Patent Application 18173185 - HEAVY METAL ADSORBENT - Rejection

Patent Application 18173185 - HEAVY METAL ADSORBENT

Title: HEAVY METAL ADSORBENT

Application Information

• Invention Title: HEAVY METAL ADSORBENT
• Application Number: 18173185
• Submission Date: 2025-05-15T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2023-02-23T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2023-02-23T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 210
• National Sub-Class: 688000
• Examiner Employee Number: 88662
• Art Unit: 1779
• Tech Center: 1700

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 1
• 103 Rejections: 2

Cited Patents

No patents were cited in this rejection.

Office Action Text

    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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-11 are pending.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3, 5, and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2005334749A (machine translation provided and relied upon), hereinafter “JP (‘749)”.
	With respect to claim 1, JP (‘749) teaches water purifying agent for purifying water contaminated with heavy metals, wherein the water purifying agent is a heavy metal adsorbent comprising cerium and/or lanthanum hydroxides and a zeolite (Page 3, paragraphs 3 and 4; Page 4, paragraphs 2, 5, 6). 
	With respect to claim 3, the limitations “wherein a 1% by mass water dispersion of the compound A has a pH of 10 or less” are considered to be an inherent property of the recited heavy metal adsorbent, as JP (‘749) anticipates all of the features of claim 1, from which claim 3 depends.  Regarding composition claims, if the composition is the same, it must have the same properties (see MPEP § 2112.01, II.). Additionally, JP (‘749) teaches a pH of 8-10, specifically 9 (Abstract; Page 5, paragraph 7). 
With respect to claim 5, JP (‘749) teaches a zeolite particle size of 0.075 mm or 75 micron or more (“a median diameter of 10 µm or more”) (Page 5, Paragraph 2).
	With respect to claim 7, the limitations “wherein an elution amount of aluminum is 5 ppm or less” are considered to be an inherent property of the recited heavy metal adsorbent, as JP (‘749) anticipates all of the features of claim 1, from which claim 7 depends.  Regarding composition claims, if the composition is the same, it must have the same properties (see MPEP § 2112.01, II.). 
With respect to claim 8, the heavy metal adsorbent of JP (‘749) meets all the limitations of claim 1; therefore, the heavy metal adsorbent of JP (‘749) is capable of functioning as a lead adsorbent. “Lead adsorption” merely refers to an intended use of the recited heavy metal adsorbent, which does not further limit the limitations of claim 1. In any case, JP (‘749) teaches lead is one of the heavy metals than can be adsorbed (Page 4, last 3 lines). 
With respect to claims 9 and 10, JP (‘749) teaches a water purifier comprising the adsorbent as described in the above rejection of claim 1 (see Page 6, paragraph 6 through Page 7, paragraph 2). 
With respect to claim 11, JP (‘749) teaches adding cerium and/or lanthanum hydroxides (“compound A”), which is a hydrous oxide or a hydroxide of Si, Ti, Zr, Ce or La, to the surface of a zeolite adsorbent (see Page 5, paragraph 3 through Page 6, paragraph 5). Since JP (‘749) teaches the active step of claim 11, it is submitted that the preamble limitations regarding the suppressing of aluminum elution from the heavy metal adsorbent comprising a zeolite are considered to be met. 

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 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2005334749A, hereinafter “JP (‘749)”.
With respect to claim 2, JP (‘749) teaches that the specific surface area of the zeolite alone is 10 or 20 m2/g or more, and further teaches that the since the hydroxide of the rare earth metal compounds is in the form of fine particles, the specific surface area per unit mass is large (see Page 4, Paragraph 7; see Page 5, Paragraph 2). In view of this, the ordinary artisan would have found it obvious that the zeolite particles alone had a surface area that overlapped with the claimed range, and further that the addition of rare earth lanthanum or cerium hydroxide fine particles are consistent with a potentially even larger surface area. 
JP (‘749) and the claims differ in that JP (‘749) does not teach the exact same proportions for the surface area as recited in the instant claims; however, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range in surface area taught by JP (‘749) overlaps the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in JP (‘749), particularly in view of the fact that; “The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003).

	 With respect to claim 4, JP (‘749) teaches that the amount of cerium and lanthanum rare earth metal hydroxide present on the zeolite is present in an amount of 0.01% or more of the mass of the zeolite, and preferable 10% or less of the zeolite mass (see paragraph spanning Pages 5-6). 
	Although JP (‘749) teaches rare earth hydroxide (“Compound A”) in terms of the weight of the zeolite and not the recited total mass, it has been held that where the claimed parameters/properties may be expressed differently and thus may be distinct from what is disclosed in the prior art, it is incumbent upon applicants to establish that such difference is unobvious. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ the particular parameters as claimed, since it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 USPQ 33, and In re Russell, 169 USPQ 426.  Additionally, it is noted that if, for example, 5% lanthanum/cerium oxide is selected, 5/105 total mass = 4.8%, which is still within the claimed range and also within the range taught by JP (‘749); therefore, it is submitted that there are a range of embodiments which overlap with the recited content for Compound A. 
	
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2005334749A in view of Shevade et al. (Water Research, 2004, 38, 3197-3204), hereinafter “JP (‘749)” and “Shevade”.
With respect to claim 6, JP (‘749) teaches that many commercially available zeolites can be selected as the zeolite, but does not specifically teach wherein the zeolite is embodied as claimed. 
Shevade teaches Y-type zeolites (Sections 2, 2.1). 
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the generic teaching of zeolites as taught by JP (‘749) with the Y-type zeolites of Shevade because the ordinary artisan would have looked to the zeolite art to determine which zeolites are known to be used for heavy metal adsorption, especially arsenic as taught by JP (‘749), and because Shevade teaches that Y-type zeolites adsorb arsenic (see Section 3.2, paragraph 2). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).  

Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARE M PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5952. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Bob 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.

/CLARE M. PERRIN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779



/CLARE M PERRIN/            Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779                                                                                                                                                                                            	12 May 2025