DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action follows a reply filed on 03/04/2026. Per the reply, claims 1, 10, 12-13, and 36 have been amended and new claims 39-53 added. No claims have been cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1-53 are currently pending and under examination herein.
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 .
Withdrawn Rejections
The outstanding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/103 over Kooli is withdrawn in view of the amendments to claims 1 and 36, and Applicant’s arguments, see page 15, filed 03/04/2026.
The outstanding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Ochi is withdrawn in view of the amendments to claims 1 and 36, and Applicant’s arguments, see pages 16-21, filed 03/04/2026.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102/103
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 14-15, 36-37, 39, 50, and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lan et al (US 6262162 B1) (‘Lan’).
Regarding Claims 1, 4-5, 36, 39, and 50: Lan describes the formation of a double-charged onium ion-modified montmorillonite clay [for claim 4], wherein the onium ion is a double-charged quaternary ammonium cation (see col. 23, Example 3). The onium-ion modified montmorillonite clay was formed by contacting in a first liquid carrier (water), a colloidal smectite clay (montmorillonite as species) and DuoquadT50 (a cationic surfactant as per col. 13, line 40 et seq.) [for claim 5] to provide a slurry of the smectite heteroadduct in the first liquid carrier (col. 23, ll. 46-54; T50 solution introduced to clay dispersion in water, and col. 11, lines 41-44; smectite clay slurried in water and multi-charged spacing/coupling agent dissolved in the clay slurry water).
As in the present invention, the contacting step in Lan Example 3 occurred in the absence of any other reactant (apart from DuoquadT50) and the obtained solid was subject to a “particle size reduction” (col. 23, ll. 58-59), also described in Lan claim 6 as “grinding the smectite clay to a desired particle size distribution” (corresponding to “a grinding granulation process” as per claims 39, 50). Thus, the described onium-ion modified montmorillonite material was prepared from the same components and according to the same method steps as the instant activator-support product. Therefore, although Lan does not explicitly describe the material as a "support-activator" or "smectite heteroadduct" as per present claims 1 and 36, the Office has a plausible basis for inferring that at least this material will intrinsically possess such claimed characteristics. Hence, the onus is shifted to Applicant to establish that the product claimed in Claim 1 and made according to Claim 36 is not the same as or obvious from that set forth by the reference. Once a reference teaching a product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the applicants to show an unobvious difference (MPEP 2112).
Regarding Claims 3 and 36, Lan further describes isolating the smectite heteroadduct from the first liquid carrier (col. 23, Example 3: The mixture (of T50 solution and Na-montmorillonite clay dispersion) maintained at 75oC for about 30 min., followed by a de-watering process, such as filtration; and col. 27, claim 6: separating the ion-exchanged smectite clay from the carrier).
Regarding Claims 14-15 and 53, it is acknowledged that Lan does not characterize the onium-ion modified montmorillonite clay product of Example 3 in terms of the claimed properties of average particle sphericity, average particle roundness or average particle circularity; however, Lan teaches making the aforementioned product from the same components and according to the same method steps as the instant activator-support product, as discussed above. Therefore, the claimed particle properties are reasonably presumed to implicitly result from practice of the clay treatment procedure described in Lan. Where, as here, there is sound basis for believing that the products of the Applicant and the prior art are the same, the Applicant has the burden of showing that they are not. In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-4, and 36 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 6-13, 16-35, 38, 40-49, and 51-52 are deemed free of the prior art.
Claims 10-13, 16-35, 44-49 are allowed.
Claims 2, 6-9, 38, 40-43, 51-52 are objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner F. M. Teskin whose telephone number is (571) 272-1116. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Robert Jones, can be reached at (571) 270-7733. The appropriate fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/FRED M TESKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/FMTeskin/03-21-26
.