DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-19 are pending
Claims 13-19 are withdrawn
Claims 1-12 are rejected
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on April 15, 2026 is acknowledged.
3. Claims 13-19 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 15, 2026.
Claim Interpretation
4. Claim 3 - lines 1-2, claim 7 - line 1, claim 8 - line 1, claim 9 - line 1, claim 10 - line 1 each recite the phrase “mesopores”. The examiner interprets that the phrase refers to pores with a wide array of shapes and sizes (specification, [0014]), and is not limited to 2-50 nm.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 4-7, 9-10 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
6. In order to provide further clarity, it is suggested to amend “the matrix” to “the carbonaceous matrix” in claim 4 - line 2, claim 7 - line 2, and claim 7 - line 3.
7. In order to provide further clarity, it is suggested to amend “the range” to “the range of the total weight percentage of iron and palladium based upon the matrix” in claim 5 - line 1 and claim 6 - line 1.
8. In order to provide further clarity, it is suggested to amend “the mesopores” to “the plurality of mesopores” in claim 9 - line 1 and claim 10 - line 1.
9. In order to provide further clarity, it is suggested to amend “the range” to “the range of the molar ratio of iron to palladium in the clusters” in claim 12, line 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
10. 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.
11. Claim 10 is 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.
12. Claim 10 recites the term, “maximum span”. However, it is unclear what the maximum span refers to, i.e., pore diameter, pore limiting diameter, etc. refers to. The examiner interprets the phrase refers to as pore limiting diameter. Interpretation is speculative. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
13. 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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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.
14. Claims 1-3, 7-8, and 11 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Choi et al., Synthesis of Reactive Nano-Fe/Pd Bimetallic System-Impregnated Activated Carbon for the Simultaneous Adsorption and Dechlorination of PCBs (Choi).
15. Regarding claims 1-3, Choi teaches a granular activated carbon (i.e. carbonaceous matrix) (GAC) composite (i.e. a material) incorporated with iron/palladium (Fe/Pd) bimetallic nanoparticles (Choi, Abstract)
wherein physical adsorption of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (i.e. organo halogen compounds) to GAC and their electrochemical dechlorination by Fe/Pd bimetallic nanoparticles on the GAC is achieved (Choi, Abstract).
Choi further teaches macro- and mesopores (i.e. plurality of mesopores) of the GAC composite are well occupied by agglomerated zero valence iron/Pd (ZVI/Pd) particles (i.e. clusters of iron and palladium) in a GAC matrix (i.e. the clusters are inside at least a portion of the mesopores) (Choi, p. 3653, Fig. 3 caption).
16. Regarding claim 7, Choi further teaches the mesopores of the GAC matrix were well-distributed (Choi, Abstract)
wherein Fe particles (i.e. non-carbonaceous agents) are shown to be completely impregnated into the GAC matrix (i.e. non-carbonaceous agents residing in the carbonaceous matrix) rather than just sitting on the GAC matrix (Choi, p. 3653, right column, first paragraph)
wherein Pd nanoislands are on the surface of GAC/Fe matrix (Choi, p. 3653, right column, first paragraph).
17. Regarding claim 8, Choi further teaches the mesoporous structure of the GAC composite is well occupied by ZVI/Pd particles (i.e. clusters of iron and palladium) partially block the route to inner tiny pores (i.e. mesopores include depressed regions along an exterior surface of the material) (Choi, p. 3652, left column, Physical Structure).
18. Regarding claim 11, Choi further teaches the content of metal content of the GAC composite (i.e. the material) is 14.4% Fe and 0.68% Pd (Choi, p. 3652, Table 1)
wherein a molar amount of Fe is 0.26 mol (i.e. 14.4% Fe = (14.4 g Fe * (1 mol / 55.845 g) = 0.26 mol) and a molar amount of Pd is 0.0064 mol (i.e. 0.68 % Pd = (0.68 g Pd * (1 mol / 106.42 g) = 0.0064 mol)
wherein the molar ratio of iron to palladium is 40.6 (i.e. 0.26/0.0064), which falls within the claimed range.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
19. 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
20. Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Berkowitz et al. (US 20090127208 A1) (Berkowitz).
21. Regarding claims 4-6, Choi further teaches the GAC/ZVI/Pd composition with a metal content (i.e. weight percent) of 0.68% Pd and 14.4% Fe (i.e. total weight percentage of iron and palladium based upon the matrix).
However, Choi does not teach the total weight percentage of iron and palladium based upon the matrix is within a range of from 10% to 0.01%.
With respect to the difference, Berkowitz teaches a zero valent metal composite for catalytically treating contaminated water (Berkowitz, Abstract) via reductive dehalogenation (Berkowitz, [0062]) (i.e. a material for degrading organo halogen compounds)
wherein the zero valent metal composite includes powdered diatomite matrix incorporated with nanometer sized particles of zero valent transition metals with examples of combinations such as iron and palladium (Berkowitz, Abstract)
Given that Berkowitz discloses the Zero valent metal composite that overlaps the presently claimed material for degrading organo halogen compounds, including zero valent iron and palladium transition metals, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the zero valent iron and palladium transition metals, which is both disclosed by Berkowitz and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Berkowitz further teaches the weight percent of the iron and palladium zero valent metal particles incorporated on the powdered diatomite matrix of the zero valent metal composite is in a range of between about 0.1% and about 20%, which overlaps with the claimed ranges
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Berkowitz expressly teaches effective treatment and remediation techniques need to be developed and implemented in order to meet stringent water quality standards (Berkowitz, [0097])
wherein a system for catalytically treating contaminated water containing a catalytically effective amount of the zero valent metal composite is employed (Berkowitz, [0162]) to reduce environmental and health risks associated with undesirable contaminants in various forms of water (Berkowitz, [0097) such as halogenated organic compounds (Berkowitz, [0098]).
Choi and Berkowitz are analogous art as they are all drawn to materials for degrading organo halogen compounds.
In light of the motivation for effective treatment and remediation techniques as disclosed by Berkowitz, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a weight percent of the iron and palladium zero valent metal particles incorporated on the powdered diatomite matrix of the zero valent metal composite in a range of between about 0.1% and about 20%, in the granular activated carbon (i.e. carbonaceous matrix) (GAC) composite (i.e. a material) incorporated with iron/palladium (Fe/Pd) bimetallic nanoparticles of Choi, in order to reduce environmental and health risks associated with undesirable contaminants in various forms of water such as halogenated organic compounds, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
22. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Ng et al., One-step activation towards spontaneous etching of hollow and hierarchical porous carbon nanospheres for enhanced pollutant adsorption and energy storage (Ng).
23. Regarding claim 9, Choi further teaches physical adsorption of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from contaminated sites to the GAC matrix (Choi, Abstract).
However, Choi does not teach wherein the plurality of mesopores include interior hollow regions or cavities of the material.
With respect to the difference, Ng teaches porous carbon (i.e. a carbonaceous material) with a hollow framework for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) adsorption (Ng, Abstract)
wherein hollow carbon nanospheres (HCNs) structures were obtained (Ng, p. 534, left column, last paragraph) with uniform mesopores (Ng, p. 536, left column, first paragraph) to result in a hierarchical pore structure (Ng. p. 536, left column last paragraph).
Ng expressly teaches the hollow framework allows for enhanced adsorption of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (Ng, Abstract)
wherein a hollow interior (macropores) has a high surface to volume ratio leading enhanced transport diffusion, thereby improving the surface adsorption of VOCs (Ng, p. 533, right column, first paragraph).
Choi and Ng are analogous art as they are all drawn to carbonaceous materials for contaminant adsorption.
In light of the motivation for enhanced volatile organic compounds (VOCs) adsorption as disclosed by Ng, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include porous carbon (i.e. a carbonaceous material) with a hollow framework in the granular activated carbon (i.e. carbonaceous matrix) (GAC) composite (i.e. a material) incorporated with iron/palladium (Fe/Pd) bimetallic nanoparticles of Choi, in order to improving the surface adsorption of VOCs, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
24. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Choi.
25. Regarding claim 10, Choi further teaches the mesopores of the GAC composite ((Choi, p. 3651, Scheme 1(a) - caption) have a pore size of 7-40 nm (i.e. pore diameter is less than 100 microns) ((Choi, p. 3651, Scheme 1(a)).
Given Choi discloses a mesopore size of less than 100 microns, the mesopores of Choi would by default meet the average pore limiting diameter is less than 100 microns, which overlaps with the claimed range.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
26. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Zhuang et al. Debromination and Sorption of Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers by Nanoscale Zero Valent Iron and its Composites (Zhuang).
27. Regarding claim 12, Choi does not teach the material of claim 11 wherein the range is from 100 to 50.
With respect to the difference, Zhuang teaches impregnation of nanoscale zerovalent iron (Zhuang, Title) doped with palladium (nZVI/Pd) (Zhuang, p. 3, paragraph 2) onto activated carbon (i.e. a carbonaceous matrix) (nZVI/Pd-AC) in dehalogenation reactions (Zhuang, p. 49, paragraph 2) (i.e. a material for degrading organohalogen compounds)
wherein the total weight percent composition of Fe and Pd in nZVI/Pd-AC is 12.8 % to 17% (Fet is 14 ± 2 and Fe0 is 1 ± 0.2) and 0.28 % to 0.32% (Pd is 0.30 ± 0.02), respectively (Zhuang, p. 53, Table 4.1).
Zhuang further teaches assuming 100 g of material an Fe molar range of 0.23 (i.e. 12.8 g * (1 mol / 55.85 g) = 0.23 mol) to 0.30 mol (i.e. 17.0 g * (1 mol / 55.85 g) = 0.30 mol) and a Pd molar range of 0.0026 mol (i.e. 0.28 g * (1 mol / 106.42 g) = 0.0026 mol) to 0.0030 mol (i.e. 0.32 g * (1 mol / 106.42 g) = 0.0030 mol) (Zhuang, p. 53, Table 4.1)
wherein the molar ratio of Fe to Pd is 76.7 (0.23 mol Fe / 0.0030 mol Pd) to 115.4 (0.309 mol Fe / 0.0026 mol Pd), which overlaps with the claimed range.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Zhuang expressly teaches the importance in minimizing the Pd loading (i.e. molar ratio of Fe/Pd) while maintaining satisfactory catalytic activity (Zhuang, p. 37, paragraph 2);
wherein the addition of Pd to water may cause environmental problems (Zhuang, p. 37, paragraph 2)
wherein optimum palladium loading of 0.3 Pd/Fe wt% is due to the combined result of a limited palladium surface, excessive hydrogen bubble formation and iron corrosion was observed to maximize the activity of nZVI/Pd in debromination (Zhuang, p. 70, paragraph 1).
Choi and Zhuang are analogous art as they are all drawn to materials for degrading organo halogen compounds.
In light of the motivation for minimizing the Pd loading (i.e. molar ratio of Fe/Pd) while maintaining satisfactory catalytic activity as disclosed by Zhuang, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a molar ratio of Fe to Pd is 76.7 to 115.4 in the granular activated carbon (i.e. carbonaceous matrix) (GAC) composite (i.e. a material) incorporated with iron/palladium (Fe/Pd) bimetallic nanoparticles of Choi, in order to maximize the activity of nZVI/Pd in debromination and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
28. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Remy Frederic Lalisse whose telephone number is (571)272-1819. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 - 5.
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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at (571)270-5713. 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.
/R.F.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights