DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 02/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/17/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 8, 9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kim KR 10-2020-0135655 [translation].
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses an adsorbent composition for organic and inorganic chloride removal (page 3: HCl, Cl2) comprising: a zeolite component consisting essentially of an X type zeolite (page 4: zeolite 13X); a metal oxide component comprising a metal oxide (page 2: zinc oxide); and a metal carbonate component comprising a metal carbonate (page 2: calcium hydrogen carbonate; zinc hydrogen carbonate); wherein the adsorbent composition is free of an alumina component (see Examples: no alumina is present; any alumina in the zeolite is part of the zeolite and not deemed to be a separate alumina component).
Kim does not disclose a saturation capacity for inorganic chloride of 25% or more. Nevertheless, Kim discloses an adsorbent with the same preferred structure as contained in Applicant’s claims/specification; therefore, it is inherent that the adsorbent has an inorganic chloride saturation capacity of 25% or more. See MPEP 2112. In the alternative, absent a proper showing of criticality or unexpected results, since Kim discloses that the adsorbent is utilize for inorganic chloride removal (page 3: HCl, Cl2), the inorganic chloride saturation capacity is considered to be a general condition that would have been routinely optimized by optimizing the ratios of components by one having ordinary skill in the art in order to provide an optimal inorganic chloride adsorbent. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Kim discloses that a metal in the metal oxide component or a metal in the metal carbonate component is zinc (page 2: zinc).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Kim does not explicitly state that the saturation capacity for inorganic chloride is at least twice (or 2.5) the saturation capacity for inorganic chloride of a zeolite adsorbent alone, or at least twice (or 2.5) the saturation capacity for inorganic chloride of an activated alumina adsorbent alone, or greater than the saturation capacity for inorganic chloride of a mixed metal oxide catalyst alone, or combinations thereof. Nevertheless, Kim discloses an adsorbent with the same preferred structure as contained in Applicant’s claims/specification; therefore, it is inherent that the adsorbent has the claimed inorganic chloride saturation capacity. See MPEP 2112. In the alternative, absent a proper showing of criticality or unexpected results, since Kim discloses that the adsorbent is utilize for inorganic chloride removal (page 3: HCl, Cl2), the inorganic chloride saturation capacity is considered to be a general condition that would have been routinely optimized by optimizing the ratios of components by one having ordinary skill in the art in order to provide an optimal inorganic chloride adsorbent. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 14, Kim discloses a surface area of 110 to 400 m2/g (page 6). This anticipates the claimed BET surface area. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the BET surface area, as is well-known in the art. MPEP 2144.03 (A-E). Absent a proper showing of criticality or unexpected results, the BET surface area is considered to be a general condition that would have been routinely optimized by one having ordinary skill in the art in order to provide optimal adsorption. MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 2-7, 10, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim KR 10-2020-0135655 [translation].
Kim is relied upon as above.
Regarding claims 2-5, 10 and 15, Kim does not explicitly disclose the exact claimed amounts or ratios of components in the adsorbent composition. Nevertheless, absent a proper showing of criticality or unexpected results, the amount and ratios of components is considered to be a general condition that would have been routinely optimized by one having ordinary skill in the art in order to provide optimal adsorption. MPEP 2144.05. Kim discloses that the adsorption performance and adsorption amount are stabilized based on the specific content of the components (pages 4 and 6); therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount/ratios of components in the adsorbent. Furthermore, Kim does not disclose either a bulk density of 43 lbs/ft.sup.3 or more or a crush strength of 5.6 lbs or more. Nevertheless, absent a proper showing of criticality or unexpected results, the bulk density and crush strength are considered to be general conditions that would have been routinely optimized by one having ordinary skill in the art in order to provide optimal structural integrity, as is well-known in the art. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Kim does not disclose either the Si:Al ratio or the particle size of the zeolite. Nevertheless, it is well-known in the art to optimize either of these variables and therefore would have been obvious to optimize either of these variables for optimal adsorption. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a zeolite with either the claims Si:Al ratio or the claimed particle size, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 11, Kim discloses a binder component (see claim 1), but does not disclose that the adsorbent comprises 5 to 20 wt% of the binder. Nevertheless, absent a proper showing of criticality or unexpected results, the amount of binder is considered to be a general condition that would have been routinely optimized by one having ordinary skill in the art in order to provide optimal structural integrity of the adsorbent. MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7383. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571)270-7872. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776