.66 to 0.8 (Paragraph [0013]), a discrete range within “0.5 to 2”. Upon adsorption of at least some cesium and strontium, the amorphous titanosilicates comprise a Group I and/or Group II metal, which can then be used to adsorb the rest of the cesium and strontium during the removal timeframe.
Maglio teaches that the above-described titanium silicate materials have pore volumes ranging from about 0.03 to about 0.25 (Paragraph [0027]), a discrete range within “less than or equal to 0.25 cc/g”.
Maglio does not specifically teach that the media comprises structural sulfur originating from a sulfur reactant utilized in synthesis.
Noh teaches sodium/potassium (Group I) titanium silicates, wherein the titanium silicate is prepared from titanium oxysulfate (“sulfur reactant”) (see Abstract; Section 2.1.1.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to replace the titanium salts disclosed by Maglio with the titanium oxysulfate (“sulfur reactant”) of Noh because Maglio teaches that various titanium salts can be used, and because Noh teaches that titanium oxysulfate (“sulfur reactant”) is a cost effective reactant to used in the synthesis of sodium/potassium titanium silicates, and contributes to phase purity of the final product (See Abstract; Section 4 Conclusions).
Regarding the limitations “a lead capacity of at least 280mg/ dry g at 500 ppm of Pb”, the Examiner submits that this is an inherent property of the titanium silicates disclosed by Maglio and is associated with a particular intended use of the metal titanosilicate compound. It has been held that “Where…the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on “inherency” under 35 USC 102, on “prima facie obviousness” under 35 USC 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. See In re Brown, 59 CCPA 1036, 459 F.2d 531, 173 USPQ 685 (1972).” In re Best, Bolton and Shaw 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
The Examiner acknowledges Paragraph [0041] and Fig. 3 of the Specification, where Applicant discloses that the lead capacity of the titanium silicates of the prior art (Dodwell et al. U.S. Patent # 5053139) differs from the lead capacity of the instantly claimed metal titanosilicate; however, Dodwell discloses an amorphous titanium silicate that does not have the same form as the crystalline titanosilicate material comprising sodium or potassium as Maglio (see Paragraph [0017]), and there does not appear to be evidence that the titanosilicates of Dodwell are structurally the same as the amorphous titanosilicates of Maglio.
With respect to claims 2 and 21, regarding the limitations “a mercury capacity of at least 25mg/ dry g at 50 ppm of Hg”, the Examiner submits that this is an inherent property of the titanium silicates disclosed by Maglio in view of Noh and is associated with a particular intended use of the metal titanosilicate compound. It has been held that “Where…the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on “inherency” under 35 USC 102, on “prima facie obviousness” under 35 USC 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. See In re Brown, 59 CCPA 1036, 459 F.2d 531, 173 USPQ 685 (1972).” In re Best, Bolton and Shaw 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
With respect to claims 9 and 10, the Examiner submits that Maglio in view of Noh teaches structural sulfur introduced into media from the titanium oxysulfate (“sulfur reactant”) as taught Noh, which is considered to meet the limitations of these claims according to the interpretation taken in the corresponding 112(b) rejections set forth above.
With respect to claims 12 and 24, in addition to containing sulfates, Maglio in view of Noh teaches that the crystalline titanosilicates comprise manganese (see Table II of Maglio).
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 CLARE M PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5952. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Bob 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.
/CLARE M. PERRIN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
/CLARE M PERRIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 31 August 2026
Prosecution Insights