DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-26 are pending
Claims 1-26 were subject to a restriction requirement mailed 05/28/2026
Applicants filed remarks in response to a restriction requirement and amended claim 26 on 06/26/2026
Claims 18-26 are withdrawn
Claims 1-17 are rejected
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
3. Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 06/26/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicants 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)).
4. Claims 18-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/26/2026.
Double Patenting
5. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
6. Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of US 12097480 B2 (US ‘480). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
7. Regarding claims 1-3, 6-7, and 15, the claims of US ‘480 require a composition for removal of a poly- and perfluorinated alkyl substance (PFAS) from an aqueous liquid, the composition comprising: a particulate support material comprising a bimodal alumina having pores within a mesoporous range and pores within a macroporous range; (i) wherein a majority of the pores within the mesoporous range have an average pore size of between 2 nm and 50 nm; and (ii) wherein the bimodal alumina has a BET pore volume within the mesoporous range of not less than around 0.20 cm3/g; and a sorbent molecule that comprises a linear or branched core polymer selected from one or more of: poly(ethylenimine); poly(allylamine); poly(methylmethacrylate); poly(vinylalcohol); poly(vinylamine); poly(vinylchloride); poly(2-vinylpyridine); poly(3-vinylpyridine); or poly(4-vinylpyridine); wherein the linear or branched core polymer is covalently linked to the particulate support material; and wherein the sorbent molecule further comprises one or more covalently linked sorbent groups (Claim 1).
8. Regarding claim 4, the claims of US ‘480 further require the composition of claim 1, wherein the alumina has an average pore size within the mesoporous range of between about 2 about 20 nm. (Claim 2).
9. Regarding claim 5, the claims of US ‘480 further require the composition of claim 1, wherein a majority of the pores within the macroporous range have an average pore size of between 1 μm and 10 μm (Claim 3).
10. Regarding claim 8, the claims of US ‘480 further require the composition of claim 1, wherein the core polymer comprises a linear or branched poly(ethylenimine) having a weight average molecular weight of not less than around 25 kDa (Claim 4).
11. Regarding claims 9-10, the claims of US ‘480 further require the composition of claim 1, wherein the composition of claim 1, wherein the covalently linked sorbent groups comprise one or more groups selected from: a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C12 alkyl group; a substituted or unsubstituted C2-C12 alkenyl group; a substituted or unsubstituted C2-C12 alkynyl group; a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C12 alkoxy group; a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C12 acyl group; a substituted or unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon group; a substituted or unsubstituted aromatic group; a heterocyclic group; and a hydrogen atom (Claim 5).
12. Regarding claim 11, the claims of US ‘480 further require the composition of claim 1, wherein the core polymer comprises at least one tertiary amino group and wherein the at least one tertiary amino group is converted to a quaternary nitrogen (Claim 6).
13. Regarding claim 12, the claims of US ‘480 further require the composition of claim 1, wherein the composition of claim 1, wherein the core polymer comprises C1-C10 alkyl substituted linear poly(ethylenimine) (Claim 7).
14. Regarding claim 13, the claims of US ‘480 further require the composition of claim 1, wherein the core polymer comprises C1-C6 alkyl substituted branched poly(ethylenimine) (Claim 8).
15. Regarding claim 14, the claims of US ‘480 further require the composition of claim 1, wherein support material is in a form selected from: granular; powder; and spheroidal particles (Claim 9).
16. Regarding claims 15 and 18-19, the claims of US ‘480 further require a process for removal of a target substance from a fluid stream that comprises water, the process comprising contacting the fluid stream with a composition as defined in claim 1, and wherein the target substance comprises one or more poly- and perfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) (Claim 10).
17. Regarding claim 16-17 and 20-21, the claims of US ‘480 further require the process of claim 10, wherein the PFAS is selected from a perfluorinated anionic surfactant compound, including one or more selected from the group consisting of: perfluorobutane sulfonate (PFBS); perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA); perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA); perfluorohexanesulfonate (PFHS); perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHA); perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA); perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS); perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA); and perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA); 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (6:2 FTSA); and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA) (Claim 11).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
18. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
19. Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
20. Regarding claim 3, the term “a majority of the pores within the mesoporous range have an average pore size of between 2 nm and 50 nm” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “the majority of the pores” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The examiner interprets this as “the mesoporous range have average pore size of between 2 nm and 50 nm.”
21. Regarding claim 5, the term “a majority of the pores within the macroporous range have an average pore size of between 1 µm and 10 µm” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “the majority of the pores” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The examiner interprets this as “the macroporous range have an average pore size of between 1 µm and 10 µm.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
22. 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.
23. Claims 1 and 6-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray et al. (US 10836654 B1) (Gray) in view of Reeve et al. (US 20210008522 A1) (Reeve).
24. Regarding claims 1, 6, and 15, Gray teaches a basic immobilized amine sorbent (i.e. composition) (Gray, Abstract) for the removal of organic contaminates from wastewater (i.e. composition for removal of a contaminant from an aqueous fluid stream) (Gray, Abstract)
wherein the organic contaminants are perfluoro-compounds (i.e. PFAS) (Gray, column 3, lines 62-63);
wherein the basic immobilized amine sorbent (BIAS) (i.e. composition) comprises an inorganic support (Gray, column 4, lines 32-34) wherein the inorganic support (i.e. particulate support material) comprises alumina (Gray, column 4, lines 49-51).
Gray further teaches the BIAS comprises a polyamine (Gray, Abstract) that is the primary sorbent component of the BIAS (Gray, column 5, lines 14-15);
wherein the polyamine is a linear/branched mixture (i.e. a linear polyamine or branched poly amine) (Gray, column 5, lines 41-43);
wherein the polyamine is bound to the inorganic support via a linker (i.e. the linear core polymer or branched core polymer is covalently linked to the particulate support material) (Gray, Abstract).
However, Gray does not teach the sorbent molecule comprising one or more covalently linked sorbent groups.
With respect to the difference, Reeve teaches contacting a fluid stream with a composition comprising a polyamine, a covalently linked hydrophobic group, and a support material (Reeve, Abstract);
wherein the target substances are poly- and perfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) (Reeve, [0038]);
wherein the polyamine is a sorbent molecule (Reeve, [0050]) that is linear or branched (i.e. the sorbent molecule comprises a linear core polymer or branched core polymer) (Reeve, [0015]) and is covalently linked to a support material (i.e. the linear core polymer or branched core polymer is covalently linked to the particulate support material) (Reeve, Abstract);
wherein the polyamine is modified by covalent addition of a C2-C22 hydrophobic group (i.e. the sorbent molecule comprises one or more covalently linked sorbent groups) (Reeve, [0076]).
Reeve expressly teaches a plurality of hydrophobic groups are reacted with a plurality of amine groups within the polyamine molecule (Reeve, [0054]);
wherein resultant sorbent (polyamine) molecule will possess unique properties of absorbency that may be tuned to the specific requirements of the sorbent material (Reeve, [0055]);
wherein it is an advantage that the resultant sorbent material is readily optimized to target specific substances and/or contaminants within a fluid stream by modifying the chemistry of the sorbent molecule (Reeve, [0055])
wherein modification with amphipathic groups (i.e. contains a hydrophobic group) generate a derivative product with particular utility in filtration and removal of PFAS from liquid streams (Reeve, [0063]).
Gray and Reeve are analogous art as they are all drawn to porous adsorbent materials.
In light of the motivation for a plurality of hydrophobic groups are reacted with a plurality of amine groups within the polyamine molecule as disclosed by Reeve, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a polyamine that is modified by covalent addition of a C2-C22 hydrophobic group (i.e. the sorbent molecule further comprises one or more covalently linked sorbent groups) in the basic immobilized amine sorbent (i.e. composition) (Gray, Abstract) for the removal of organic contaminates from wastewater (i.e. composition for removal of a contaminant from an aqueous fluid stream) of Gray, in order to achieve the advantage that the sorbent material is readily optimized to target specific substances and/or contaminants within a fluid stream by modifying the chemistry of the sorbent molecule and modification with amphipathic groups (i.e. contains a hydrophobic group) to generate a derivative product with particular utility in filtration and removal of PFAS from liquid streams, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
25. Regarding claim 7, Gray further teaches examples of the polyamines include polyethylenimine (Gray, column 5, lines 57-58), poly(allylamine) (Gray, column 5, line 67 and column 6, line 1) and polyvinyl amine (Gray, column 5, line 67) that contain more than one as well as any combination of the following amine groups: primary (—NH2), secondary (—NH), and tertiary (—N) amines (i.e. branched core polymer) (Gray, column 5, lines 32-35).
26. Regarding claim 8, Gray further teaches examples of the polyamines include polyethylenimine (i.e. PEI) (Gray, column 5, lines 57-58) wherein the molecular weight (i.e. average molecular weight) ranges between 180 and 1,000,000 (Gray, column 5, lines 45-47), which overlaps with the claimed range.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
27. Regarding claims 9-10, Reeve further teaches the hydrophobic group comprises a C2-C22 unsaturated alkyl (i.e. overlaps with unsubstituted C1-C12 alkyl group) (Reeve, [0017]), which overlaps with the claimed functional groups.
Reeve further teaches the hydrophobic group linear alkyl selected from an C4-C8 branched or linear alkyl selected from an isobutyl, isohexyl or isooctyl (i.e. unsubstituted alkyl group), benzene (i.e. unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon group and unsubstituted aromatic group), phenol (i.e. substituted aromatic hydrocarbon group and substituted aromatic group) (Reeve, [0017]).
28. Regarding claim 11, Gray further teaches the BIAS polyamines (Gray, Abstract) contain tertiary (—N) amines (i.e. at least one tertiary amino group) (Gray, column 5, lines 32-35);
Reeve further teaches the C2-C22 hydrophobic group (Reeve, Abstract) may be covalently attached to the polyamine via a quaternization (i.e. at least one tertiary amino group is converted to a quaternary nitrogen) (Reeve, [0081]);
wherein R1, R-2 and R3- are part of the polyamine molecule (i.e. tertiary amine) and R4 is the C2-C22 hydrophobic group (Reeve, [0081]);
wherein quaternization converts a tertiary amine group to a quaternary amine (Reeve, p. 9, Scheme IX) (see annotated Scheme IX below).
PNG
media_image1.png
186
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Scheme IX
29. Regarding claims 12-13, Gray further teaches wherein the polyamine is a linear/branched mixture (i.e. a linear polyamine or branched polyamine) (Gray, column 5, lines 41-43).
Reeve further teaches the polyamine is modified by covalent addition of a C2-C22 hydrophobic group (i.e. a linear polyamine or branched polyamine comprises C2-C22 hydrophobic group) (Reeve, [0017]) such as linear alkyl selected from an isobutyl (i.e. the linear or branched polyamines comprise alkyl substituted C4) isohexyl (i.e. the linear or branched polyamines comprise alkyl substituted C6) (Reeve, [0017]).
30. Regarding claim 14, Gray further teaches the inorganic support comprises alumina (Gray, column 4, lines 49-51) in pellet forms (i.e. particles), wherein the pellet forms are beads (i.e. spheroidal particles) (Gray, column 5, line 3).
31. Regarding claims 16-17, Gray further teaches the organic contaminants are perfluoro-compounds (i.e. PFAS) such as perfluorooctanoic acid, perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (i.e. perfluorobutane sulfonate), perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (i.e. perfluorooctane sulfonate), perfluorooctane sulfonate (Gray, column 3, lines 62-67), which are anionic in water (i.e. perfluorinated anionic surfactant compounds).
32. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray in view of Reeve as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al., Simple preparation of silica and alumina with a hierarchical pore system via the dual-templating method (Suzuki).
33. Regarding claim 2, Gray in view of Reeve do not further teach the porous alumina comprises a bimodal alumina having pores within a mesoporous range and pores within a macroporous range.
With respect to the difference, Suzuki further teaches a synthesis of silica and alumina with macro-meso-type hierarchical pore systems (i.e. bimodal alumina) (Suzuki, Abstract);
wherein porous materials have diverse applications as adsorbents (Suzuki, p. 1, left column, first paragraph);
wherein mesopores with a uniform size were clearly observed (Suzuki, p. 4, right column).
Suzuki expressly teaches hierarchically ordered particles, having a bimodal distribution of pores are more important than unimodal mesoporous systems (Suzuki, p. 1, left column, first paragraph);
wherein macroporous materials possess excellent chemical, mechanical and thermal stability (Suzuki, p. 1, left column, first paragraph);
wherein a bimodal structure has the advantage that reagents pass through both macropores and mesopores (Suzuki, p. 1, right column, first paragraph);
wherein functionality of alumina is enhanced by adding mesoporous properties, such as a high surface area, large pore volume and uniform pore size (Suzuki, p. 2, left column, paragraph 2).
Gray, Reeve, and Suzuki are analogous art as they are all drawn to porous adsorbent compositions.
In light of the motivation for hierarchically ordered particles, having a bimodal distribution of pores and functionality of alumina is enhanced by adding mesoporous properties as disclosed by Suzuki, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include alumina with macro-meso-type hierarchical pore systems and uniform mesopores have pore sizes of 2 nm to 50 nm (i.e. 100% of pores have an average pore size of between 2 nm to 50 nm), in the basic immobilized amine sorbent (i.e. composition) for the removal of organic contaminates from wastewater (i.e. composition for removal of a contaminant from an aqueous fluid stream) of Gray in view of Reeve, in order to achieve the advantages that reagents pass through both macropores and mesopores and high functionality of alumina enhanced by high surface area, large pore volume and uniform pore size, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
34. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray in view of Reeve and Suzuki as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Wu et al. Synthesis of mesoporous alumina with tunable structural properties (Wu) taken in view of evidence by Wu2 et al., Hierarchically structured porous materials: synthesis strategies and applications in energy storage (Wu2) and Microtrac et al., The Adsorption Isotherm (Microtrac).
35. Gray does not further teach (a) wherein the pores within the mesoporous range have an average pore size of between 2 nm and 50 nm, (b) wherein the bimodal alumina has a BET pore volume within the pores within a mesoporous range of not less than around 0.20 cm3/g.
With respect to difference (a), Suzuki further teaches that mesopores with a uniform size were clearly observed (Suzuki, p. 4, right column), that according to the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) mesopores have pore sizes of greater than 2 nm to 50 nm (Wu2, 1668, left column, paragraph 1).
Given the uniform mesopores have pore sizes of 2 nm to 50 nm, the pores (i.e. 100%) have an average pore size of between 2 nm to 50 nm, which falls within the claimed range.
With respect to difference (b), Wu teaches mesoporous aluminas (MAs) with tunable structural properties including BET surface area, pore volume and pore size (Wu, Abstract);
wherein MAs have a great deal of interest in their potential in a wide range of
applications such as adsorption (i.e. an adsorbent) (Wu, p. 12, left column, first paragraph);
wherein nitrogen sorption isotherms are measured (Wu, p. 14, right column, Fig. 1a) that can be used to calculate the BET pore volume with the Gurvich-rule pore volume (Microtrac, p. 3, Fig. 2);
wherein the equation to calculate the total pore volume at p/p0 = 0.99 (i.e. BET pore volume) is shown below (Microtrac, p. 5, eq. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Eq. 1
wherein the estimated volume adsorbed for the mesoporous alumina samples at the relative pressure of p/p0 = 0.99 is at least around 400 cm3/g (MA1P0N) (Wu, p. 14, right column, Fig. 1a), see annotated Fig. 1a, below.
PNG
media_image3.png
293
438
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Wu further teaches that according to the nitrogen sorption isotherms are measured (Wu, p. 14, right column, Fig. 1a) the BET pore volume is ~0.62 cm3-/g (i.e. BET mesoporous pore volume of ~0.62 and ~400 cm3-/g * 1.547 *10-3), which falls within the claimed range.
Wu expressly teaches MAs have a great deal of interest from industry and academia in a wide range of applications attributed to mesoporosity features such as tunable pore size, high surface area and large pore volume, which make MAs ideal for adsorption (i.e. sorbents) (Wu, p. 12, left column)
wherein superior adsorption capability is achieved due to larger pore volume (Wu, p. 19, right column, 3.5 BSA adsorption).
Gray, Reeve, Suzuki, and Wu are analogous art as they are all drawn to porous adsorbent compositions.
In light of the motivation for MAs have a great deal of interest from industry and academia in a wide range of applications as disclosed by Wu, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a BET pore volume of ~0.6188 cm3-/g in the basic immobilized amine sorbent (i.e. composition) for the removal of organic contaminates from wastewater (i.e. composition for removal of a contaminant from an aqueous fluid stream) of Gray in view of Reeve and Suzuki, in order to achieve superior adsorption capability, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
36. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray in view of Reeve and Suzuki as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Huang et al., Facile synthesis of mesoporous γ-alumina with tunable pore size: The effects of water to aluminum molar ratio in hydrolysis of aluminum alkoxides (Huang).
37. Regarding claim 4, Gray in view of Reeve and Suzuki do not teach the pores within the mesoporous range have an average pore size of between 2 nm and 20 nm.
With respect to the difference, Huang teaches the synthesis of γ-Al2O3 materials and their adsorption affinity towards pollutants in water (i.e. a fluid stream) (Huang, Title);
wherein the γ-Al2O3 materials were found to be effective adsorbent for the removal of selective pollutants (Huang, Abstract) such as Congo red, phenol, Cd(II), and Cr(VI) in water (i.e. fluid stream) (Huang, p. 4592, left column, Adsorption performance in water treatment);
wherein the pore widths were measured at the middle of the pore size distribution peak (i.e. average pore size) (Huang, p. 4590, right column, Table 1 Notation);
wherein the average pore widths were 3.7 and 4.1 nm, which fall within the claimed range (Huang, p. 4590, right column, Table 1 Notation).
Haung expressly teaches the pore size of the γ-Al2O3 materials determine the accessibility of surface sites for phenol molecules (i.e. organic contaminant) (Huang, p. 4593, right column, paragraph 2)
wherein γ-Al2O3 materials achieve good adsorption performance in the removal of selected pollutants from wastewater (i.e. a fluid stream) (Huang, p. 4594, left column, first paragraph).
Gray, Reeve, Suzuki, and Huang are analogous art as they are all drawn to porous adsorbent materials.
In light of the motivation for the pore size of the γ-Al2O3 materials determine the accessibility of surface sites as disclosed by Huang, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include mesopores with average pore widths of 3.7 and 4.1 nm, in the basic immobilized amine sorbent (i.e. composition) for the removal of organic contaminates from wastewater (i.e. composition for removal of a contaminant from an aqueous fluid stream) of Gray in view of Reeve and Suzuki in order to achieve good adsorption performance in the removal of selected pollutants from wastewater (i.e. a fluid stream), and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
38. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray in view of Reeve and Suzuki as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Orera et al., Design and characterization of macroporous alumina membranes for passive samplers of water contaminants (Orera).
39. Regarding claim 5, Gray in view of Reeve and Suzuki do not teach the pores within the macroporous range have an average pore size between 1 μm and 10 μm.
With respect to the difference, Orera teaches macroporous alumina membranes for passive samplers of water contaminants (i.e. removal of contaminants from a fluid stream) (Orera, Title);
wherein the macroporous alumina membranes had pore morphology (i.e. pore size) consisted of spherical cavities (i.e. macropores) of 5-10 μm in diameter (i.e. a pore size of 5-10 μm) (Orera, Abstract).
given the spherical cavities (i.e. macropores) are 5-10 μm in diameter (i.e. a pore size of 5-10 μm), the majority of the pores (i.e. 100%) have an average pore size of between 5-10 μm, which falls within the claimed range.
Orera expressly teaches the connected porosity of the MCPS 1, MCPS 2, and MCPS3 samples increased (Orera, p. 1855, left column, Table 2) to those of the state-of-the-art sample (Orera, p. 1858, left column, paragraph 1);
due to the much larger pore size in the MCPS membranes (Orera, p. 1858, left column, paragraph 1);
wherein as connected porosity increases the diffusion coefficients for methylene blue (i.e. organic contaminant) increases (Orera, Abstract).
Gray, Reeve, Suzuki, and Orera are analogous art as they are all drawn to porous adsorbent materials.
In light of the motivation for the connected porosity of the MCPS1, MCPS2, and MCPS3 samples increased as disclosed by Orera, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the spherical cavities (i.e. macropores) of 5-10 μm in diameter (i.e. a pore size of 5-10 μm) in the basic immobilized amine sorbent (i.e. composition) for the removal of organic contaminates from wastewater (i.e. composition for removal of a contaminant from an aqueous fluid stream) of Gray in view of Reeve and Suzuki, in order to achieve an increase in the diffusion coefficient for methylene blue (i.e. organic contaminant), and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
40. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Remy Frederic Lalisse whose telephone number is (571)272-1819. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 - 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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at (571)270-5713. 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.
/R.F.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights