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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15, in the reply filed on 01/20/2026 is acknowledged.
2. Claims 16-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/20/2026.
Status of Application
3. This application is a Continuation of PCT/JP2022/000037 (filed on 01/04/2022).
Claims 1-19 were originally presented in this application for examination.
Claims 1-19 are currently pending in this application.
Priority
4. Acknowledgement is made of Applicants’ claim for foreign priority based on applications filed in JAPAN. Receipt of the following certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
JP2021-003541 (filed on 01/13/2021)
JP2021-028821 (filed on 02/25/2021)
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 09/14/2023 and 03/14/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered by the Examiner. An initialed copy accompanies this office action.
Specification
6. The examiner has not checked the specification to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors (grammatical, typographical, and idiomatic). Cooperation of the applicant(s) is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant(s) may become aware of in the specification, in the claims and in any further amendment(s) that applicant(s) may file.
Applicant(s) is also requested to complete the status of the copending applications referred to in the specification by their Attorney Docket Number or Application Serial Number, if any.
The status of the parent application(s) and/or any other application(s) cross-referenced to this application, if any, should be updated in a timely manner.
Drawings
7. The drawings (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, and Fig. 4) submitted on 07/07/2023 have been considered.
Claim Objections
8. Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2, --a group consisting of-- should be inserted after “from”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (Second Paragraph)
9. 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 6 & 7 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.
A. Regarding claim 6, the claim fails to further define the claim limitation on “a total content of the Mg and the Ca in the one or more metal atoms is 0.001 mass% to 1.5 mass%” because Mg and Ca are not mentioned in claim 1 as being used together.
B. Regarding claim 7, the instant claim recites “a Li content is 0.0001 mass% or less”. It is unclear if the claim further defines the adsorbent in claim 1. This claim limitation could be considered as lack of sufficient antecedent basis because Li is not mentioned in claim 1.
Double Patenting
10. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
A. Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 18/598,454 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons.
Copending application teaches the claimed adsorbent. It is considered any additional limitations recited in the copending application or in the instant application would have been an inherent feature and considered being part of the adsorbent disclosed or claimed in view of the same subject matter disclosed and claimed.
B. Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 18/175,981 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons.
Copending application teaches the claimed adsorbent. It is considered any additional limitations recited in the copending application or in the instant application would have been an inherent feature and considered being part of the adsorbent disclosed or claimed in view of the same subject matter disclosed and claimed.
C. Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 18/175,996 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons.
Copending application teaches the claimed adsorbent. It is considered any additional limitations recited in the copending application or in the instant application would have been an inherent feature and considered being part of the adsorbent disclosed or claimed in view of the same subject matter disclosed and claimed.
D. Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 18/299,274 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons.
Copending application teaches the claimed adsorbent. It is considered any additional limitations recited in the copending application or in the instant application would have been an inherent feature and considered being part of the adsorbent disclosed or claimed in view of the same subject matter disclosed and claimed.
E. Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/348,151 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons.
Copending application teaches the claimed adsorbent. It is considered any additional limitations recited in the copending application or in the instant application would have been an inherent feature and considered being part of the adsorbent disclosed or claimed in view of the same subject matter disclosed and claimed.
F. Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of copending Application No. 18/616,605 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons.
Copending application teaches the claimed adsorbent. It is considered any additional limitations recited in the copending application or in the instant application would have been an inherent feature and considered being part of the adsorbent disclosed or claimed in view of the same subject matter disclosed and claimed.
G. Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of copending Application No. 18/915,818 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons.
Copending application teaches the claimed adsorbent. It is considered any additional limitations recited in the copending application or in the instant application would have been an inherent feature and considered being part of the adsorbent disclosed or claimed in view of the same subject matter disclosed and claimed.
H. Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 18/311,519 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons.
Copending application teaches the claimed adsorbent. It is considered any additional limitations recited in the copending application or in the instant application would have been an inherent feature and considered being part of the adsorbent disclosed or claimed in view of the same subject matter disclosed and claimed.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
11. 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, & 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Voigt et al. “Anion Adsorption, Ti3C2Tz MXene Multilayers, and Their Effect on Claylike Swelling”.
The claimed invention relates to an adsorbent comprising:
particles of a layered material including one or plural layers; and
one or more metal atoms selected from the group consisting of Al, Mg, Ca, Ba, Mn, or Cu, wherein the one or plural layers include a layer body represented by:
MmXₙ
wherein M is at least one metal of Group 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7,
X is a carbon atom, a nitrogen atom, or a combination thereof,
n is 1 to 4, and
m is more than n and 5 or less, and
a modifier or terminal T exists on a surface of the layer body, wherein T is at least one selected from the group consisting of a hydroxyl group, a fluorine atom, a chlorine atom, an oxygen atom, or a hydrogen atom, and
wherein the M of the layer body is bonded to at least one selected from the group consisting of a chlorine atom, a phosphorus atom, an iodine atom, or a sulfur atom (as recited in the instant claim 1).
Voigt et al. discloses a two-dimensional multilayered (ML) MXene with a formula Mₙ₊₁XₙT₂ where M is transitional metal including Ti, V, Mo, Nb, and Cr; X is carbon and/or nitrogen; n is 1, 2, or 3; T is a surface termination - OH, -F, and -0 (see p. 2, Introduction Section, Left Column). Voigt et al. also discloses that the two-dimensional multilayered, i.e., Ti₃C₂T₂, is etched with anion selected from a group including PO₄³⁻ and SO4²⁻ (see p. 3, “High-Anion-Concentration Ti₃C₂T₂ Synthesis”). When PO₄³⁻ and SO₄²⁻ are etched to Ti₃C₂T₂, the PO4³⁻ and SO₄²⁻ are bonded to the Ti layer (claimed M metal layer) of the multilayered.
Regarding claims 1-2 & 12-13, Voigt et al. teaches the claimed adsorbent comprising the same composition and structure as claimed (see p. 2, Introduction Section, Left Column).
Regarding claim 3, Voigt e al. teaches the PO₄³⁻ and SO₄²⁻ are bonded to the Ti layer (claimed M metal layer) of the multilayered, meeting the claim limitation. See p. 3, “High-Anion-Concentration Ti₃C₂T₂ Synthesis”.
Regarding claim 7, with regards to the claim limitation on “a Li content is 0.0001 mass% or less”, since Voigt et al. does not disclose or use a lithium-containing component to synthesize the two-dimensional particle (see p. 3, “High-Anion-Concentration Ti₃C₂T₂ Synthesis”), therefore the two-dimensional particle of Voigt et al. is considered be Li free and is less than 0.0001 mass% as claimed.
Regarding claim 9, the two-dimensional multilayered material of Voigt et al. has a sheet-like structure as claimed (see Abstract, p. 3, line 7, & drawings on p. 7).
Regarding the intended use limitations in claims 10-15, it is considered the two-dimensional multilayered material disclosed by Voigt et al. would have the same use (for adsorbing urea, uremic toxin, a dye, polar organic compound, hydroxyl group and amino group, ammonia, etc.), and capable of doing the same thing because it is the same adsorbent material.
The reference specifically or inherently meets each of the claimed limitations, thus the reference is anticipatory.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claim 4-6 & 8 are 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. Also, the claims would be allowable if the rejections under the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (second paragraph) and Obviousness Double Patenting (ODP) rejections are overcome.
As concerned with claims 4-6, Voigt et al. teaches the claimed adsorbent recited in the instant claim 1, however he does not teach “the one or more metal atoms are one or more selected from the group consisting of Mg, Ca, or Mn” and “the total content of the Mg and the Ca in the one or more metal atoms is 0.001 mass% to 1.5 mass%”.
As concerned with claim 8, Voigt et al. teaches the claimed adsorbent recited in the instant claim 1, however he does not teach the two-dimensional multilayered material disclosed comprises “one or more materials selected from a group consisting of ceramic, a metal, and a resin”.
There would be no motivation to combine the teachings of the prior art references together to arrive to the claimed invention.
Citations
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. All references are cited for related art. See PTO-892 Form prepared.
Conclusion
14. Claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 1-15 are rejected. Claims 16-19 are withdrawn. No claims are allowed.
Contacts
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner CAM N. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1357. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (8:30 am – 5:00 pm) at alternative worksite or at cam.nguyen@uspto.gov.
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, Anthony Zimmer, can be reached at 571-270-3591. The 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/Cam N. Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/CNN/
April 01, 2026
Prosecution Insights