DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group II, claims 11 – 19, in the reply filed on March 17, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 12, 14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0188835 to England (hereinafter referred to as England).
In regard to claim 12, it is firstly noted that the claim is a “product-by-process” claim reciting a “porous reinforced adsorbent fiber prepared by the method of claim 11”. To read on the claim, the reference only needs to recite a fiber having the same structure and not the specific method steps of claim 11.
England discloses a fiber, as discussed in paragraph [0021], having a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) core and a polycyclohexylenedimethylene terephthalate (PCT) clad around the core. An additive, such as a metal zeolite, is included in the PCT clad. The PET core can be considered to form a reinforcing thread and the PCT clad forms a water insoluble polymer with an active adsorbent. Therefore, the fiber of England is considered to have the same structure as a fiber formed by the method of claim 11 in the present application.
In regard to claim 14, as discussed above, the active adsorbent can be a solid metal zeolite particle.
In regard to claim 17, as discussed above, the PET core forms the reinforcing thread. The core can be considered a monofilament.
In regard to claim 18, the solvent used relates to the method of making the fiber. There is no evidence the solvent remains in the fiber once it is formed. The fiber of England is considered to have all of the structural features required by the fiber of claim 12 of the present application.
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.
Claims 11, 12, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/126194 to Coignet et al. (hereinafter referred to as Coignet).
In regard to claim 11, Coignet discloses a method for preparing a porous reinforced adsorbent fiber, as discussed in page 11, line 23 to page 12, line 3. The method comprises: co-extruding a first solution and a reinforcing thread (see the carbon fibers and the glass fibers as inorganic filler in the polymer matrix), the first solution containing a water insoluble polymer (see polymers of claim 20) and an active adsorbent (see claim 1 which recites “sorbent particles in polymer matrix”); bringing into contact the first solution with a coagulation solution to form a solid reinforced fiber (see page 12, lines 1 – 2 which recite “Coagulating the extruded fiber within a coagulant bath so as to remove the polymer-solvent and solidify the matrix adsorbent-polymer.”). Coignet does not specifically disclose the coagulation bath to include an aqueous solution. As discussed on page 19, lines 10 – 12, Coignet discloses “The coagulation bath (also known as the coagulant) constitutes a non-solvent or a poor solvent for the polymer while at the same time a good solvent for the solvent within the core spin dope composition.”. Predictably, an aqueous solution would work as the coagulant as the polymers used are not soluble in water, as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose an aqueous solution as the coagulant in Coignet as such a solution is a non-solvent for water insoluble polymer which predictably would allow for the polymer to solidify. It is noted that the further washing and drying steps are optional.
In regard to claim 12, the fiber formed by modified Coignet is considered a porous reinforced adsorbent fiber prepared by the method of claim 11 of the present application.
In regard to claim 14, as discussed in page 7 lines 13 – 16, the active adsorbent can be a zeolite, MOF, activated carbon, activated alumina, or silica gel.
In regard to claim 19, as discussed in claim 20 of Coignet, the water insoluble polymer can be a polyimide.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coignet as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0011904 to Ding (hereinafter referred to as Ding).
Coignet is discussed above in section 7. Coignet does not disclose the active adsorbent being a polyethylenimine or a polyvinylamine. There is no evidence the exact adsorbent used is critical, and predictably can be chosen to remove the desired contaminants. As discussed in the abstract Ding discloses porous solid amine adsorbents. As discussed in paragraphs [0013] – [0016], [0058], and claim 4, polyethylenimine and polyvinylamine are known sorbents.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coignet to include polyethylenimine or a polyvinylamine as the active adsorbent as suggested by Ding as these are well-known sorbents in the art.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coignet as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 9,861,953 to Long et al. (hereinafter referred to as Long)
Coignet is discussed above in section 7. Coignet discloses using a MOF active adsorbent. Coignet, however, does not disclose an amine append solid adsorbent. Long relates to functionalized MOF adsorbents, as discussed in the abstract. As discussed in column 3 line 64 – column 4 line 3, MOFs that are functionalized, or appended, with an amine are known and can strongly adsorb acid gases.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coignet to include an amine appended MOF solid adsorbent as suggested by Long in order to provide an adsorbent for an application that requires adsorbing acid gases.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coignet as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 11,230,562 to Taylor et al. (hereinafter referred to as Taylor).
Coignet is discussed above in section 7. Coignet discloses using a MOF active adsorbent. Coignet, however, does not specifically disclose one of the claimed MOFs. Taylor is directed to the making of Zinc MOF materials. As discussed in column 1 line 15 – column 2 line 19, CALF-20 is a known MOF material and is useful for carbon dioxide adsorption.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coignet to include CALF-20 as the MOF solid adsorbent as suggested by Taylor in order to provide an adsorbent for an application that requires adsorbing carbon dioxide.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Clemente whose telephone number is (571)272-1476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 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.
/ROBERT CLEMENTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights