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
Claims 7, 10-23 and 25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention or specie, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 9/8/26.
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, claims 1-9 and 24 in the reply filed on 9/8/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the reference to Sagou teaches a ratio outside of the claimed range in claim 1 and therefore the technical feature of claim 1 is a special technical feature common to all of the other groups. This is not found persuasive because the technical feature of claim 1 is not a special technical feature as detailed in the rejection below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 8/16/24 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The foreign document lined through has not been provided.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-6, 8-9 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nay WO 94/13400 in view of Roy et al. “Effect of silica doping on the densification and grain growth in zinc oxide”.
Claims 1 and 8, Nay teaches an aluminum oxide modified zinc oxide material with a BET surface area of at least 80 m2/g (pg. 4, lines 20-27) and has an Al:Zn atomic ratio in the range of 0.015 to 0.1:1 wherein the aluminum is incorporated into the zinc oxide lattice and is in the form of a shaped unit selected from a pellet, or granule (pg. 4, lines 28-35, pg. 5, lines 1-11). Nay does not teach the zinc oxide material being modified with silicon.
Roy teaches that the addition of up to 4wt% silicon (as silicon dioxide) to zinc oxide acts as a sintering inhibitor, especially at lower temperatures (pg. 3). Nay identifies that one problem with zinc oxide is that it suffers shrinkage and sintering on heating to high temperatures, which may be those of the catalyst use or regeneration over time resulting in loss of activity (pg. 1). Nay incorporates aluminum oxide which both increases the surface area of the zinc oxide and reduces the loss of surface area on long term heating, due to sintering over time (pg. 1). Roy identifies silicon dioxide as a useful alternative material that likewise inhibits sintering of zinc oxide when incorporated into the zinc oxide. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use silicon oxide in place of aluminum oxide to inhibit sintering of the zinc oxide to prevent loss of activity over time. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The recitation of the material being suitable for use in a catalyst or sorbent material is a recitation of an intended use of the material but does not provide any further structural limitations to the material. Nay does teach the material being used as a catalyst.
Claim 3, Roy further teaches silicon content, silicon dioxide, being up to 4wt% (pg. 3).
Claim 5, Nay already teaches the use of alumina (aluminum oxide) present in the wt% recited. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the use of aluminum oxide provides the additional benefit of increasing the surface area of the zinc oxide, as identified by Nay, and thus, it would have been obvious to provide alumina in the material as well.
Claim 6, Nay further a granule with an average diameter of 1000 microns (1mm) (pg. 5, lines 1-11). Nay expresses the size as a diameter which would imply a spherical granule and thus would have an aspect ratio of ~1.
Claim 9 recites a property of the material which appears to by an intrinsic property and would be inherent in the material of Nay in view of Roy.
Claim 24 recites a sorbent comprising the material of claim 1 and therefore is merely a recitation of an intended use of the material of claim 1. What the material is used for does not change the structure of the material and therefore the material of Nay in view of Roy meets the limitations of claim 24.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN M KURTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/BENJAMIN M KURTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
