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 .
Applicants’ Preliminary Amendment, filed on April 7, 2025, has been made of record and entered. In this amendment, the Specification has been amended to add a cross-reference to related applications, claims 1-10 have been canceled, and new claims 11-29 have been added.
Claims 11-29 are presently pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Applicants’ Priority Document was filed on June 28, 2024.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because (a) it is not in the form of a single paragraph, and (b) recites, at the end thereof, “Fig.: none”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Suggested Claim Amendment
The Examiner respectfully suggests that, for clarity, claim 28 be amended to recite “inorganic solids of the first population P1 and the inorganic solids of the second population P2 are zeolites of LTA type, wherein said zeolites of LTA type are selected from the group consisting of zeolites of 3A type, zeolites of 4A type, and zeolites of 5A type.”
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.
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.
Claims 11, 12, 17-20, 23, 24, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lutz et al. U. S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0156190).
Regarding claims 11, 12, 17-20, 23, 24, 26, and 27, Lutz et al. teach an adsorbent in aggregated form, comprising (a) at least 70% by weight of zeolite LSX (“first population P1”; “zeolite agglomerates”), (b) up to 5% by weight of a binder that is inert as regards adsorbent, and (c) up to 20% by weight of one or more other zeolites, e.g., zeolite X (“second population P2”; “an amount of the inorganic solids of the second population P2 represents up to 25% by weight of a combined amount of the inorganic solids of the first population P1 and the inorganic solids of the second population P2”; “amount of the inorganic solids of the second population P2 represents greater than or equal to I% by weight and less than or equal to 15% by weight of a combined amount of the inorganic solids of the first population P1 and the inorganic solids of the second population P2”; “zeolite agglomerates”). Lutz et al. further teach that the zeolite LSX exhibits a number-average diameter of less than or equal to 7 µm (0.007 mm), or less than or equal to 2 µm (0.002 mm), and that the zeolite X exhibits a number-average diameter of less than or equal to 4 µm, or less than or equal to 2 µm (0.004 mm or 0.002 mm; “diameter…of the inorganic solids of the second population P2 is less than 2 mm”; “diameter…of the inorganic solids of the second population P2 is less than 0.3 mm”). See paragraphs [0027]-[0034] of Lutz et al.
Regarding claim 28, it is noted that the limitations of this claim further define the Markush group member “LTA type” recited in claim 27 (from which claim 28 depends), said Markush group member being an option in describing the first and second populations P1 and P2. Because “LTA type” in claim 27 is not required as either a first or second population P1 or P2, claim 28 is not given patentable weight.
Lutz et al. do not explicitly teach or suggest the limitations of Applicants’ claims regarding the first and second populations P1 and P2 having respective volume-average diameters VAD1 and VAD2, wherein VAD2/VAD1 is greater than or equal to 0.10 and less than or equal to 0.60, as recited in claim 11, or is greater than or equal to 0.25 and less than or equal to 0.40, as recited in claim 12.
However, by employing the number-average diameters of zeolite LSX (“P1”) and zeolite X (“P2”), a ratio comparable to that recited as “VAD2/VAD1” in Applicants’ claims can be determined:
P2: 4 µm, 2 µm P1: 7 µm, 2 µm
P2/P1 = 4 µm/7 µm = 0.57 P2/P1 = 4 µm/2 µm = 2.0
P2/P1 = 2 µm/7 µm = 0.28 P2/P1 = 2 µm/2 µm = 1.0.
As shown, the calculated P2/P1 values of 0.57 and 0.28 fall within the ranges for “VAD2/VAD1” recited in Applicants’ claims 11 and 12.
Therefore, it is considered that because Lutz et al. teach number average diameters that, when employed to determine the ratio of (a) diameter of P2 to (b) diameter of P1, wherein said ratio falls within the range recited in Applicants’ claims 11 and 12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to reasonably expect the zeolites LSX and X disclosed in Lutz et al. to exhibit volume-average diameters comparable to that instantly claimed, said comparable volume-average diameters resulting in a ratio VAD2/VAD1 reading upon that instantly claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13-16, 21, 22, 25, and 29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Neither Lutz et al. nor the cited references of record teach or suggest the limitations of these claims. For example, Lutz et al. teach that the aforementioned aggregated zeolites have a general mean particle size between 0.2 and 5 mm, which would correspond to Applicants’ “VADm”. However, the particle size of zeolite LSX (“P1”) in Lutz et al. is less than or equal to 7 µm, or 0.007 mm. The ratio of the mean particle size to the particle size of zeolite LSX would be, for example, 28.57 (0.2/0.007), or 714.28 (5/0.007), which is outside of the values for “VADm/VAD1” recited in claims 15, 16, and 29. Additionally, the aforementioned number-average diameter of zeolite LSX, 7 µm, or 0.007 mm, is outside the diameter ranges recited in claims 13 and 14, and the aforementioned number-average diameter of zeolite X, less than or equal to 4 µm (0.004 mm), is outside the diameter ranges of claims 21 and 22. Lastly, Lutz et al. do not teach or suggest the zeolites recited in Applicants’ claim 25.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICIA L HAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
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 (Coris) 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.
/Patricia L. Hailey/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 October 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights