DETAILED ACTION
Applicant is advised that the Notice of Allowance mailed 4/2/26 is vacated. If the issue fee has already been paid, applicant may request a refund or request that the fee be credited to a deposit account. However, applicant may wait until the application is either found allowable or held abandoned. If allowed, upon receipt of a new Notice of Allowance, applicant may request that the previously submitted issue fee be applied. If abandoned, applicant may request refund or credit to a specified Deposit Account.
Prosecution on the merits of this application is reopened on claims 1, 2, 4 -18 are considered unpatentable for the reasons indicated below.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the calcined binder” should be “the calcined clay binder” to match with its antecedent basis in claim 6. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretations
The term “about” is considered to comprise a 5% deviation as is conventional in the art.
In claim 13, the phrase “other calcined or non-plastic refractory ceramic materials” is broad however not indefinite. It is interpreted as encompassing calcined ceramic materials or non-plastic refractory ceramic materials suitable for use as the ceramic-forming binder portion of the adsorbent composition.
In claim 17, the recitation “from about 0 to about 5 wt% of a silica sol” indicates that the silica sol is option since it includes a zero value.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1, 2, 4, 6, 9-12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byrne US Patent 10,704,501.
Regarding claim 1, Byrne teaches an adsorbent composition comprising:
a) An activated adsorbent material of about 5% to 60% (column 6 line 48, column 32 lines 31);
b) A filler material of less than or equal to about 40% (column 32 line 49), wherein the filler material comprises hollow microspheres of glass (column 34 lines 17-20);
c) A clay binder of about 5%to 50% (column 33 line 6 and column34 lines 4-11);
d) The difference comprises an additive material comprising a pore forming material or silicate (column 32 lines 62-67); and
e) The adsorbent is in the form of a monolith (column 7 lines 12-17, line 50 and lines 65-66).
With regards to the composition ranges, when the claimed ranges lie within or overlaps the prior art ranges a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 2, the adsorbent comprises activated carbon, carbon charcoal, zeolites, clays, porous polymers, porous alumina, porous silica, molecular sieves, kaolin, titania, ceria or combinations thereof (column 6 lines 48-51).
Regarding claim 4, the adsorbent material may be derived from wood, wood dust, wood flour, cotton linters, peat, coal, coconut, lignite, carbohydrates, petroleum pitch, petroleum coke, coal tar pitch, fruit pits, fruit stones, nut shells, nut pits, sawdust, palm, vegetables, synthetic polymer, natural polymer, or lignocellulosic material (column 6 lines 54-58).
Regarding claims 6, the additive comprises at least an organic binder (column 33 lines 24-25).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the organic binder comprises a cellulose and/or cellulose derivative comprising methylcellulose (column 33 line 25).
Regarding claim 11, the clay binder comprises at least one of Zeolite clay, Bentonite clay, Montmorillonite clay, illite clay, French Green clay, pascalite clay, Redmond clay, Terramin clay, Living clay, Fuller's Earth clay, ormalite clay, vitallite clay, rectorite clay, Cordierite, ball clay, or kaolin (column 34 lines 4-11).
Regarding claim 12, Byrne teaches kaolin as the clay binder. Kaolin is known as hydrous aluminum silicate unless calcined (column 34 line 11). Since Byrne does not teach calcined kaolin for the clay binder, one having ordinary skill in the art would understand their clay binder implicitly comprises hydrous kaolin.
Regarding claim 14, the diameter of the hollow microsphere may be of a micron size or larger (column 14 line 18). Because the claimed average diameter of less than 500 µm overlaps the disclosed micron-sized microspheres, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 15, Byrne teaches the adsorbent may be an extruded honeycomb (column 7 lines 12-17).
Regarding claim 16, Byrne teaches an evaporative emission control canister comprising the adsorbent (column 5 lines 17-18).
Claim 5, 7, 8, 13, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byrne US Patent 10,704,501 in view of Park et al. US Patent 5,914,294.
Regarding claim 5, Byrne does not explicitly teach a BET surface area of 600-2200 m2/g.
However, Park teaches a monolith adsorbent for removing volatile organic compounds from fluid streams comprising a BET surface area of 600 to 2000 m2/g (column 5 line 8). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the surface area of Byrne with the BET surface area for activated carbon monoliths as taught in Park, because Park teaches that a surface area of 600 to 2000 m2/g is known in the art of activated carbon monolith adsorbents.
Regarding claims 7 , 8, and 13, Byrne does not explicitly teach a mineral flux comprising nepheline syenite and a calcined clay/ceramic binder.
However, Park teaches a honeycomb monolith comprised of activated carbon clay, calcined kaolin clay, nepheline syenite, methylcellulose and sodium silicate solids (column 8 lines 55-60). The composition provides a high structural integrity exhibiting axial crushing strength and increases the density (column 8 lines 63-64, column 10 lines 20-25). The calcined clay can include calcined kyanite, mullite, cordierite, clay grog, silica, alumina, and other calcined or non-plastic refractory ceramic materials (column 5 lines 60-65) and the calcined ceramic reduces shrinkage of the monolith during drying and firing (column 5 line 53).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Byrne by including nepheline syenite and calcined clay in the composition because they have been found to improve the monolith’s structural integrity, density, and material strength and reduces shrinkage.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Byrne teaches a method for making an adsorbent composition comprising:
a) Admixing an adsorbent composition comprising:
i) An activated adsorbent material of about 5% to 60% (column 6 line 48, column 32 lines 31);
ii) A polymeric binder (column 33 line 25) in about 6% or less (column 32 line 63);
iii) A clay binder of about 5%to 50% (column 33 line 6 and column 34 lines 4-11); and
vii) A filler material of less than or equal to about 40% (column 32 line 49), wherein the filler material comprises hollow microspheres of glass (column 34 lines 17-20); and
b) Extruding to form a honeycomb adsorbent (column 42 line 66). While water was not explicitly mentioned in the extruding step, one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to include water in the mixture since creating a slurry is a common step in extruding material mixtures.
Byrne does not explicitly teach:
iv) from about 5 to about 45 wt% of a calcined clay binder;
v) from about 2 to about 20% of a mineral flux;
vi) from about 0 to about 5 wt% of a silica sol (Byrne does teach silicate in an amount of less than 10wt% (column 32 line 66).
However, Park (see formula D) teaches a monolithic adsorbent comprising (see column 8 lines 55-61) 30 wt% activated carbon; 50 wt% ball clay; 2.5 wt% methylcellulose, similar to Byrne and further including:
iv) 10 wt% calcined kaolin clay;
v) 10 wt% nepheline syenite (mineral flux);
vi) 2.8 wt% silicate solids including silica sol (column 6 lines 56-57); and
viii) 75 wt% water.
The mixture is extruded into a honeycomb monolith (column 7 lines 1-13). Adding the silicate/silica sol has been found to increase the strength of both the unfired dry monolith and the fired monolith (column 6 lines 44-45). The addition of the calcined ceramic reduces shrinkage of the monolith during drying and firing (column 5 line 53). The addition of the mineral flux improves the crushing strength and overall strength of the material (column 10 lines 23-25). (Also refer to formulation D in Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include calcined clay in the monolith of Byrne because Park has found that it reduces shrinkage of the monolith during drying and firing. Byrne does already include silicate and Park teaches that silica sol may be used interchangeably with the silicate to increase the strength of both the unfired dry monolith and the fired monolith. One would further be motivated to include a mineral flux because the addition of the mineral flux improves the crushing strength and overall strength of the material.
Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Byrne already teaches a honeycomb monolith with binders and fillers for shape formation and mechanical integrity, while Park teaches these particular additives, in addition to the components in Byrne, provide a compatible monolith composition that improves strength and integrity overall. This is apparent in Figure 3 where a comparison of material samples with and without the silicate/flux and calcined kaolin amounts are shown. Formulation D, whose composition is similar as claimed, provided the best compressive strength.
While Byrne does not explicitly teach powder activated carbon, one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the activated carbon adsorbent would be in a powder form since it is being used for extrusion. Park does teach that the activated carbon particles are fine enough to pass through a 325-mesh screen (column 5 lines 14-17) and was used in their best formulation D. thus, it would have been obvious to use powdered activated carbon as the adsorbent material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON PREGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/SHARON PREGLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights