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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al (WO 2018175812; hereinafter Nguyen) in view of Bae et al (US 20210118587; hereinafter Bae) and RU 2231838 (hereinafter RU ‘838) or Ishii et al (US 20140194665; hereinafter Ishii).
As regarding claim 11, Nguyen discloses the claimed invention for a method for producing an off-gas filter, the method comprising 3D printing the filter (title and claim 1) from a polymer composition comprising a polymeric matrix and sorbent (abstract).
Nguyen does not disclose a cesium sorbent. Bae teaches a cesium sorbent {for adsorbing and separating radioactive chemical wastes from radioactive chemical waste-containing fluid (including waste water or gas); abstract and [0008], [0096]}. Both Nguyen and Bae are directed to an adsorption member for separating undesired fluid. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a cesium sorbent as taught by Bae in order to adsorbing and separating radioactive chemical waste.
Nguyen as modified does not disclose the cesium sorbent dispersed within the matrix. RU ‘838 teaches the cesium sorbent dispersed within the matrix. Both Nguyen and RU ‘838 are directed to an adsorption element for separating pollutants. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to provide the cesium sorbent dispersed within the matrix as taught by RU ‘838 in order to create a safer, more durable, low-dust, uniform, and easily processed filtration medium that maintains high cesium uptake and prevents the release of sorbent particles.
Nguyen as modified does not disclose a cesium sorbent dispersed within the matrix, wherein 3D printing the filter forms a polymer structure having a portion of the cesium sorbent exposed on a surface of the polymer structure for direct exposure to a vapor stream. Ishii teaches a cesium sorbent dispersed within the matrix, wherein 3D printing the filter forms a polymer structure having a portion of the cesium sorbent exposed on a surface of the polymer structure for direct exposure to a vapor stream ([0048]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to provide a cesium sorbent dispersed within the matrix, wherein 3D printing the filter forms a polymer structure having a portion of the cesium sorbent exposed on a surface of the polymer structure for direct exposure to a vapor stream as taught by Ishii in order to increase direct contact between the sorbent and the vapor or fluid stream, thereby improving cesium adsorption kinetics and sorption efficiency.
Claim(s) 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al (WO 2018175812; hereinafter Nguyen) in view of Bae et al (US 20210118587; hereinafter Bae) and RU 2231838 (hereinafter RU ‘838) or Ishii et al (US 20140194665; hereinafter Ishii), as applied supra, and further in view of Liang et al (US 20200317870; hereinafter Liang).
As regarding claim 12, Nguyen as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Nguyen as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein 3D printing comprises stereolithography. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein 3D printing comprises stereolithography in order to provide strong, durable, support-free printing with high geometric freedom and efficient batch production, making it ideal for functional prototypes and end-use parts, since it was known in the art as shown in Liang ([0002]-[0003] and claim 2).
As regarding claim 13, Nguyen as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Nguyen as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the polymer matrix comprises a photopolymerizable resin (Liang – [0075]).
As regarding claim 14, Nguyen as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Nguyen as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the photopolymerizable resin comprises an acrylate or methacrylate polymer (Liang – [0075]).
Claim(s) 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al (WO 2018175812; hereinafter Nguyen) in view of Bae et al (US 20210118587; hereinafter Bae) and RU 2231838 (hereinafter RU ‘838) or Ishii et al (US 20140194665; hereinafter Ishii), as applied supra, and further in view of Nakamura et al (US 20240140026; hereinafter Nakamura).
As regarding claim 15, Nguyen as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Nguyen as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein 3D printing comprises selective laser sintering. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein 3D printing comprises selective laser sintering in order to produce strong, accurate, highly complex 3D-printed parts without the need for support structures, and provide a powder-supported printing process that delivers excellent mechanical properties, high design freedom, efficient batch production, and minimal post-processing, since it was known in the art as shown in Nakamura ([0054], [0077]).
As regarding claim 16, Nguyen as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Nguyen as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the polymer matrix comprises a polyamide resin (Nakamura – [0077]).
As regarding claim 17, Nguyen as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Nguyen as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the polyamide resin comprises PA11 and/or PA12 (Nakamura – [0077]).
Claim(s) 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al (WO 2018175812; hereinafter Nguyen) in view of Bae et al (US 20210118587; hereinafter Bae) and RU 2231838 (hereinafter RU ‘838) or Ishii et al (US 20140194665; hereinafter Ishii), as applied supra, and further in view of Sakuma et al (US 20200129956; hereinafter Sakuma).
As regarding claim 18, Nguyen as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Nguyen as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the cesium sorbent comprises crystalline silicotitanate particles. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the cesium sorbent comprises crystalline silicotitanate particles in order to selectively and efficiently remove cesium even in harsh, high-salt, and high-radiation environments, provide a rigid, inorganic crystal structure that offers exceptional high cesium selectivity, high ion-exchange capacity, strong chemical and radiation stability, fast sorption kinetics and minimal swelling or leaching, since it was known in the art as shown in Sakuma (abstract, [0045]).
As regarding claim 19, Nguyen as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Nguyen as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the crystalline silicotitanate particles further comprise zirconium hydroxide (Sakuma – [0045]).
As regarding claim 20, Nguyen as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Nguyen as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the crystalline silicotitanate particles have a weight-average particle size less than 45 µm (Sakuma – abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11-20 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights