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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6 are currently pending
Claims 7-21 are currently withdrawn from consideration
Claims 1-6 are currently rejected
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 10/17/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 08/07/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The replacement drawings were received on 08/13/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The composition” and instead should state “The water-filtering composition” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The composition” and instead should state “The water-filtering composition” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The composition” and instead should state “The water-filtering composition” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The composition” and instead should state “The water-filtering composition” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “The composition” and instead should state “The water-filtering composition” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. FURTHERMORE, line 3 states “the composition.” and instead should state “the water-filtering composition.” for further clarity and to maintain consistency. Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momayez et al. (U.S. 2020/0017415 A1) (hereinafter “Moma”).
Regarding Claim 1:
Moma teaches a water-filtering composition (see paragraphs 3, 26, 59, 95-97 and 126) (see Examples 1-3), comprising:
a geopolymer (see paragraphs 4-5, 59-60, 63, 85-86, 88 and 91);
a foaming agent (see paragraphs 59, 81, 83 and 93); and
a sequestration agent (see paragraphs 57, 66, 84 and 89-90).
Although Moma teaches a composition, one may broadly interpret that Moma does not explicitly teach ‘a water-filtering composition’, as recited in the preamble of independent claim 1. However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the composition of Moma to be capable of filtering water for optimization purposes and to effectively and efficiently remove contaminants and unwanted particles from a water composition (see paragraphs 3, 26, 59, 95-97 and 126) (see Examples 1-3).
Regarding Claim 2:
Moma teaches the water-filtering composition of claim 1, wherein the sequestration agent comprises graphene nanoribbon, graphene oxide, reduced graphene oxide, iron oxide, titanium oxide, or combinations thereof (see paragraphs 57, 66, 84 and 89-90).
Regarding Claim 3:
Moma teaches the water-filtering composition of claim 1, wherein the foaming agent is silicon powder (see paragraphs 59, 81, 83 and 93).
Regarding Claim 4:
Moma teaches the water-filtering composition of claim 1, wherein the foaming agent is silicon powder and hydrogen peroxide (see paragraphs 59, 81, 83 and 93).
Regarding Claim 5:
Moma teaches the water-filtering composition of claim 1, wherein the geopolymer comprises pores having an average pore size of greater than about 500 µm and/or pores having an average pore size of less than about 50 µm (Examiner’s note: this claim limitation is in an alternative form and therefore only one has to occur) (see paragraphs 4-5, 59-60, 63, 83, 85-86, 88, 91 and 100-101) (see Examples 1-3).
Regarding Claim 6:
Moma teaches the water-filtering composition of claim 1, wherein the sequestration agent is present in an amount of from about 0.5 weight % to about 5.0 weight % based on a combined 100 weight % total of the composition (see paragraphs 57, 66, 84, 89-90, 95-96 and 101-122) (see Examples 1-3).
Other References Considered
Kim et al. (U.S. 9,957,197 B1) (hereinafter “Kim”) teaches a porous geopolymer.
KONDRATOWICZ et al. (EP 3487829 B1) (hereinafter “Kondra”) teaches a system and process for the production of geopolymer or geopolymer composite.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH K. VARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-9627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 pm.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571)-272-0475. 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.
/AKASH K VARMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights