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 .
Examiner’s Comments
This is a second Non-Final neither necessitated by applicant’s amendment of the claims, nor based on information submitted in an information disclosure statement filed during the period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p). This Non-Final replaces the previous Non-final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 12–13 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.
The limitation of “about” in claims 12–13 indefinite because it is a relative term. The term "about" 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 1, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Curtin et al., US 3,207,701 A (“Curtin”), as evidenced by Hendrickson et al., US 2019/0309098 A1 (“Hendrickson”).
Regarding claim 1:
Curtin discloses an adsorption filter (Curtin’s Aluminosilicate Molecular Sieve-silica Gel Composites, Curtin Title) for filtering a hydrocarbon cooling oil (intended use, not part of the claimed adsorption filter), the adsorption filter including a molecular sieve composite mixture that comprises:
a first filter material (Curtin’s crystalline aluminosilicate molecular sieve, Curtin col. 1, ll. 10–15) comprising an alkali metal aluminosilicate molecular sieve (Curtin discloses its molecular sieve is a commonly known as a crystalline metal aluminosilicate, and Curtin discloses of the aluminosilicate is an alkali metal, Curtin col. 1, ll. 24–26 and col. 2, ll. 30–32) and having a surface chemistry and/or a pore size distribution (Curtin discloses its molecular sieve is porous, Curtin col. 1, ll. 19–23) selected for preferential adsorption of a first contaminant (Curtin discloses as its zeolite could be 4A type, which permits adsorption of molecules smaller than about 4 angstroms, Curtin col. 2, ll. 47–54) present or expected to be present in the hydrocarbon cooling oil (intended use, not a positively recited feature of the claimed filter); and
a second filter material (Curtin discloses as silica gel, Curtin col. 2, ll. 9–16) having a surface chemistry (implicit) and/or a pore size distribution selected for preferential adsorption of a second contaminant (silica gel is a well-known desiccant, as evidenced by Hendrickson et al., US 2019/0309098 A1 [0021]) present or expected to be present in the hydrocarbon cooling oil (intended use, not part of the claimed filter).
Regarding claim 4:
Curtin discloses the adsorption filter of claim 1, wherein the first contaminant or second contaminant is water (silica gel is a desiccant and therefore it is capable of adsorbing water).
Regarding claim 7:
Curtin discloses the adsorption filter of claim 1, wherein the second filter material is a molecular sieve, a clay, or a silica gel (Curtin discloses as silica gel, Curtin col. 2, ll. 9–16).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 2–3, 5–6, 8–11, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Curtin, as evidenced by Hendrickson.
Regarding claim 2:
Curtin does not disclose the adsorption filter of claim 1, wherein the first contaminant is a polar chemical resulting from oxidation of the hydrocarbon cooling oil. However, such limitation is directed to material worked upon, which is not a positively recited feature of the claimed filter. Additionally, since Curtin teaches each and every claimed structure limitation of claim 1, It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to understand that Curtin would necessarily be capable of adsorbing a polar chemical resulting from oxidation of the hydrocarbon cooling oil.
Regarding claim 3:
Curtin does not disclose the adsorption filter of claim 1, wherein the first contaminant is a carboxylic acid. However, such limitation is directed to material worked upon, which is not a positively recited feature of the claimed filter. Additionally, since Curtin teaches each and every claimed structure limitations of claim 1, it would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to understand that Curtin would necessarily be capable of adsorbing a carboxylic acid.
Regarding claim 5:
Curtin does not disclose the adsorption filter of claim 1, wherein the first contaminant or second contaminant is a sulfur compound. However, such limitation is directed to material worked upon, which is not a positively recited feature of the claimed filter. Additionally, since Curtin teaches each and every claimed structure limitation of claim 1, it would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to understand that Curtin would necessarily be capable of adsorbing a sulfur compound.
Regarding claim 6
Curtin does not disclose the adsorption filter of claim 1, wherein the first contaminant or second contaminant a hydroxylate, a ketone, or an aldehyde. However, such limitation is directed to material worked upon, which is not a positively recited feature of the claimed filter. Additionally, since Curtin teaches each and every claimed structure limitation of claim 1, it would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to understand that Curtin would necessarily be capable of adsorbing a hydroxylate, a ketone, or an aldehyde.
Regarding claim 8:
Curtin does not explicitly teach the adsorption filter of claim 1, wherein the first filter material and the second filter material have different pore size distributions.
However, a zeolite and silica gel would necessarily have different pore size distribution because of their different chemical structures.
Regarding claim 9:
Curtin discloses the adsorption filter of claim 1, wherein the pore size distribution of the first filter material is in the nanopore range (Curtin discloses its zeolite has a pore size of about 4 to 15 angstroms, Curtin col. 10, claim 3, such range falls in the nanopore range).
Curtin does not teach the pore size distribution of the second filter material is in the micropore, mesopore, or macropore range.
However, Hendrickson discloses the silicon gel have a pore size of from 10A to 300A, Hendrickson [0021]. Hendrickson discloses a silicon gel range overlapping the mesopore range. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Curtin’s silica gel to have the same mesopore range because such range is known of silica gel.
Regarding claim 10:
Curtin does not explicitly disclose the adsorption filter of claim 1, wherein one or both of the first filter material and the second filter material has an alkaline-modified surface chemistry.
However, Curtin discloses its zeolite could be 13X type, Curtin col. 2, ll. 47–54. 13X type zeolite is known to inherently possess an alkaline surface chemistry due to the presence of alkali metal cations1. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to understand that at least Curtin’s first filter material could have an alkaline-modified surface chemistry.
Regarding claim 11:
Curtin does not disclose the adsorption filter of claim 10, wherein the alkaline-modified surface chemistry is due to exposure to sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, sodium carbonate, or potassium carbonate.
However, it is noted here that this limitation is directed to Product-by-Process claim. Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. MPEP 2113(I). Here, the recited steps are given patentable weight only insofar as it impacts the structure of the filter member.
Since Curtin’s first filter material has the claimed alkaline-modified surface chemistry, the structure limitation is met, and the process related with getting such structure is not giving patentable weight.
Regarding claim 14:
Curtin discloses the adsorption filter of claim 1, wherein one of the first filter material and the second filter material is selected to target absorption of water (Curtin discloses silica gel, which is a known desiccant as discussed in claim 1, Curtin col. 2, ll. 9–16).
While Curtin does not explicitly disclose the other of the first filter material and the second filter material is selected to target absorption of polar chemicals, Curtin discloses its molecular sieve could be 4A type, which will permit adsorption of molecules smaller than about 4 angstrom units, Curtin col. 2, ll. 50–55. It would have been obvious for such molecules to be a polar chemical such as NH3, which has a critical diameter of 2.6-3.6 angstroms2 and therefore is capable to be adsorbed by Curtin’s zeolite adsorbent.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Curtin, as evidenced by Hendrickson and Hedlund et al., Microchannel zeolite 13X adsorbent with high CO2 separation performance." Separation and Purification Technology 277 (2021): 119483 (hereinafter “Hedlun”).
Regarding claim 12:
Curtin does not disclose the adsorption filter of claim 1, wherein the first filter material has a silicon to aluminum ratio of about 4 to 1 or less.
However, Curtin discloses its first filter material could be Zeolite 13X, Zeolite 13X is known to have a silicon to aluminum ratio of 1.09 to 1.1, as evidenced by Hedlund p. 7. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Curtin’s first filter material to have a ratio falls within the claimed range and support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Additionally, the instant disclosure does not teach the claimed Si/Al ratio is critical to the operation of the claimed invention. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, this difference fails to patentably distinguish over prior art because it produces a difference in degree rather than in kind. MPEP 2044.05 (III)(A).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Curtin, as evidenced by Hendrickson and in further view of Gerardo et al., "Mineral oil regeneration using selective molecular sieves as sorbents." Chemosphere 78, no. 5 (2010): 591-598 (hereinafter “Gerardo”).
Regarding claim 13:
Curtin does not disclose the adsorption filter of claim 1, wherein the first filter material has a silicon to aluminum ratio of about 4 to 1 or more.
In the analogous art of aluminosilicate molecular sieve sorbents, Gerardo discloses a BEA-type structure synthesized with a wide variety of Si/Al ratios ranging from infinity to about four, thus providing hydrophilic or hydrophobic properties, Gerardo p. 591. Gerardo discloses BEA-type zeolites sorbents are attractive due to tunable Si/Al ratios, Gerardo p. 591. Gerardo discloses its sorbents could be used to remove for purification of oxidized mineral lubricant oil, Gerardo p. 591. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Gerardo’s aluminosilicate molecular sieve sorbents in Curtin for applications in lubricant oil purification.
Additionally, the instant disclosure does not teach the claimed Si/Al ratio is critical to the operation of the claimed invention. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, this difference fails to patentably distinguish over prior art because it produces a difference in degree rather than in kind. MPEP 2044.05 (III)(A).
Claims 15–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Curtin, as evidenced by Hendrickson, and in further view of Dolan et al., US 2020/0114308 A1 (“Dolan”).
Regarding claim 15:
Curtin discloses the adsorption filter of claim 1, further comprising a third filter material, and wherein a first one of the first, second, and third filter materials is selected to target absorption of water, a second one of the first, second, and third filter materials is selected to target absorption of polar chemicals (those limitations has been addressed in claim 14).
While Curtin does not explicitly disclose a third one of the first, second, and third filter materials is selected to target absorption of non-polar chemicals, Curtin discloses its molecular sieve could also be 13A type, which will permit adsorption of molecules smaller than about 10 angstrom units, Curtin col. 2, ll. 50–55.
Additionally, in the analogous art of adsorbent and silica gel adsorbents, Dolan discloses desiccants and adsorbents can be present together in a composite particle, Dolan [0040]. Dolan discloses its desiccants could include silica, silica gels, alumino-silicate gels, aluminas, activated carbons, titanias, activated clays and combinations thereof, Dolan [0034]. Dolan discloses its adsorbent could comprise one or more molecular sieves selected from the group consisting of chabazite (zeolite D), clinoptilolite, erionite, faujasite (zeolite X or zeolite Y), ferrierite, mordenite, zeolite A, zeolite P, zeolite 3A, zeolite 4A, zeolite 5A and zeolite 13X, Dolan [0087]. Dolan discloses its design helps protect molecular sieve from damage and can extend bed life. It would therefore have been obvious to include a combination of different desiccants and zeolite materials in Cutin’s composite material for the benefits disclosed above. For example, Curtin’s composite could have both Zeolite 4A and 13X as disclosed by Dolan and could also comprise other desiccants or Zeolites such as activated carbon/clays or zeolite D for an enhanced water adsorption ability.
With such modification, Curtins would have a third filter material of Zeolite 13X, which is capable of adsorb non-polar chemicals such as CO2, which has a critical diameter of 2.8-3.3 angstroms3.
Regarding claim 16:
Modified Curtin discloses the adsorption filter of claim 15, wherein each of the first, second, and third filter materials has either a microporous or a mesoporous pore size distribution (Curtin’s zeolites 13X and 4A as well as silica gel has either a microporous or mesoporous structure as discussed in claim 9), and further comprising a fourth filter material having a mesoporous pore distribution to absorb large organic contaminants (for example, activated clay of Dolan has mesoporous structure, the limitation of large organic contaminants is intended use and Dolan’s activated clay is capable of removing large organic contaminants).
Regarding claim 17:
Modified Curtin discloses that the adsorption filter of claim 16, wherein the fourth filter material is a molecular sieve or a silica gel (Curtin’s silica gel could be mapped to the fourth filter material, and the second filter material could be mapped to “alumino-silicate gels” as disclosed by Dolan in view of the modification proposed in claim 15).
Claims 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curtin et al., as evidenced by Hendrickson, and in further view of Gerardo and Best et al., US 2014/0211412 A1 (“Best”).
Regarding claim 18:
Curtin does not disclose that an oil immersion cooling system for using the hydrocarbon cooling oil to cool one or more electronic components, and comprising the adsorption filter of claim 1.
In the analogous art of zeolite sorbents, Gerardo discloses zeolite sorbents could be used for hydrocarbon mineral oil purification, Gerardo, p. 592.
Additionally, in the analogous art of hydrocarbon mineral oil, Best discloses mineral oil could be used for liquid coolant to cool hard disc drives (HDD), Best [0012]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Curtin’s filter for such purpose because Best disclose mineral oil is suitable to use as coolant oil. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include Curtin’s adsorption filter to filter out contaminants incurred during the cooling process for the hydrocarbon cooling oil regeneration.
Regarding claim 19:
Modified Curtin discloses that the oil immersion cooling system of claim 18, wherein the electronic components are processing devices (Best discloses as HDD, which is a device that is used for storing and retrieving digital information such as data in computing system, which is a processing device, Best, [0005]).
Regarding claim 20:
Modified Curtin discloses that the oil immersion cooling system of claim 18, wherein the electronic components are data storage devices (Best discloses as HDD, which is a device that is used for storing and retrieving digital information such as data in computing system, Best, [0005].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-5:00 M-F.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached on (571) 270-7872. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Qianping He/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
1 does 13X zeolite has alkaline modified surface chemistry - Google Search
2 molecules smaller than about 4 angstrom units, polar moledules - Google Search
3 co2 critical diameter - Google Search
