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 in the reply filed on 11/10/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-12, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kogawa (US PG Pub 2020/0360915), in view of Nadagouda (US PG Pub 2021/0130251), or Nadagouda in view of Kogawa.
With respect to claim 1, Kogawa teaches a porous shaped body for removing ions from water (a water-permeable water contaminant adsorbing structure) comprising an inorganic ion adsorbent (abstract, 0024-0048), having a specific surface area calculated by BET of 50-400 m2/g (0028, 0067-0068, a multiBET surface area of at least 20 m2/g), particles aggregate (0144, 0174), the inorganic ion adsorbent includes at least one metal oxide, which can be activated alumina and/or at least one metal carbonate (0042-0048, comprising activated alumina and a substantially water insoluble metal carbonate), pore diameters of 1-20 nm (abstract, 0024-0027, nanopores) and, the porous body can take a variety of forms depending on the method of shaping (0206, formed into a user desired shape), able to remove ions, especially phosphate ions, in water (0001, adsorbs at least one of phosphate and ammonia).
Kogawa does not explicitly teach the metal carbonate is a water insoluble carbonate.
Nadagouda teaches aggregated adsorbent structures for removal of phosphates and ammonia (abstract, 0006, 0023, 0066, Cl. 1), water insoluble carbonates possess a relatively high surface area per given volume due to their porosity (0058) forming pellets with a BET of 26 m2/g (at least 20 m2/g, 0066) and nanopores (0023).
Nadagouda does not teach activated alumina.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use insoluble carbonates as Kogawa’s carbonate as according to Nadagouda water insoluble carbonates possess a relatively high surface area per given volume due to their porosity (0058), or alternatively to modify Nadagouda’s taught adsorbent to include activated alumina as according to Kogawa activated alumina provides advantages of low cost and high absorbability (0127-0128).
With respect to claims 2-4, the structure of claim 1 is taught above. The taught combination teaches the structure of claim 1. Kogawa is silent as to the aggregate is comprised of at least 50% activated alumina, at least 75% activated alumina, approximately 90% activated alumina. However, since the specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific amount of amount of alumina is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the amount of alumina is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of ratio of oxide to carbonate, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of alumina and carbonates to obtain the desired adsorption performance (0134) (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
With respect to claims 5, 6, the structure of claim 1, is taught above. Kogawa teaches specific surface area calculated by BET of 50-400 m2/g (0028, 0067-0068), Nadagouda teaches at least 30 m2/g (Claim 2), wherein said aggregate has a multiBET surface area of at least 25 m2/g, at least 30 m2/g).
With respect to claim 7, the structure of claim 1, the taught combination teaches wherein said metal carbonate is at least one of magnesium carbonate and lanthanum carbonate Kogawa (0047), Nadagouda (0024).
With respect to claim 8, the structure of claim 1, is taught above. Examiner notes that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See MPEP 2113.
Additionally, Kogawa teaches the porous shaped body is produced by drying the ion adsorbent to form a powder, creating a slurry with a polymer (0168-0196 produced by the process of a. creating a slurry by mixing a diluent, powdered activated alumina, at least one of a powdered metal carbonate and a binder-metal carbonate mixture), shaping the slurry (0205-0214, b. forming preliminary structure by forming said slurry into a shape);
Nadagouda teaches dilution, a slurry, a binder (0049-0055, produced by the process of a. creating a slurry by mixing a diluent, at least one of a powdered metal carbonate and a binder-metal carbonate mixture), and calcining (0006, 0051-0056, c. calcining said preliminary structure so that only said activated alumina and said metal carbonate substantially remains).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calcine the adsorbent as according to Nadagouda calcining removes substantially all of the binder and increases the available surface area for the adsorption of phosphates (0006).
With respect to claims 9 and 10, the structure of claim 8, is taught above. The taught combination teaches the recited structure, absent clarification of structural differences, that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See MPEP 2113.
Additionally, Nadagouda teaches slurries of 45% deionized water by mass (0050, Cl. 6,7), Kogawa teaches slurries comprising water (0164-0171), wherein said slurry is formed by the process of: a. adding 10% to 50% water by mass to said powdered sorbents, each of Kogawa and Nadagouda teach drying and shaping as discussed above.
With respect to claim 11, the structure of claim 9, is taught above. Kogawa teaches the use of organic polymers and cellulose (0150-0151), Nadagouda teaches organic polymers and cellulose (Cl. 8), wherein said binder is selected from the group consisting of cellulose and organic polymers.
With respect to claim 12, the structure of claim 1, is taught above. Nadagouda teaches pellets formed into beds, including cylindrical pellets (0007, 0051-0059), Kogawa teaches a column filled with porous shaped bodies (0050), spherical and cylindrical particles (0030, 0086), wherein said structure is a bed of pellets wherein each pellet is shaped as at least one of substantially cylindrical pellets and substantially spherical pellets.
With respect to claim 22, the structure of claim 1, is taught above. Nadagouda teaches contaminated pellets that contain captured phosphates and/or ammonia may be ground and utilized as a slow-release fertilizer (0060, wherein said structure is pulverized to create a fertilizer after it has adsorbed at least one of phosphorous and ammonia).
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kogawa (US PG Pub 2020/0360915), in view of Nadagouda (US PG Pub 2021/0130251), or Nadagouda in view of Kogawa, in view of Pritchett (US PG Pub 2007/0037702).
With respect to claims 2-4, the structure of claim 1 is taught above. The taught combination teaches the structure of claim 1. Kogawa is silent as to the aggregate is comprised of at least 50% activated alumina, at least 75% activated alumina, approximately 90% activated alumina.
Prichett teaches an adsorbent formed from by mixing activated alumina solids and solid salts of alkali metals, alkaline earth metals or ammonium ion (abstract) alkali metal salts preferably carbonates, in amounts from 0.5-10 wt% (0029), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kogawa’s taught adsorbent to include the ratio of activated alumina and metal carbonate as taught by Pritchett as when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference, the recited ratios are known for use in adsorbents as shown by Pritchett, and the courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yang CN102600796A, activated alumina and metal carbonates
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEANNIE MCDERMOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-4479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00 EST.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 571-272-0579. 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.
/JEANNIE MCDERMOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/BRADLEY R SPIES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777