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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15, in the reply filed on August 19, 2026 is acknowledged.
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)(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 1-3, 5-6, and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mazzoccoli et al. (US 2022/0062855).
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 6, Mazzoccoli et al. (US 2022/0062855) teaches a sorbent composition comprising activated carbon material ([0005]), nitrogen in an amount ranging from 1.5-20 wt% ([0083]), and iron in an amount ranging from 0.1-about 4.5 wt% ([0083]). The reference further teaches that the carbon material may be activated by treatment with a strong acid or strong base ([0068], [0070]).
Regarding claims 2, 5, and 8, it is the position of the examiner that the composition taught by Mazzoccoli et al. would inherently possess the claimed modified contact pH as it contains the same components, in the same amounts, and is treated in the same manner.
Regarding claim 9, Mazzoccoli et al. teaches that the metal may be iron ([0083]).
Regarding claim 10, the reference teaches that the carbonaceous material includes coconut shell, sub-bituminous coal, lignite coal, and anthracite coal ([0068]).
Regarding claims 11-12, Mazzoccoli et al. teaches a CDN ranging from 35-75 ([0099]).
Regarding claims 13-14, Mazzoccoli et al. teaches a peroxide number ranging from 2.5-3.5 minutes ([0114]).
Regarding claim 15, Mazzoccoli et al. teaches an example sorbent which yields an oxygen content of about 9% (Table 8, Ex. 44).
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.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazzoccoli et al. (US 2022/0062855) as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6, and 8-15 above, and further in view of Distefano et al. (US 2020/0316560.
The teachings of Mazzoccoli et al. are applied as above for claims 1, 3, and 6.
Mazzoccoli et al. teaches that the sorbents may be treated with a strong acid or base but does not specifically disclose the acid or base used.
However, Distefano et al. (US 2020/0316560) teaches that carbonaceous materials are conventionally treated with acids and bases, including phosphoric acid, sulfuric acid, sodium hydroxide, and potassium hydroxide, to form an activated carbon material suitable for use as a sorbent ([0033], [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method taught by Mazzoccoli et al. to include the use of the specific acids and bases taught by Distefano et al. to form an activated carbon material suitable for use as a sorbent material. The secondary method merely provides a suitable material for accomplishing the directive of the primary reference. Because both references are concerned with the formation of a sorbent based upon an activated carbon material, one would have reasonable expectation of success from the combination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA ANN JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6am - 2pm.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights