DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This Office action is based on the amendment filed 1 September 2026 for the 18/410,595 application, which is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendments to claims 8-13 and 24-26 are noted.
Claims 1-27 are pending and have been fully considered.
Response to Amendment
Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: said claim recites “…removes at least 90 percent the nitrogen oxide compound and the of the toluene” in the last line of the claim. The clause(s) in quotations need(s) to be corrected to contain the appropriate prepositional phrases. For example, perhaps the claim should recite “…removes at least 90 percent of the nitrogen oxide compound and the Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al (CN 109111994).
Note: in the discussion that follows, reference will be made to the English-language machine translation of the aforesaid reference by the World Intellectual Property Organization.
With respect to claims 1, 3-5, and 18, Jiang et al discloses “[t]he KOH-K2CO3-Al2O3 solid mixed base catalyst was prepared by an impregnation method. K2CO3 in an amount of 0.05 mol KOH and different substances was placed in a 100 mL beaker, and the mass ratio of KOH and K2CO3 was 1:(1-5) adding 30 mL of water to prepare an aqueous solution, then adding 0.1 mol of nano-Al2O3, stirring and heating at 60°C until the moisture evaporates to dryness, then transferring the obtained solid to an evaporation dish, placing into an oven, baking at 120°C for 12 h, grinding, sieving, and then calcining in a muffle furnace for 1-5 h, the calcination temperature being 300-700°C to obtain a KOH-K2CO3-Al2O3 solid mixed base catalyst” [see section under the heading “2.1 Preparation of KOH-K2CO3-Al2O3 Solid Mixed Base Catalyst” on page 3 of the translation]. Compare to the method of preparation of the porous adsorbent of the instant application: “[b]y other variations of a wet impregnation technique,…a single aqueous solution that contains both potassium hydroxide and potassium carbonate may be applied in a single application, then dried…A step of drying the applied aqueous solution may be performed at any useful temperature and for an amount of time that will be effective to fully remove water from the aqueous solution, e.g., a temperature in a range of 100 to 200 degrees Celsius, and an amount of time in a range of multiple hours (e.g., in a range from 5 to 20 hours)” [paragraphs 0038 & 0041 of the published application]. Consequently, while Jiang et al does not appear to explicitly disclose that the potassium hydroxide and potassium carbonate are at the surfaces of the adsorbent base, since the method of preparation is similar (i.e., wet impregnation with a single aqueous solution followed by drying at similar temperatures and drying times), it is expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that the KOH and K2CO3 are present at least on the surface of the Al2O3 and that the catalyst “exhibits increased capacity to adsorb nitrogen dioxide (NO2) compared to a comparable adsorbent that comprises potassium carbonate and no potassium hydroxide” as required in instant claim 4 and the catalyst “exhibits reduced release of derivative acid of adsorbed nitrogen dioxide compared to a comparable adsorbent that comprises potassium carbonate and no potassium hydroxide” as required in instant claim 5. Further, note, that the instant application states “[e]xamples of adsorbent materials that may be useful as a porous adsorbent base include known types of porous adsorbent materials, e.g.: carbon-based adsorption media, polymeric adsorption media, silica, etc. Specific examples include metal organic frameworks (“MOF”), specifically including zeolitic imidazolate framework (“ZIF”) adsorbents; zeolites (aluminosilicates), silica and silica-based particles; alumina and alumina-based particles; and porous carbon adsorbent particles…” [paragraph 0031 of the published application]. Therefore, the alumina base of the catalyst of Jiang et al corresponds to the porous adsorbent base of the instant application.
With respect to claims 2 and 17, Jiang et al discloses “[t]he supported solid base catalyst is mainly used for carriers such as activated carbon, MgO, Al2O3, CaO, ZrO2, and TiO2” [see last paragraph on page 1 of translation]. Therefore, activated carbon would have been an obvious substitute catalyst base.
With respect to claims 6-7 and 14-16, as previously discussed, Jiang et al discloses a different order of adding KOH and K2CO3. However, applicant is reminded that the “selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results.” In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330. Indeed, applicant explicitly discloses the equivalence of different orders of adding KOH and K2CO3 in paragraphs 0037-0038 of the published application. With respect to the temperature requirement in claim 16, it appears that the “prepar[ation of] an aqueous solution, then adding 0.1 mol of nano-Al2O3, [then] stirring…” [see discussion of such above] occurs at room temperature.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1 September 2026 concerning the rejection under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued “[t]he Non-Final Office Action cited Strydom et al. as evidence that KOH decomposes at approximately 380 to 406 degrees Celsius according to the reaction: 2KOH(s) -> K2O(s) + H2O(g). The Rejection relied on this decomposition threshold to exclude Zhong et al. (CN 101777652), whose 800 degrees Celsius activation temperature would destroy KOH. The same reasoning applies with equal force to Jiang.
Jiang identifies 600 degrees Celsius as the optimal calcination temperature, stating that catalyst performance is optimal at a KOH:K2CO3 mass ratio of 1:4 and a calcination temperature of 600 degrees Celsius for 4 hours (see Jiang, Conclusions, items (1) and (2); Section 3.2 and Figure 3). Both of Jiang's disclosed preparation methods use 600 degrees Celsius calcination in their working examples. At 600 degrees Celsius, well above the 380-406 degrees Celsius decomposition threshold, all KOH would decompose to K2O and H2O. Jiang's product therefore contains K2O/K2CO3/Al2O3, not KOH/K2CO3/Al2O3. A person of ordinary skill following Jiang would use the optimal 600 degrees Celsius conditions and would have no reason to select a suboptimal lower temperature to preserve KOH in hydroxide form, because Jiang provides no motivation to do so.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the argument disregards the explicit teachings within the reference as to the presence of KOH/K2CO3/Al2O3 [see, e.g., the Title: “Method of preparing biodiesel by catalyzing cottonseed oil with KOH-K2CO3-Al2O3 solid mixed base”; see also the abstract: “[t]he present invention relates to the technical field of biodiesel manufacturing. In particular, KOH-K2CO3-Al2O3 solid mixed base catalyzed cottonseed oil to prepare biodiesel”; see, also, the preparation method under the heading “2.1 Preparation of KOH-K2CO3-Al2O3 Solid Mixed Base Catalyst,” which states “[t]The KOH-K2CO3-Al2O3 solid mixed base catalyst was prepared by an impregnation method. K2CO3 in an amount of 0.05 mol KOH and different substances was placed in a 100 mL beaker with a mass ratio of KOH to K2CO3 of 1:(1-5) 30 mL of water was added to prepare an aqueous solution, then 0.1 mol of nano-Al2O3 was added, the mixture was stirred and heated at 60°C until the moisture was evaporated to dryness, and then the obtained solid was transferred into an evaporation dish, placed in an oven, baked at 120°C for 12 h, ground, sieved, and finally placed in a muffle furnace for 1-5 h, and the calcination temperature was 300-700°C to obtain a KOH-K2CO3-Al2O3 solid mixed base catalyst. The mass ratio of KOH/K2CO3 is screened out by the size of the conversion rate of the transesterification reaction with the cottonseed oil, and then the mass ratio of the substance and the calcination time of the 3 h are taken as the fixed variable, the roasting temperature is a single variable, the roasting temperature is set to 300° C. 400° C. 500° C. 600° C. 700° C…”]. Therefore, contrary to applicant’s assertion that “[b]oth of Jiang's disclosed preparation methods use 600 degrees Celsius calcination in their working examples,” clearly the preparation method disclosed in 2.1 uses calcination (roasting) temperatures of 300o C and 400o C. Applicant argues that the reference teaches the presence of something that the reference never mentions, namely, K2O (see argument above: “Jiang's product therefore contains K2O/K2CO3/Al2O3”) and argues that something that the reference clearly discloses is present, KOH, is not present. Such argument is not persuasive.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-13 and 19-27 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: see the prior non-final Office action dated 1 June 2026.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRIAN A MCCAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5548. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8 to 4:30 Mountain Time.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/BRIAN A MCCAIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
14 October 2026
