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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 12, 14, 17, 18, and 20 – 22 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.
In regard to claim 20, as discussed above, the fiber in England can be considered a porous reinforced adsorbent fiber. The core can be considered a single reinforcing thread that is embedded in a polycyclohexylenedimethylene terephthalate (PCT) clad around the core. The PCT clad forms a solid adsorbent material.
In regard to claim 21, the core in England forms a single thread that is substantially parallel to the porous reinforced adsorbent fiber.
In regard to claim 22, as discussed above, the solod adsorbent material can include zeolite particle
Claims 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2018/126194 to Coignet et al. (hereinafter referred to as Coignet).
In regard to claim 20, 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). This results in a porous reinforced fiber having at least a single reinforcing thread that is partially or completely embedded in a solid adsorbent material, which is formed by the polymer matrix.
In regard to claim 22, as discussed in page 7 lines 13 – 16, the solid adsorbent material can include a particulate selected from the group of: zeolites, MOFs, activated carbon, activated alumina, and silica gels.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to England, applicant argues that England discloses a fiber network rather than a fiber formed as a flat sheet. Applicant argues the core layer represents a layer of the flat sheet and the cladding layer represents another layer. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner does agree that the final product in England is fiber network formed as a flat sheet. The fiber network, however, is formed of fibers. Each fiber in the fiber network is considered to be a porous reinforced adsorbent fiber. As recited in paragraphs [0007], [0021], and [0029], England discloses multilayer fibers. The core forms an internal layer of the fiber, and the cladding is formed around the core. As discussed in paragraph [0007], the core can be extruded first and an additive containing polymer layer can be extruded around the core to form the cladding.
In regard to Coignet, the examiner agrees with applicant’s arguments in regard to claims 11 and 12. The examiner agrees co-extrusion would require the thread to be substantially parallel to the fiber. New claim 20, however, does not require the single reinforcing thread to be parallel with the fiber. The claim also uses “comprising” language. Thus, one of the filler fibers in Coignet can be considered to form the single reinforcing thread.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is allowed.
Claims 13, 15, 16, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regard to claim 11, as discussed in the response to arguments, the examiner agrees with applicant’s arguments that Coignet fails to teach or suggest the method of claim 11. Additionally, England discloses a similar fiber that can be made by extruding a core then extruding a cladding around the core. There is no teaching or suggestion in England for co-extruding a first solution and a reinforcing thread, the first solution containing a water insoluble polymer and an active adsorbent, and bringing into contact the first solution with an aqueous solution to form a solid reinforced fiber.
In regard to claim 13, England discloses a metal zeolite impregnated fiber. There is no teaching or suggestion for the active adsorbent to be a polyethylenimine or wherein the active adsorbent is a polyvinylamine.
In regard to claim 15, similarly, there is no teaching or suggestion in England for the active adsorbent to be an amine appended solid adsorbent in particulate form, the solid adsorbent being selected from the group consisting of: zeolites, MOFs, COFs, PAFs, activated alumina, carbon, graphene, silica, and LDH.
In regard to claim 16, there is also no teaching or suggestion in England for the active adsorbent to be a MOF based solid adsorbent in particulate form, the MOF based solid adsorbent being selected from the group consisting of: CALF-20, UTSA-16, MUF-16, MIL-120(Al), and epn-Mg(dobpdc).
In regard to claim 19, the material of the first solution forms the outer layer of the fiber. In England, this layer is formed by a polycyclohexylenedimethylene terephthalate material. There is no teaching or suggestion in England for an outer layer formed by a polymer selected from the group consisting of polysulfone, polyimide, cellulose, polyacrylonitrile, polyvinyl difluoride, polyvinylchloride, polyvinyl butyral, and any mixture thereof.
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 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