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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 6/25/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would be no serious burden to examine group II in combination with group I because both require the same porous sorbent composition. This is not found persuasive because the groups encompass additional limitations beyond just the sorbent composition (group I being directed to method steps for making the sorbent materials which contain limitations regarding such process conditions, and group II being directed to method steps for water treatment employing the sorbent which contain limitations regarding an entirely different set of process conditions with a different purpose), and such additional limitations require different fields of search and lead to the groups having different classifications as discussed previously in the Requirement dated 4/29/2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 13-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/25/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe (US 4,474,853 A).
With respect to claim 1, Watanabe teaches methods of making sorbent materials which include spherical particles of activated carbon with a compound of zirconium deposited within [Abs]. Specifically, the zirconium compound is deposited within the pores of the activated carbon [Col. 3 lines 4-6]. The process includes contacting a porous sorbent particulate with a solution comprising a metal oxide/hydroxide or precursor thereof, namely contacting spherical particles of activated carbon with ZrOCl2, and depositing a metal oxide/hydroxide within the pores of the particulate (resulting composition contains at least ZrO2 or equivalent after the deposition process; specifically, treatment with alkaline is employed to complete the deposition, forcing the zirconium oxide into a non-crystalline state and decomposing the precursor halides) [Col. 6, Example 1; Col. 3 lines 48-60]. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the process of Watanabe therefore anticipates the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 2, Watanabe teaches activated carbon.
With respect to claim 3, Watanabe teaches precipitating by way of the alkaline treatment, as above.
With respect to claim 4, as above Watanabe teaches zirconium oxide (ZrO2).
With respect to claim 5, Watanabe teaches immersion [Example 1].
With respect to claim 6, Watanabe teaches that the reagents may include various water-soluble zirconium compounds including various halides or various acids (or their salts), such as various oxyacid salts. Zirconium nitrate and zirconium sulfate are contemplated, among others [Col. 3 lines 34-43]. The examples employ ZrOCl2, as above.
With respect to claims 7 and 8, Watanabe teaches further thermal treatment at temperatures in a range of about 400-1000⁰ C [Col. 3 line 61-Col. 4 line 3].
With respect to claims 9 and 11, Watanabe teaches specific examples [Example 1] in which the heating is to a temperature of 900⁰ C (within the claimed range) and under an inert atmosphere of e.g. nitrogen gas.
With respect to claim 10, Watanabe teaches that the deposition step may be carried out at a temperature of 50⁰ C [Example 1] which would satisfy the broadest reasonable interpretation of a heat treatment and lie within the claimed range. See the rejections below for an alternative interpretation discussing the separate post-deposition heating of Watanabe.
Claims 1-8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wakamatsu et al (US 5,948,265 A).
With respect to claim 1, Wakamatsu teaches a process for forming an ion-exchanger which includes a zirconium hydroxide supported on active carbon [Abs] by impregnating the active carbon support with a zirconium compound (a zirconium hydroxide precursor) e.g. via immersion, and then reacting with alkali to deposit the compound as zirconium hydroxide [Col. 3 line 64-Col. 4 line 29]. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, this anticipates the claimed process.
With respect to claims 2-5, as above the process employs activated carbon and zirconium hydroxide, with the zirconium hydroxide precipitated after impregnation by way of reaction with alkali, and where the impregnation occurs via immersion.
With respect to claim 6, the precursor may be a zirconium halide or acid salt, such as a sulfate, nitrate, oxychloride, etc. [Col. 3 lines 16-25].
With respect to claims 7-8, Wakamatsu teaches further treatment by drying with heat in a range of 40-180 ⁰C, which lies within the claimed range [Col. 6 lines 40-44].
With respect to claim 10, Wakamatsu teaches specific examples [Col. 9, Example 1] in which drying occurs at 110 ⁰C, which lies within the claimed range.
With respect to claim 11, Wakamatsu teaches that the drying step may occur using air flow i.e. an air atmosphere [Col. 6 lines 1-7].
Claims 1-8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sandoval et al (Removal of arsenic and methylene blue from water by granular activated carbon media…, Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2011).
With respect to claims 1-6, Sandoval teaches processes for producing granular activated carbon media which is impregnated with a zirconium oxide (zirconium dioxide) [Abs]. Zirconium oxychloride is employed as a precursor, and mixed (immersion) with the carbon material; the material is then subjected alkaline treatment with NaOH to precipitate the zirconium compound inside the pores of the carbon [pg. 297, Sec. 2.1]. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, this anticipates the instant claimed process.
With respect to claims 7, 8, 10, and 11, the material is subsequently heat treated at a temperature of about 400⁰ C, which lies within the claimed ranges, under an inert atmosphere in order to anneal the material and convert it to its final oxide form [pg. 297, Sec. 2.1].
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.
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.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe.
See the rejection of claims 7-9 and 11 above. Watanabe teaches a range of 400-1000⁰ C for the heating step and, as above, teaches employing an inert atmosphere such as nitrogen gas. Such range overlaps the claimed ranges and thus renders them obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakamatsu et al in view of Watanabe.
Wakamatsu teaches as above including a drying step, but is silent to the higher temperature ranges claimed, or to the use of e.g. an inert atmosphere.
However, Watanabe teaches a similar zirconium-impregnated-carbon composition production process as discussed above, and teaches employing a heat treatment at higher temperatures e.g. above 400⁰ C and under an inert atmosphere of e.g. nitrogen gas, as above. Watanabe teaches that this higher temperature is in a range which is designed to be low enough to prevent waste of energy (or degradation of product performance) but high enough to ensure that the alkaline treatment agent e.g. ammonia is sufficiently removed [Col. 3 line 64-Col. 4 line 3]. See MPEP 2144.05 II.A; "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In view of Watanabe, it would be clearly understood that the temperature of post-treatment of a product containing a zirconium compound impregnated in a carbon support, where such impregnation included treatment with an alkaline source such as ammonia (which both Watanabe and Wakamatsu teach), is a result effective variable which may be optimized as suggested by Watanabe to balance product properties, energy use, and reagent removal. The claimed range, and similarly the use of a nitrogen gas atmosphere, would thus have been obvious to employ for drying and post-impregnation heat treatment in the process of Wakamatsu as a matter of optimization given the guidance of Watanabe.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandoval et al in view of Watanabe.
Sandoval teaches as above but is silent to higher temperatures for annealing e.g. 450⁰ C or higher. However, as above, higher heat treatment temperatures are known in the art to be useful for producing a zirconium-impregnated activated carbon product, as in Watanabe (which teaches examples at around 900⁰ C and, regardless, provides guidance as to how one of ordinary skill in the art may select an appropriate temperature for optimization, as discussed in the other rejections above). As such, the higher temperatures required by claims 9 and 12 would nevertheless have been obvious modifications to the process taught by Sandoval.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY R SPIES whose telephone number is (571)272-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8AM-4PM.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 571-272-0579. 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.
/BRADLEY R SPIES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights