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 Amendment
1. The amendment filed on 07/01/2026 has been made of record and entered.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 12-13, & 18 have been amended.
Claims 1-19 are currently pending in this application for examination.
Status of Withdrawn Claim(s)
2. Claims 16-18 were previously withdrawn from further consideration, they have been rejoined with the elected product claims since the product claims are now found allowable.
3. Claim 19 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (Second Paragraph)
4. 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 4-7 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “one or more metal atoms selected from the group consisting of Al, Mg, Ca, Ba, Mn, or Cu” (line 3), and the claim also recites “the one or more metal atoms are one or more selected from the group consisting of Mg, Ca, or Mn” (last line) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “one or more metal atoms selected from the group consisting of Al, Mg, Ca, Ba, Mn, or Cu” (line 3), and the claim also recites “the one or more metal atoms are one or more selected from the group consisting of Mg or Ca” (last line) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “one or more metal atoms selected from the group consisting of Al, Mg, Ca, Ba, Mn, or Cu” (line 3), and the claim also recites “a total content of the Mg and the Ca in the one or more metal atoms is 0.001 mass% to 1.5 mass%” (last two lines) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
B. Regarding claim 7, the 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.
Response to Applicants’ Arguments
5. Applicants’ remarks submitted with the amendment on 07/01/2026 have been fully reviewed, the amendments to the claims appeared overcome the rejections under Obviousness Double Patenting, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (Second Paragraph), and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) made in the last office action (dated 04/06/2026).
However, the amendments to claims 4-6 raises an issue under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (Second Paragraph) thus a new ground of rejection(s) has been applied. See above for detailed explanation. Claim 7 was previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (Second Paragraph) and is maintained because applicants did not address in their response or overcome this rejection in the amendment filed.
Reasons for Allowance
6. Claims 1-3 & 8-18 are allowable over the prior art made of record. The following is a statement of reason(s) for allowing the claimed subject matter.
As concerned with claims 1-3 & 9-15, the prior art does not teach 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 more metal atoms being intercalated with the one or plural layers of the layered material, wherein the one or plural layers include a layer body represented by:
MmZn
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 claims 1, 12, & 13).
As concerned with claim 8, the prior art does not teach an adsorbent (having a composition and structure as recited in claim 1) and additionally comprises one or more materials selected from a ceramic, a metal, and a resin.
As concerned with claim 16, the prior art does not teach an adsorption sheet comprising an adsorbent (having the composition and structure as recited in claim 1).
As concerned with claim 17, the prior art does not teach a separation film comprising an adsorbent (having the composition and structure as recited in claim 1).
As concerned with claim 18, the prior art does not teach an artificial dialysis equipment comprising an adsorbent (having the composition and structure as recited in claim 1).
There would be no motivation to combine the teachings of the references together to arrive to the claimed invention.
7. 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.
Conclusion
8. Claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 1-3 & 8-18 are allowed. Claims 4-7 are rejected. Claim 19 is withdrawn.
Contacts
9. 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 (8:00 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/
August 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights