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 .
Response to Amendment
This is the response to amendment for application 18/566800 filed 01/02/2026.
Claims 1, 3-22 and 24 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GREENBANK (USPGPUB 2020/0040851).
Regarding claim 1, GREENBANK teaches in paragraph 38 devices containing one or more sorbent material sheets.
The one or more sorbent material sheets is taught in paragraph 36 to include multiple sheets stacked together as layers in a single sheet.
The housing is taught in paragraph 81 to partially or totally encapsulate the sorbent material sheets.
GREENBANK teaches in paragraph 38 devices containing one or more sorbent material sheets. The devices may comprise a housing and have a void fraction of about 10% or more of the total volume of the housing. The one or more sorbent material sheets is taught in paragraph 36 to include multiple sheets stacked together as layers in a single sheet.
The void volume is taught in paragraph 62 to be about 10% or more.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The sorbent sheet is taught in paragraph 69 to comprise a binder along with a sorbent material.
GREENBANK teaches in paragraph 55 a stacked sorbent material sheet product comprising two or more sorbent sheets, wherein each sorbent sheet comprises a sorbent material and a binder; where adjacent sorbent sheets are stacked and arranged such that adjacent upper and lower surfaces are substantially congruent with each other
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 3, GREENBANK teaches in paragraph 119 the devices can include Peltier effect heaters or coolers which are designed to heat and/or cool fluids and force their movement over the sorbent material sheets. (a heat transfer mechanism)
Regarding claim 4, GREENBANK teaches in paragraph 35 that the sorbent materials include activated carbon.
The performance of the stacked sorbent material is taught in paragraph 57 to be about 10% or higher when compared to a given amount of activated carbon.
Regarding claim 5, the device is taught in paragraph 94 to include a housing of any shape, such as a cylinder. (housing is cylindrical)
Regarding claim 6, the devices formed are taught in paragraph 52 to include those of irregular shaped spaces.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, GREENBANK teaches in reference claim 6 that the first sorbent and second sorbent include greater than or equal to about 90 wt% of sorbent material.
Regarding claims 9 and 12, the sorbent material is taught in paragraph 35 to include, but not limited to, activated carbon, carbon nanotubes, and natural or synthetic zeolite, silica and graphene.
Regarding claims 10-11, the binder used is taught in paragraph 13 to comprises one or more of a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVF2 or PVF3), ethylene-propylene- diene (EPDM) rubber, polyethylene oxide (PEO), UV-curable acrylate, UV-curable methacrylate, heat-curable divinyl ethers, polybutylene terephthalate, acetal or polyoxymethylene resin, fluoroelastomer, perfluoroelastomer (FFKM) and/or tetrafluoro ethylene/propylene rubber (FEPM), aramid polymer, para-aramid polymer, meta-aramid polymer, poly trimethylene terephthalate (PTT), ethylene acrylic elastomer, polyimide, polyamide-imide, polyurethane, low-density polyethylene, high density polyethylene, polypropylene, biaxially-oriented polypropylene (BoPP), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), biaxially-oriented polyethylene terephthalate (BoPET), polychloroprene, and any copolymer of any thereof.
Regarding claim 13, the thickness of the sorbent material sheets is taught in paragraph 46 to be of less than about 2 mm.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use sorbent material sheets with a thickness of about 0.10 mm to about 2 mm.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 14, a rolled sorbent sheet is taught in paragraph 77 to be wound to an average roll density of about 80-1500 kg/m3.
Regarding claim 15, the devices are taught in paragraph 36 to include multiple sorbent material sheets that may be stacked together and then wound. The devices are taught in paragraph 94 to include a stacked sheet that has been pressed. (compression)
Regarding claim 16, the rolled sorbent sheet is taught in paragraph 72 to have a generally cylindrical shape.
Regarding claim 17, the wound or rolled sorbent sheet is taught in paragraph 77 to include a concentric layering of tubular (of any cross-sectional shape, e.g. round, elliptical, square, triangular, rectangle, etc.) It is further taught in paragraph 78 that in the context of the wound or rolled sorbent material sheets, especially those that are a single sheet wound in a spiral around a center or core, that this means that the sheets are not exactly the same distance apart from each other over the entire areas that face each other.
The void volume is taught in paragraph 62 to be about 10% or more.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The sorbent sheet is taught in paragraph 69 to comprise a binder along with a sorbent material.
Regarding claim 18, the sorbent sheet is taught in paragraph 69 to be spiral wound.
Regarding claim 19, the wound or rolled sorbent sheets are taught in paragraph 77 to include layering of one or more layers of concentric layering of tubular with a cross-section that is round.
Regarding claim 20, a rolled sorbent sheet is taught in paragraph 77 to be wound to an average roll density of about 80-1500 kg/m3.
Regarding claim 21, the devices are taught in paragraph 36 to include multiple sorbent material sheets that may be stacked together and then wound. The devices are taught in paragraph 94 to include a stacked sheet that has been pressed. (compression)
Regarding claim 22, GREENBANK teaches in paragraph 38 devices containing one or more sorbent material sheets. The devices may comprise a housing and have a void fraction of about 10% or more of the total volume of the housing.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The one or more sorbent material sheets is taught in paragraph 36 to include multiple sheets stacked together as layers in a single sheet.
The housing is taught in paragraph 81 to partially or totally encapsulate the sorbent material sheets.
The sorbent material sheets are taught in paragraph 119 to be used to improve or control the adsorption and desorption of fluids and gases.
The sorbent material is taught in paragraph 112 to be usable with butane.
The wound or rolled sorbent sheet is taught in paragraph 77 to include a concentric layering of tubular (of any cross-sectional shape, e.g. round, elliptical, square, triangular, rectangle, etc.).
The stacked sorbent material sheet is also taught in paragraph 55 to comprises two or more sorbent sheets, with adjacent sorbent sheets stacked and arranged such that adjacent upper and lower surfaces are substantially congruent with each other, and aligned to allow fluid flow at least between adjacent upper and lower surfaces.
The void volume is taught in paragraph 62 to be about 10% or more.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The sorbent sheet is taught in paragraph 69 to comprise a binder along with a sorbent material.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GREENBANK (USPGPUB 20200040851) as applied to claims 1, 3-22 above, and further in view of ADOMAITIS et al. (USPGPUB 2021/0039037).
The above discussion of GREENBANK is incorporated herein by reference.
GREENBANK teaches in paragraph 35 that the sorbent materials may be used to absorb and desorb liquids and/or gases, such as fuel vapors from a gasoline engine.
Regarding claim 24, ADOMAITIS et al. teach in paragraph 94 that sorbent material may be used for natural gas (methane).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the product and process that GREENBANK teaches to natural gas (methane) given that GREENBANK also recognizes in paragraph 2 that other hydrocarbon fuels also produce a significant source of air pollution.
Therefore, the invention as a whole have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art GREENBANK does not discuss or teach a device that comprises one or more of a stacked sorbent sheet product comprising a plurality of sorbent sheets, each sorbent sheet within the stacked sorbent sheet product comprising at least one sorbent material and at least one binder, wherein the plurality of sorbent sheets is arranged such that each sorbent sheet is substantially congruent with each other.
GREENBANK teaches in paragraph 55 a stacked sorbent material sheet product comprising two or more sorbent sheets, wherein each sorbent sheet comprises a sorbent material and a binder; where adjacent sorbent sheets are stacked and arranged such that adjacent upper and lower surfaces are substantially congruent with each other.
This is not persuasive as GREENBANK teaches in paragraph 38 devices containing one or more sorbent material sheets.
The one or more sorbent material sheets is taught in paragraph 36 to include multiple sheets stacked together as layers in a single sheet.
Applicant argues that the prior art GREENBANK teaches a void volume of about 10% or more and the current claims require a void volume of about 10% or less.
This is not persuasive as where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Applicant argues that GREENBANK teaches away from the claimed ranges of about 10% or less.
GREENBANK teaches in paragraph 62 that in some embodiments, the stacked sorbent material product yields a void volume of about 10% or more. The exemplary language of “in some embodiments” falls short of the kind of teaching that would discourage one of ordinary skill in the art from a void volume of less than 10%.
About 10% would allow for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, PREM SINGH can be reached at 5712726381. 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.
/MING CHEUNG PO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights